|
|
|
|
|
| | Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent DesignPage 35 of 54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54) | I think it's laughable that ANYONE would believe in creationism in this day and age. I understand the psychology behind it but it's still frustrating to feel like we're being held back in order to placate practically illiterate people so that their feelings don't get hurt. All thoughts are not created equal, and it's ludicrous to pretend that we should give equal weight and consideration to people whose only "evidence" is that they "have faith" but can't articulate exactly why they have that faith in the first place.
Although he's not as eloquent as he normally is in this video, Neil Degrasse Tyson makes some very excellent points that address so many of the "proofs" that creationists throw out in a desperate attempt to convince us that there is more to their simplistic thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc
As for those who demand instant gratification when they demand proof of evolution, please note that not everyone needs to know everything instantly. Scientists are quite content to admit that they don't have all the answers and their work consists of constantly trying to find those answers, usually through trial and error. The only people claiming that science needs to provide incontrovertible, absolute evidence at this point in time or be dismissed as a whole, are the very same people angry because we're dismissing their ideas based on no evidence whatsoever. You can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.
As for the gaps in the fossil record being "evidence" of some sort of flaw in evolution, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that we don't have the equipment or knowledge RIGHT NOW to fill in those gaps. Obviously, people like this are just moving the goalposts and nothing short of a complete fossil record will suffice. For the rational, here's an article about a fossil find near my hometown.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/07/10/sci-newfoundalnd-fossils.html
Because of this find, we can say with a great deal of certainty that these particular creatures had some sort of breeding ground and grew in a more social environment than their simplicity would lead us to believe. And these discoveries are happening at an increasingly accelerated rate because of the information gleaned from from the discoveries before them. The picture is getting clearer, and as it does, the relevance of your god will fade.
And if you're trying to lend credence to your beliefs by claiming that god must exist because nobody has all the answers, I think you should listen to what Dr. Tyson had to say about it.
"If that's how you wanna invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that's getting smaller, smaller and smaller as time goes moves on."
What do you think will happen when we have enough evidence that that pocket of scientific ignorance gets so small as to be almost non-existent? That's why creationists cling so hard to the myths (and cling so hard to the hope that if they can gain enough credibility through indoctrination in schools people will HAVE to take what they say seriously) .... because they're trying to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 12:08:00 AM |
think it's laughable that ANYONE would believe in creationism in this day and age. I understand the psychology behind it but it's still frustrating to feel like we're being held back in order to placate practically illiterate people so that their feelings don't get hurt.
I had a roomate once who was a devout Christian and refused to believe in evolution. I tried explaining to him how its done through incremental changes and how it was backed up through the fossil record, comparitive anatomy, and the sequencing of genomes. At the end he was like," I still don't get how dinosaurs became chickens."
At some point, you have to understand that you have a better chance of explaining nuclear physics to a dog. But for Vishnu's sake don't make the next generation as dumb as you are by making part of the school curricula.
What's next? Astrology? Phrenology? Necromancy? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 1:27:30 AM | | Evolution supports spontaneous generation at its core, what is scientific about that? My 3rd grade brother dis-proved spontaneous generation w/ a pickle jar and some aluminum foil. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 1:30:06 AM | 858:
One of the biggest obstacles to explaining evolution, or someone 'accepting' it, is all of the wacko things about it that are false that people believe about it. If I try telling someone what it is, I tell them that we first have to talk about all of the things that it isn't, and about why those ways of thinking are dumb. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 1:32:20 AM |
Evolution supports spontaneous generation at its core
No, it doesn't. Creationism does. Evolution is about small changes made over vast periods of time. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 1:34:58 AM | (859)
This would be an example. What in the world kind of thinking even makes this perception possible? What kind of crazy false ideas about evolution could you have to think that it supports spontaneous generation? And how in the world could you disprove it with a pickle in a jar with some aluminum foil anyway? Religion, on the battleground of evolution, has people thinking in the most screwed up ways. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 1:53:54 AM | Why is religion the only other possibility? This is one of the huge faults of evolutionist, it's them vs the creationist. There can be thousands of other therioes and possibilities.
Evolution does support SG, how else could the first protein that started the process come into exsistence? You can't get life from non-life. See another fault of evolutionist is a lot of them don't fully grasp the concept they so blindly and faithfully follow.
Cover a pickle jar w/ aluminum foil and nothing grows, poke holes in foil and life is found in the jar. You can't get life from non-life. It was Pasteur's famous Scientific expierement. Open the door for germ theory to be accepted | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 2:02:00 AM |
how else could the first protein that started the process come into exsistence?
What you're talking about is abiogenesis. Maybe your brother should've done THIS experiment. Not only would he have won his 3rd grade science fair, but a Nobel Prize too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Cover a pickle jar w/ aluminum foil and nothing grows, poke holes in foil and life is found in the jar. You can't get life from non-life.
You do realize that evolution requires millions of years, not a few weeks, right? | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 2:26:05 AM | | What you are talking about friend is adaptation, just like our own immune systems work it builds tolerances through exposure. This is not evolution of species to species and certainly does not take millions of years. ABX have only been around for a little while. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 2:32:45 AM |
What you are talking about friend is adaptation
Yes! That's what evolution is. Enough adaptation (over a long period of time) and you become a new species. Water not doing it for you? Adapt to dry land- not a fish anymore but amphibian.
Don't believe the Crocoduck garbage. That's NOT evolution. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 2:36:10 AM | Paul, please make an attempt to read back and understand that the spark of the origin of first life is not the same as evolution... Evolution deals with how species evolve (by definition) and not how the first life started.
you can get life from non life and we are all a demonstration of that! But the non-life to life moment was a few billion years ago. Everything since that is evolution.
Remind me what the other theories of our origin are apart from evolutionary post abiogenesis and biblical? just one please.. I hope it is the Scientology one!! | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 2:45:32 AM | Evolution does not deal w/ the orgin of life, but evolutionist who do not support ID are left w/ the only option of believing life comes from non-life. This is a theory I cannot scientifically support and there is no observable data that scientifically supports that theory. Now even evolution w/ ID is a shakey theory at best.
It doesn't matter if I can propose an alternate theory or not, the truth is the truth rather we identify it or not. I can however interpret observable information and decided not to support a theory which is so lacking in observable data | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 2:52:15 AM |
there is no observable data that scientifically supports that theory.
Dude, did you not read about the Miller/Urey experiments? They actually did it in a lab! How much more evidence do you need? | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 3:08:14 AM |
How does intelligent humans designing life prove you don't need life or Intelligent design to create life?
You missed the point. They didn't design life- they re-created the primordial soup and added electricity (to simulate lightning) and voila! Simple protien strings.
If life was designed, it should be called Stupid Design. Putting our spines in the back keeps babies crawling longer than need be. Making us breathe through the same hole we eat with creates a choking hazard (c'mon, dolphins don't put up with that crap!). We can't live on 75% of the Earth. We can't go into space without a lot of radioactive shielding. And our sex organs is also our sewage disposal system?
If we were designed by intelligence, I'm underwhelmed. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 3:24:36 AM | Oh the ego. Take 1 basic A&P course and I think your opinion on the human body will change. Down to the most simple molecular level, we are a very complex organism.
I can look at living species today and observe a clear distinction between the species. If evolution is a slow ever-changing environment, we would not be left w/ such obvious distinction between us and the last evolutionary descendent.
Again in this expierment Your're so sure actually took place, it was life created under a controlled environment and circumstances w/ intelligent designers. This arguement cannot be used as scientific proof of life w/o ID or life. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 3:37:35 AM |
If evolution is a slow ever-changing environment, we would not be left w/ such obvious distinction between us and the last evolutionary descendent.
Homo Sapiens are very similar to Homo Erectus, but less similar than our relatives Neanderthal Man.
There are distinctions because of the BILLIONS of years it took. Like how first generation automobiles were similar, and today you can see the distinctions between Hum-Vees and Testarosas.
Again in this expierment Your're so sure actually took place
Scientists are guys that think they're smarter than everyone else. So of someone's faking results, there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in debunking charlatans (not to mention grant money at stake). To deny this experiment is like denying the Apollo mission landed on the moon, putting you in "crackpot" territory.
Evolution is fact- backed up by such divergent disciplines as comparitive anatomy, paleontology, and genome sequencing. The wherefores and whys may still be cause for debate, but the fact that species change and that we share a common ancestor is not in dispute.
If you have a problem with abiogenesis, fine- that's another thread. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 3:47:36 AM | | Fossil records do not support a long evolutionary process but instead show rapid explosions of clearly defined species w/in the timeline. Actually a big sector of evolutionist denounce the slow gradual process idea and believe in rapid evolution from species to species | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 4:18:41 AM | First you say there's no evolution, then you're telling me how it occurs and the scientific consensus. Which is it?
Do you believe all the species appeared in present form from the beginning? When was that? Are germs the only thing that adapts?
Actually a big sector of evolutionist denounce the slow gradual process idea and believe in rapid evolution from species to species
Actually, they say there are periods of rapid adaptation between perios of slow change. Like I said, the particulars are still open to debate in light of new evidence. But evolution was posited in the 19th century and has yet to be debunked, your brother's pickle experiment not withstanding. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 4:38:01 AM | That's what I'm saying your theory of evolution isn't even the accepted theory of how evolution takes place. How than is evolution a fact? It's an idea.
Go back and re-examine the info we have on early humans. Fossils like Nebraska man which life magazine published as a full human fossil and came up w/ a story of how it lived and survived, and it turned out to be nothing but a pigs tooth and some bird bones. Other famous findings have since been debunked, like the fossil Lucy which is now identified as a pure primate. In fact there is not one fossil which is accredited as being an evolutionary transitional human fossil. The things we learned years ago as kids that were presented as fact by our teachers and parents were wrong. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 4:48:32 AM | | Yes, but the percentage of fake fossils is very small compared to those that withstood scrutiny. That's the point of peer-reviewed research. ID is based on non-peer reviewed info that has been debunked even more thoroughly than your few examples. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 6:13:05 AM |
At some point, you have to understand that you have a better chance of explaining nuclear physics to a dog. But for Vishnu's sake don't make the next generation as dumb as you are by making part of the school curricula.
I explained it to my daughters at a very young age by pulling out a family tree. I compared the first life forms as the great-grandparents, who then have children who are made up of their basic parts but are still different when it comes to gender, hair colour, etc. Then they have other children who are made of their parts but are different. And that the children with black hair went on to have mostly black-haired descendents while their cousins down the road with blonde hair kept having blond children. And I compared the great-grandparents to single-celled organisms, their children as the multi-celled, etc. and that the "generations" are actually the passage of millions of years.
It worked for 3 and 5 year olds. Unless there are a lot more people than I thought with traumatic brain injuries, then this is just willful ignorance on their part. We need to point that out every time they do, or they're going to hold us back.
Evolution supports spontaneous generation at its core, what is scientific about that? My 3rd grade brother dis-proved spontaneous generation w/ a pickle jar and some aluminum foil.
He disproved nothing. Life needs some very specific conditions in order to grow. Using this experiment to disprove spontaneous generation is like "disproving" gravity by hanging a ball from a piece of string and declaring invalid because the ball didn't fall to the ground. Or "disproving" human conception by wiping your sperm on a piece of paper and gloating when a baby doesn't start to form. Ugh.
Evolution does not deal w/ the orgin of life, but evolutionist who do not support ID are left w/ the only option of believing life comes from non-life.
Obviously you have very simplistic thought processes, but there's got to be room for one more. We don't know for sure, and the best guess is not that we came from nothing, but that particles from stars just happened to be present in the right mix and came across the right catalyst. Since we've had the ability and knowledge to re-create a similar event for 60 years now, there's no reason to suspect differently until we have more advanced abilities and knowledge.
And because we can re-create it to some extent, more weight has to be given to it than the "magical sky daddy swooped down from his cloud and waved his hand" bunk.
Fossil records do not support a long evolutionary process but instead show rapid explosions of clearly defined species w/in the timeline.
That's... because.... we... don't.... have... a.... complete.... fossil.... record.... yet. Whining about this is akin to whining that the entire criminal justice system is bunk because police don't know a criminal's every single movement from the time they committed a crime until they were arrested. Ugh.
Actually a big sector of evolutionist denounce the slow gradual process idea and believe in rapid evolution from species to species
Name 3. And then tell us what they meant by rapid.
Go back and re-examine the info we have on early humans. Fossils like Nebraska man which life magazine published as a full human fossil and came up w/ a story of how it lived and survived, and it turned out to be nothing but a pigs tooth and some bird bones. Other famous findings have since been debunked, like the fossil Lucy which is now identified as a pure primate. In fact there is not one fossil which is accredited as being an evolutionary transitional human fossil. The things we learned years ago as kids that were presented as fact by our teachers and parents were wrong.
Then by your logic, nobody gets raped because some people falsely accused others. Ugh.
Here. And before you say the video is fake, I grew up right next to this place. As teens my friends and I would go up there all the time camping. Some of those fossils were actually discovered and named by a friend of mine. Over 4000 visible fossils, spread out over an area this large.... there's no way this could have been faked. I know you're looking for the "missing link" but we haven't found it yet. And when we do, I just know your type will be asking for "more information"... specifically something else you know we haven't found yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBdPD1muxSI | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/12/2012 7:08:51 AM | Your arguement about adaptation and genetic DNA code being passed from generation to generation is not a valid proof of evolution. Notice how if I ask you to prove that species adapt to their environment, you can list several testable expierements, ie: hair color, eye color, drug-resistant organisms. But all these examples which help prove adaptation only apply w/in a species. Now when asked to present examples of proof for species evolving into other species, no one seems to list these proofs. Instead the question is ridiculed away. It is a huge leap of faith and totally unscientific and illogical to determine species evolve into other species by proving that a species can adapt to its environment.
Also all the examples of adaptation listed thus far happen very rapidly w/in a few generations of the species. If evolution occurred at speed then it would be easily observable throughout today's living species. Instead we have very clearly defined and distinct species which change w/in their species related to their exposures | |
|
|
|
|
Page
35
of
54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
|
|
Home
login 
