Is the debate between Creationism and Evolution serious in America?

[Pingieking]

Here's what I'm thinking: God creates life. Life evolves. What the problem is?

But alas, that may turn into a problem in the near future.

A team of physicists and biologists in Japan has reported that they managed to produce amino acids (building blocks of proteins) and all four base pairs of DNA and RNA using seawater with chemical composition very similar to that of the oceans when they just formed; they hit the water with lightning. Since it has already been shown that amino acids and base pairs are chemically attracted to each other and has a good chance of automatically clumping together to form RNA and proteins, it seems like we are one step closer to showing that God didn't directly create life, high voltages did (though you could argue that God was pissed off and decided to smite the seas for fun).

This is a pilot study and is very new, so it's to be taken with some big grains of salt. However, the team did reproduce their results consistently. A few more tests are in progress to validate this claim, and we'll know the results from those soon. Until then, tuck this away under interesting experimental result.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Thank you.... These are awesome...

and, anyone who knows me knows my opinions... Baptist Evangelical whatever the frick Christians from ANYWHERE are nuts. But mostly americans...

No, all christians aren't nuts. Im a good friend with several of them.

It's the fundamentalist christians who tries to take everything written in the bible litteraly who are nuts.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

While I'm on the subject, most New Testimant texts note that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, ect, but they fail to note how it was done. There are no details on how it was done, save for once. My point? The details are left out, likely purposely.

some of the ways he did it are misunderstood, such as raising the dead and casting out amongst the dead, these have NOTHING to do with being physically dead. it's a very odd phrase but "the dead" in this case are people who are not part of your group and "raising someone from amongst the dead" means you are bringing an outsider into your group.

to give an example, someone who isn't part of the escapist is one of the dead to of us. so if we were to bring someone to the escapist we'd bring them from amongst the dead

the casting out amongst the dead means you throw someone out of your group and exile them

as for the water to wine thing, they mostly all drank wine at that time. however unless it was blessed they were drinking water, even if it really was wine, once it was blessed it because wine

so really the details aren't left out, they are just misinterpreted. they are old phrases that are easy to misconstrue and it's very easy for people to not understand them

 

[Abengoshis]

One more thing, Evolutionary Theory currently has more evidence than the Theory of Gravity!
Physicists really need to catch up. xD

Um >.> Gravity isn't a theory...

It has been a scientific law for a long time...

Sorry, but Gravity is a theory.
A scientific theory is a model which explains a fact and is supported by evidence.

Some famous theories are:
The Theory of General Relativity
The Theory of Gravity
Evolutionary Theory
Germ Theory
Heliocentric Theory

(Yes, the concept of the Sun being in the centre of the solar system is a theory.)

Theory does not mean guess. Theory does not mean hypothesis.

 

[Skeleon]

*snip*

Huh, that's quite interesting and I'll definitely keep an eye open for any more news on that.
I wonder if those guys would've done these experiments had they been content with the religious explanations of how life first came to be...

 

[RiffRaff]

Evolution says nothing about ethics, its the explanation of how the diversity of life came to be, how organisms change over time and why they change, it says nothing about morals or the 'purpose' of life or anything along those lines.

I didn't say evolution did. I just said, teaching evolution only can lead to ethical questions (as can design). An open minded curious person is going to want to know how humans are currently evolving (or if they have stopped). This may lead to ethical questions.

 

[Veylon]

The way I deal with Creationists is not to mock them or disprove them, but run ahead and build up alternate Creationist theories that they then have to debunk before getting to the one they really want. I can speculate on aliens, hidden Creation tools, UFO monitoring, sentient crystals, ad infinitum that the Creationist does not want, but can't easily discard without using the sort of argument that would destroy their own theory. It makes them question themselves sometimes.

Actually, I would accept aliens, the great spirit, "sentient crystals", or anything else you want to add that explains existence, rather than the theory of evolution.

I don't exactly know what "sentient crystals" or "hidden Creation tools" are, but assuming they are based on an intelligence creating the world, I would gladly accept them over the current theory of evolution.

Really? A non-Bible Creationist? I can't really agree with you any more than the Fundamentalists, but at least you aren't conformist.

By "Creation Tools" I mean the various equipment (DNA splicers, breeding vats, etc.) that would be used to produce all the multifarious life-forms we have today. Surely the Creator would require a facility somewhere chock-full of such things, and where better than right here on Earth. Find that lab and there's your proof for Creationism!

"Sentient Crystals" are just a new-age version of God. Vague, mysterious, and inexplicable.

 

[Klarinette]

I bothers me when Creationists tell Evolutionists that they're wrong and stupid for thinking that Evolution is correct, and vice versa. Overall, who cares what everyone else thinks? It would be fine if no one judged anyone else for this kind of thing. It just seems like such a silly thing to get your panties in a bunch about.

Let's fight about something equally as trivial: mayo or ketchup on fries. Mayo?? What are you, gross?

A bit of a bad argument there. Your mayo vs ketchup argument is an argument of opinion, but the argument of creationism vs evolution is an argument of fact. Nobody should really care what other people believe, but there exists a domain of public knowledge based on facts. The argument here is to remove creationism from that domain, not to change anyone's mind. Anyone is free to belive that creationism is true, it's just that public policies are not going to be made with any creationist influence.

*edit spelling*

Oh, I know that. I'm just saying it's pointless to argue, regardless of which is fact. No matter what comes up, no matter what it has to do with, someone [large groups of people] will always disagree.

 

[Treblaine]

It should be more serious than it is, really. Evolution is more widely accepted than it should be, considering it's taught as fact when it's really just a theory: an unproven and rather shaky theory if you look at the facts. Even a lot of scientists think so, but most people have put too much faith into it and won't accept that. And...

yeah, a Theory just like the Theory of Relativity, and just like Evolution, both have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be considered fact. But "fact of evolution" is grammatically incorrect.

What you fail to realise is the layman use of the work "theory" thinks that once it is proven it turns from a theory into a fact. I t is also completely different from the proper scientific use of the word 'theory'.

But in science, even once a theory is proven it is still called a 'theory' or a 'proven theory' which is considered a fact.

The word you are looking for is 'hypothesis', a theory that has not even been attempt to be proven yet.

And Evolution through Natural Selection (it's full name) is universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in all the fields relating to the origin of life.

And classrooms are not supposed to just read from a book and say "this is how it happened, now shut up", it goes through all the evidence and analysis to show that the current theory of Evolution is definitely true.

I mean the genetic evidence alone is indisputable.

There is a decent amount of evidence, yes. But not enough evidence to prove it: only to support it. And evolution is defeated when logic is brought into the equation: there are some simple things that simply would not have happened through this process. Evolution is an impossible theory created and supported by people who simply want an explanation that doesn't point to an authoritative creator. People want to believe there is no God, so they develop things like evolution to try and explain how things can exist without him.

Interesting how people accuse religion of just being a desperate way to explain the universe, but evolution isn't too far off from that itself...

Look now hold on there buddy.

It's one thing for you to say "I believe blah blah blah whatever" but I have studied Biochemistry BSc at the University of Bath for the past 2 years and the things you are saying about evolution are quite simply not true.

Up until the 1950's (before DNA was discovered) Evolution was simply a very good theory but as we are finally able to study the genome of literally thousands of different organisms in incredible detail and see how the tree of life fits together not just for that species line but many different species and where they branched off from each other. It gives us more than just proff of evolution, it gives us yet more amazing insight into our natural world.

That, my friend, it the proof for Evolution. Genetics.

"People want to believe there is no God, so they develop things like evolution to try and explain how things can exist without him."

Would the INVERSE of that not be as true if not fare more applicable.

I don't think you understand or comprehend the critical thinking or approach that is taken to science, with such rigorous proof, peer review and competition to find the truth in the massive amount of data, trends and factors as well as the incredibly deep understanding needed for it.

Take for example the human eye. Once considered too complex to have evolved but meticulous study of eyes and other light sensing organs of other species have shown how at every single stage of development there is incremental improvement in fidelity, focus and overall usefulness.

Now enough of this nonsense and bringing God into it. I have a great respect for religions of the world but you must learn to appreciate the natural world for the way it is, so many dedicated and learned men and women have dedicated their lives to studying these systems and one of the most fundamental component having that understanding has been recognising the origins of life through natural selection and also how if you look hard enough you will see it occurring before you.

No one knows for sure where we go after we die, which is ultimately what the bible is all about.

But we do know where we came from, where life itself came from.

 

[Pingieking]

I bothers me when Creationists tell Evolutionists that they're wrong and stupid for thinking that Evolution is correct, and vice versa. Overall, who cares what everyone else thinks? It would be fine if no one judged anyone else for this kind of thing. It just seems like such a silly thing to get your panties in a bunch about.

Let's fight about something equally as trivial: mayo or ketchup on fries. Mayo?? What are you, gross?

A bit of a bad argument there. Your mayo vs ketchup argument is an argument of opinion, but the argument of creationism vs evolution is an argument of fact. Nobody should really care what other people believe, but there exists a domain of public knowledge based on facts. The argument here is to remove creationism from that domain, not to change anyone's mind. Anyone is free to belive that creationism is true, it's just that public policies are not going to be made with any creationist influence.

*edit spelling*

Oh, I know that. I'm just saying it's pointless to argue, regardless of which is fact. No matter what comes up, no matter what it has to do with, someone [large groups of people] will always disagree.

But it is not pointless to argue. As I have already said (or posted), these kind of arguments are the things that determines our society. The outcome of these kind of arguments will determine what kind of society we live in, and what kind of a world our children grow up in. I believe that societies should be built on science, ethics and reason. People are still free to believe in whatever they feel like, but the society has to operate free of superstition and bullsh*t. This is why these arguments are important. The greatest importance is not the conversion of any one person to another opinion. The greatest importance is to navigate our society in a direction that is reasonable.

Also, I'm quite fond of these kind of arguments. It's mentally stimulating. I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but everyone else also has the right to point out how stupid those beliefs are and ridicule them for it.

@Treblaine: Great to see another person with a clear understanding of the ways of science

 

[Klarinette]

I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but everyone else also has the right to point out how stupid those beliefs are and ridicule them for it.

Don't you find that makes it worse, though? That's when people who don't know how to debate things properly try to end it with a statement like "Well, you're stupid and going to Hell."

 

[ragamuffingirl]

its so fucking annoying that a thread like this that has been done to death will get so many comments just because its a heated topic and i cant get 1 fucking comment on a thread that's well thought out and much much more original. its because you people don't really want intelligent discussions you just want to ***** about something and try to see who can sound the most arrogant so we can crown him king of the assholes.

and i know someone is going to say that i am king of the assholes but that just proves my point now doesn't it.

You're kind of the bears oh and also the yeti.

 

[Pingieking]

I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but everyone else also has the right to point out how stupid those beliefs are and ridicule them for it.

Don't you find that makes it worse, though? That's when people who don't know how to debate things properly try to end it with a statement like "Well, you're stupid and going to Hell."

People will certainly say stuff like that, but that actually makes the system better, not worse.

There will always be people who die before they think, and there's nothing we can do to change that. However, there are a lot of people who would think, but they need to be exposed to all the different views out there so that they can make up their own mind. The right to ridicule means that people are free to punch holes in another person's opinion using logical arguments. This is not just slandering or shouting others down. In the process of poking holes in people's ideas we expose to the public a way to think, to use reason, and to question others. The amount of respect that is given to an opinion is dependant on the amount of evidence for that opinion (and the burden of proof is on the people who support that opinion). One last thing which I didn't get across in my last post, is that the ridicule applies to the opinions, not the person; similar to the idea of hate the sin, not the sinner.

As for the people who refuse to think and just shout "You're stupid and going to Hell!"; they're not going to even attemp to exercise reason or logic (not picking on religious people here, lots of non-believers don't think either). There's really not a whole lot that can be done about those people. The goal is to separate the thinkers from the non-thinkers, and to accomodate the non-thinkers while the thinkers determine the direction of society.

 

[NeckStabber]

If you are realy into this debate,you MUST see this classical black and white movie(im sry i don't know its name)from MGM:a biology teacher in the biblebashing town of 'Youallburnshire' talks to his class about the theory of evolution and is made public enemy number 1 and charged by the town,thus a famous lawyer from out of state is called in to defend him and the trial basicaly is Evolution vs Creation,it's amazing,im so sry i cant tell you it's name.

If anyone knows what im talking about reply with its name thanks

There's a play about that called "Inherit the Wind" (I think it's called that ). Not sure if the movie shares the name.

You are correct.Thank you!

So you should all look for the MGM version of Inherit the Wind its to this day one of the best movies i've ever seen.

 

[ragamuffingirl]

its so fucking annoying that a thread like this that has been done to death will get so many comments just because its a heated topic and i cant get 1 fucking comment on a thread that's well thought out and much much more original. its because you people don't really want intelligent discussions you just want to ***** about something and try to see who can sound the most arrogant so we can crown him king of the assholes.

and i know someone is going to say that i am king of the assholes but that just proves my point now doesn't it.

Um I meant King not kind

You're kind of the bears oh and also the yeti.

 

[GHMonkey]

Well:






And so on (there are a lot more episodes on these on youtube, check them out if you want to)

Now if scientists aren't engaging in a serious debate with the creationists, I think I can sympathize with them. Mainly because if they tried the scientists wouldn't be able to give a proper response to anything that the crationists say, because they would be constantly out of breath due to laughing hysterically at the ignorance and stupidity of pretty much all of the creationists arguments...

while i do believe in your side of the argument i just don't understand why the unnecessary hate. you proved your point but you don't have to be so blatantly aggressive.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

while i do believe in your side of the argument i just don't understand why the unnecessary hate. you proved your point but you don't have to be so blatantly aggressive.

So because I choose to make fun of creationism that's the same as "hating" it and "being aggressive" towards it?

Boy, them stand-up comedians have to be the most hateful and aggressive people on the planet then, seeing as they make fun of pretty much anything they can think of.

I don't hate creationism. Hate is a very personal thing for me, meaning that hatred is something I might feel towards something that harms me personally. Creationism is just... Well, completely flawed and plain wrong about so many things, as the youtube clips I presented shows. But I don't hate people for being wrong or flawed, I just point it out, and sometimes their wrongful and flawed ideas are so over the top it makes me laugh.

That being said, they certainly had some laughter coming their way. I mean, if your intention is to actually disprove so many sound scientific theories, you could at the very least familiarise yourself with scientific facts surrouding them. Instead of completely disregard so many basic laws of physics like they tend to do.

What's up with people today when they have to read "aggression" and "hate" into exactly everything? Just relax a little. Like I do all the time. : )

 

[GHMonkey]

while i do believe in your side of the argument i just don't understand why the unnecessary hate. you proved your point but you don't have to be so blatantly aggressive.

So because I choose to make fun of creationism that's the same as "hating" it and "being aggressive" towards it?

Boy, them stand-up comedians have to be the most hateful and aggressive people on the planet then, seeing as they make fun of pretty much anything they can think of.

I don't hate creationism. Hate is a very personal thing for me, meaning that hatred is something I might feel towards something that harms me personally. Creationism is just... Well, completely flawed and plain wrong about so many things, as the youtube clips I presented shows. But I don't hate people for being wrong or flawed, I just point it out, and sometimes their wrongful and flawed ideas are so over the top it makes me laugh.

That being said, they certainly had some laughter coming their way. I mean, if your intention is to actually disprove so many sound scientific theories, you could at the very least familiarise yourself with scientific facts surrouding them. Instead of completely disregard so many basic laws of physics like they tend to do.

What's up with people today when they have to read "aggression" and "hate" into exactly everything? Just relax a little. Like I do all the time. : )

buddy, i am quite relaxed.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Thanks for introducing me to these, they were very entertaining and insightful.

You're welcome.

Just remember to not antagonize religious people with them. All religious people aren't creationists. Luckily there are some religious folk who have realized the importance of keeping religion and science separate.

Oh I know, I'm not a bigot and respect that some people will believe what they believe. What I cannot stand are the people who ram their own beliefs down people's throats or use their beliefs to slow down the development of society by challenging hard-working physicists, biologist, chemists and mathematicians who are doing their best to make the world a better place for the next generation.