|
|
|
|
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:32:11 AM |
If it wasn't for the study of evolution (and all other areas of biological analysis) then the Kreationists (and everyone else) would have died long ago without all of the medicine and treatment insights we have gained.
Firstly... its Creationists. Please do not try to flame your debateing oponents.
Secondly... Medicine has been around since before humanity. If it were not for the Creationist school of though we would not have certain medicines either, to claim that any one thing is responisble for medicine is just rediculous. Even without ant form of medicine, we would not have died out i'm sure. Humanity is a remacably adaptable species no mater what it belives in. | |
|
| |
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2005 5:27:04 PM | There is a lot of valuable information on Wikipedia about many obscure subjects that are hard to obtain information on otherwise, but unfortunately it is plagued with entries that have been corrupted by the "fringe-fanatics" so you really do have take anything from that source with a grain of salt. The creaters of Wikipedia were recently taken to court because of some inaccurate information that was posted about a retired politician that amounted to libel.
Colon_Letter_D, welcome to the debate. Not real productive to flame people on here and its disrespectful. If you can contribute to the discussion without stooping to that we would love to hear your insights. Otherwise..... | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:20:04 PM |
You say wikipedia is more reliable than a printed encyclopedia, then the very next sentence say it should not be a final reference.
Which is it?
Come on, CR. I know you don't mean that. Only one source is reliable? And all of it must be? Not following you there. The suggestion was (if I might paraphrase) simply, to gather all the information available, then make an informed decision. It's actually remarkably similar to the peer review process.
ColonD, interesting insights, but I do concur with the spirit of the earlier posts. Information, fine; opinion/viewpoint, fine; etiquette, equally important. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:33:24 PM |
Come on, CR. I know you don't mean that. Only one source is reliable? And all of it must be?
I found his reasoning, or at least his wording to be suspect at best...
But, speaking of which, are you now ackowledging that 'just maybe' answersingenesis and other sites may warrant rexamination?
 | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2005 11:45:35 PM |
But, speaking of which, are you now ackowledging that 'just maybe' answersingenesis and other sites may warrant rexamination?
I've been quoting AiG myself for a good portion of this debate, so I don't know exactly what you mean. I don't accept their bias or their political agenda, but I do read the articles to attempt to better understand their position. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2005 6:12:11 AM | ^^^^...oooohhhhh...well, I stand corrected then..lol
And yes though, any 'political' agendas should be always set aside as clutter in the grander scheme of things for sake of a higher standard.
As far as 'bias' though, one could also debate the 'bias' of many an evolution scientist and/or supporter as well. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 7:05:29 AM | Well, I for one am Bias, I show a distinct bias towards the Truth.
 | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 7:30:04 AM | The article below references some work done in 2005 that shows "evolution in action" - i.e., that evolution is occuring now and creating distinct species (in particular, see the last few paragraphs). The researcher's names are mentioned, so anyone wanting to pursue this further can do so.
===================================
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
Thu Dec 22, 7:27 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The journal Science's pick for breakthrough of the year in 2005 is "evolution in action," focusing on studies of how evolution works and how it affects lives today.
Several research projects were discussed at meetings to choose the annual breakthrough winner.
"Then we realized they were all connected to evolution," said Colin J. Norman, news editor of Science. "We realized that if we put these together at the molecular level, it's been a banner year for evolutionary research. It shows that evolution underlies all of biology."
Bruce Alberts of the University of California, San Francisco, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said the choice is "very timely. I like it."
On the journal's cover is an illustration of DNA, the blueprint for life that changes in the process of evolution.
Scattered across the DNA molecule are illustrations of people and animals, including a portrait of 19th century natural scientist Charles Darwin whose research drew attention to evolution through the process of natural selection.
It's been nearly 150 years since Darwin's findings were first published, and 2005 was also a major year for debate over his theory, culminating Tuesday with a federal judge's ruling that the religious belief called intelligent design can't be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution.
There are also battles over teaching evolution underway in Kansas and Georgia, and at one point President Bush supported teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, although he has not commented on the court ruling.
The challenges were not the reason evolution was picked as the science story of the year, Norman said, "we chose this on its merits."
Three areas of research were noted in particular.
• The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome, allowing researchers to compare it with already sequenced human DNA. Only about 4 percent of the coding differs between the two close relatives.
"Somewhere in this catalog of difference lies the genetic blueprint for traits that make us human: sparse body hair, upright gait, the big and creative brain," the editors of Science wrote.
In addition, the journal added, humans are highly susceptible to AIDS, coronary heart disease, chronic viral hepatitis and malignant malarial infections. Chimps aren't, and studying the differences between could help pin down the genetic aspects of many such diseases.
• The human haplotype map, being developed by an international team, catalogues the patterns of genetic variability among people. Researchers are looking for patterns that match with ailments such as diabetes, arthritis and cardiovascular disease.
• Research into the formation of new species as they evolve to differ from others.
In 2005, scientists found a type of warbler known as the European blackcap that was separating into groups with differing migration patterns.
Another study found European cornborers in the same field dividing into two types, one of which sticks to corn while the other eats hops and mugwort. The borers have developed different pheromones, scent chemicals that help them breed with only their own group.
And formerly ocean-living stickleback fish that were left stranded in lakes at the end of the last ice age have evolved into several different species.
That study was done by David Kingsley of Stanford University, who reported in March that 15 isolated populations of freshwater sticklebacks had all lost their bony armor through mutations in the same gene.
While scientists had previously shown evolution in biochemical processes, such as antibiotic resistance, some critics had argued that it would be impossible to evolve large changes in the forms of natural populations.
"That is obviously false," said Kingsley. "Sticklebacks with major changes in skeletal armor and fin structures are thriving in natural environments. And the major differences between forms can now be traced to particular genes." | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 8:33:36 AM | for lack of a better illustrations if I left a Harley ( which I don`t have cause I`d rather ride a riceburner than push your`Harley )Just joking, but if i left it in baskets in the middle of a field would it be resonable of me to expect to come back and have it come together as a highly tuned machine?
and say science did become god`s that they could create life. That would be common life and not the breath of God. And anyway theres no way to to test that because the answer would be in immortality. That`s the best part of life is to be forever young. At least the hope of that.
that determines the quality and quanity of life. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 8:49:21 AM | "if I left a Harley" Huh??????????
Or the other who expected a pile of rocks to form a house.
Do you people have a any idea of what Evolution or even Creation is about? | |
|
| |
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 9:37:43 AM | Well this would be a good place to start:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html | |
|
| |
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 10:17:30 AM | Lol, only 12% believe that there was no God involved in the process and yet those would have you believe they are the majority. Interesting. Just goes to show how unbelievable evolution really is in spite of the "massive evidence" No wonder scientists have such an increasingly bad rep in the mainstream of the population. They are way too gullible to be trusted to tell us what is real. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 10:36:16 AM | Oh my, is it time for a logic lesson again already?
Argumentum ad numerum, or Appeal to Popularity (also commonly referred to as the bandwagon fallacy)- the irrelevant appeal to popularity. At one time most people would have considered the notion that the sun does not revolve around the earth preposterous. Does that mean that that majority opinion was valid? Nope, sure doesn't.
The Straw Man Fallacy- this is when the opponent sets up a superfluous argument and proceeds to attack that, never actually addressing the real issue. It creates the mistaken impression that the person has debunked his opponents argument, when in reality he has done nothing of the sort. He has only debunked an argument his opponent had never made. Whether one believes in God or not is IRRELEVANT to Evolution.
Also, where does this 12% statistic even come from, besides your own posterior? Care to site an actual statistical study on that?
"No wonder scientists have such an increasingly bad rep in the mainstream of the population."
Even if this were true, which it is not, it would still be irrelevant. Truth is that one can not justifiably assign a bad rap to something which one does not even understand. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 11:17:16 AM |
Also, where does this 12% statistic even come from, besides your own posterior? Care to site an actual statistical study on that?
Guess you didn't bother to read the link, huh? Why does that not surprise me?
Did you know that the ones who mostly didn't believe a round Earth were scientists? I could name a slew of other facts which the originator was universally condemned for by the scientific community, however it would be quite lost on you I'm sure. You would simply lapse back into your normal high brow language to try and baffle us commoners by your bs. I do appreciate you toning this last post down to a level that I was able to actually comprehend somewhat.
As far as assigning a bad rap to something that someone does not understand, well I see you doing this quite often (in the posts I can understand anyway). Does that make all your truths irrelevant? No, simply misguided. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 12:01:41 PM | Lol, only 12% believe that there was no God involved in the process and yet those would have you believe they are the majority.
Argumentum ad populum- a fallacy of logic wherein the premise of an argument is considered true because of the amount of its supporters rather than its own merit.
I don't recall a single supporter of evolution in this entire forum who claimed that the majority of people support the theory of evolution. This is because it doesn't matter what the majority does or does not believe. The only thing that matters in science is what can be objectively verified. Myths and supernatural dieties cannot be objectively verified by science.
The fact (if it even is a fact) that 8 out of 10 people who work at Kentucky Fried Chicken or the Gap agree with you does not make you right. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 12:12:00 PM | "Guess you didn't bother to read the link, huh?"
What link would that be? There was no link, or reference to a link, in your post to which I responded.
"Did you know that the ones who mostly didn't believe a round Earth were scientists?"
In the first place, so? Science is not a dogmatic attempt to proffer a fixed truth. Science is a method, and the scientific community is always honing it's knowledge of the natural world to a greater and greater degree. Also, you are refering to a time when the scientific method, as it is employed today, was not even fully defined yet, so your comment is misguided in multiple ways.
"I could name a slew of other facts which the originator was universally condemned for by the scientific community"
I am well aware of the contention that is fundamental to the scientific process. Your statement only shows that you do not, in the least, understand what science is.
"however it would be quite lost on you I'm sure."
Trust me son, nothing you say would be lost on me. Quite the opposite.
"You would simply lapse back into your normal high brow language to try and baffle us commoners by your bs."
Though it may baffle YOU, it is not b.s. A logical argument is not rendered sophistry due to your ignorance.
"As far as assigning a bad rap to something that someone does not understand, well I see you doing this quite often"
Again, I never do this. Trust me, I understand of what I speak perfectly well. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 12:30:27 PM | Wonka,
There is a spectacular book for people who do not understand some of the words that you use. I know it as a dictionary, other people may not be sure on how to use one of this complex books.
Perhaps you could offer them a lesson on dictionary usage when they do not follow something that you have written.
Oh, and by the way, I enjoyed your logic class...we should start a thread where we cut and paste the best examples of different falacies. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 12:37:15 PM | "There is a spectacular book for people who do not understand some of the words that you use. I know it as a dictionary"
I am beginning to think this book is more arcane than I realized. Here was I, in my naivete, thinking everybody owned one.
"we should start a thread where we cut and paste the best examples of different fallacies."
There's plenty enough examples to choose from in these forums. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 3:29:12 PM | for lack of a better illustrations if I left a Harley ( which I don`t have cause I`d rather ride a riceburner than push your`Harley )Just joking, but if i left it in baskets in the middle of a field would it be resonable of me to expect to come back and have it come together as a highly tuned machine?
and say science did become god`s that they could create life. That would be common life and not the breath of God. And anyway theres no way to to test that because the answer would be in immortality. That`s the best part of life is to be forever young. At least the hope of that.
that determines the quality and quanity of life.
Ruth, a couple of things. First off, I've developed a bit of respect for you from some of your postings on other threads. I also agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others. I really hope, though, that you don't have this limited a scope and stunted a view of both evolution and creation. Your post barely makes any sense. Please explain what you're trying to say here. And if you're just looking for an answer as to whether or not it would be reasonable to expect a fully functional motorcycle from a bunch of parts left in a field, the answer would have to be no, unless there were wild mechanics known to reside in said field.
only 12% believe that there was no God involved in the process and yet those would have you believe they are the majority. Interesting. Just goes to show how unbelievable evolution really is in spite of the "massive evidence"
Question, Kyro. Just for the sake of debate, exactly how does the number of people willing to accept the truth affect the quantity or quality of data? BTW, I read the article to be meaning 12% of the people polled.
No wonder scientists have such an increasingly bad rep in the mainstream of the population. They are way too gullible to be trusted to tell us what is real.
Arguably it might have something to do with those who would obfuscate issues and appeal to emotion rather than intelligence in interpreting factual data being the ones beating their political drums the loudest. Of course, I'm meek, so I could be wrong.
Did you know that the ones who mostly didn't believe a round Earth were scientists? I could name a slew of other facts which the originator was universally condemned for by the scientific community, however it would be quite lost on you I'm sure.
Care to try with me, instead? Or, in asking, have I already proved to you that I'm as narrow-minded as you'll doubtless portray me? Oops, sorry, didn't mean to step on your lines there. Just curious who we're talking about, and how they're relevant.
The fact (if it even is a fact) that 8 out of 10 people who work at Kentucky Fried Chicken or the Gap agree with you does not make you right.
That's just funny!
Edit: Oh, Wonka, the 12% is mentioned in the article Trewq posted the link to. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 6:25:30 PM | Question, Kyro. Just for the sake of debate, exactly how does the number of people willing to accept the truth affect the quantity or quality of data? BTW, I read the article to be meaning 12% of the people polled.
What the poll indicates is that in spite of the theory being around for over a century and being taught in schools, the evidence for it is still so lacking that almost 90% still don't believe it. The quantity of data as interpreted by evolutionists may not be lacking but it's quality is often suspect. There are numerous examples of finds which do not fall into the accepted evolutionary model and are therefore discarded or relegated to museum basements.
The only thing that matters in science is what can be objectively verified. Myths and supernatural dieties cannot be objectively verified by science.
Lack of objective verification of missing links or transitional species has not prevented evolutionists from trying to maintain that the theory is true and therefore is just as if not more mythological than a supernatural deity. When, as I've already stated, data and specimens are discarded and or hidden away because they don't fit the generally accepted model, then the scientific discipline has lost a large measure of its objectivity and as a result of that, its credibility.
Argumentum ad populum- a fallacy of logic wherein the premise of an argument is considered true because of the amount of its supporters rather than its own merit.
I was not implying that the theory was false because of it's lack of support in the general populace, but at the same time I find it significant that there is such a large percentage that don't believe in straight evolution despite that it was taught as fact during their time in school. Really makes one wonder that these Kentucky Fried Chicken or Gap people whom I assume you to be implying are of inferior intellect in comparison to those such as yourself, would actually choose to not believe something that was taught to them as accepted fact. Something amiss with the standard herd mentality?
Since Evolution is the accepted standard from just about every platform one would care to mention except perhaps the pulpits, I am curious to know who would obfuscate issues and appeal to the emotions to convert all these "morons" to Intelligent design of some type. Or would you be unwilling to accept the idea that the data and theory is not nearly as conclusive or self-evident as you would like to think or make it out to be? | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 6:57:44 PM | I was not implying that the theory was false because of it's lack of support in the general populace
You sure fooled me. And I never called anyone a moron or referred to the masses as a herd.
Lack of objective verification of missing links or transitional species has not prevented evolutionists from trying to maintain that the theory is true
I disagree with you. If you understood what the theory of evolution was you would not be claiming that scientists hold it to be a dogmatic absolute.
Your question concerning transitional fossils and missing links have been thoroughly addressed in this thread several times. | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 7:42:25 PM |
What the poll indicates is that in spite of the theory being around for over a century and being taught in schools, the evidence for it is still so lacking that almost 90% still don't believe it.
I must have read that differently. From what I read, it gave the impression that 90% of the population polled were of the opinion that it didn't refute the existence of a creator. Interestingly, to me at least, this seems to indicate that, contrary to the claims of many creationists, even after a century and the theory's having been taught in school, it doesn't seem to have elevated science to the level of religion, nor has it completely undermined people's faith in God. As for how those people interpret the evidence, the article does go into a bit more detail about that, but I believe that the statistics presented don't mention a ninety percent dismissal of evidence ratio.
The quantity of data as interpreted by evolutionists may not be lacking but it's quality is often suspect.
How so?
There are numerous examples of finds which do not fall into the accepted evolutionary model and are therefore discarded or relegated to museum basements.
Would you care to cite specific examples, please?
Lack of objective verification of missing links or transitional species has not prevented evolutionists from trying to maintain that the theory is true and therefore is just as if not more mythological than a supernatural deity.
Not sure I quite get what you're saying here, unless it's a demand that a perfect progression of transitional forms be found before accepting the theory is even an option. To me, that's a little ridiculous. As for whether or not this makes it as mythological as the existence of a supernatural deity, I would disagree, since it does still make accurate predictions. More mythological than the supernatural?
When, as I've already stated, data and specimens are discarded and or hidden away because they don't fit the generally accepted model, then the scientific discipline has lost a large measure of its objectivity and as a result of that, its credibility.
I don't disagree. If someone has deliberately hidden evidence that debunks or doesn't fit, they've most likely got something to hide. Would you please provide some specifics on this?
...but at the same time I find it significant that there is such a large percentage that don't believe in straight evolution despite that it was taught as fact during their time in school.
I find this significant, as well. It's very telling about the prevalence and power of human hubris and the everpresent influence of religious thought.
Something amiss with the standard herd mentality?
Other than that people subscribe to it at all? Probably not. I think the point regarding KFC and Gap workers was intended to reference those who work in such places because of (rather than in spite of) advanced education. The facts of evolution are not covered extensively in most public schools, which may be a major factor in the percentages.
...I am curious to know who would obfuscate issues and appeal to the emotions to convert all these "morons" to Intelligent design of some type.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/mission.asp
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html
http://elephanticity.250x.com/evoligion.html
I'll let you judge.
Or would you be unwilling to accept the idea that the data and theory is not nearly as conclusive or self-evident as you would like to think or make it out to be?
I don't view the theory of evolution as either conclusive or self-evident. In that it is a theory, it explains a great many things, makes plenty of predictions that bear out, and fits the known facts - just what a scientific theory is supposed to do. However, a new theory that more effectively accomplishes these goals may supplant this one, so no, it's not conclusive. As for being self-evident, I don't believe this either. The theory, when I studied it in school, had claims attached that it answered well, but I took it upon myself to learn more about the theory and how it applies to the study of biology. It is not self-evident, which bears out in the fact that there is a debate, but this fact also lends itself to underpin the reasoning as to why more people don't understand and therefore do not accept it. As I said before, it takes more study, and has been implied, some folks just don't study that.
Oh, there's an alternate poll listing as to who believes what at this site, too, in case you're interested:
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=115 | |
|
|
| Page 112 of 156
|
98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 |
|
Home
login 
