Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Bradeck]

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

"Evolved". Involved would suggest some type of romantic relationship.

Please show me scientific evidence against evolution, that does not have to do with the creation of life. Because they are not the same. God creating the universe has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is one species adapting to it's habitat, or forcibly changing itself at a cellular level to better achieve dominance. Granted, this takes millions of years.

TL;DR - Don't feed the creationist trolls.

 

[Images]

No I haven't. You're right though. I've turned a new leaf. Let me look into that as soon as I've finished my studies of the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns and El Chupacabra, the Mexican goat sucker.

 

[evilneko]

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

If this happens so often as you seem to imply then you should be able to provide an example or two or three.

Lucy (started with skull fragments I believe) , Eosimias (The proof comes from two grain sized pieces of bone.), Millennium Man (A tooth started it now they have 13 bones from diffrent individuals, not even full bones), Ardipithecus (Same as before, but mostly teeth.)

Lucy isn't the only australopithecus ever found, just the most famous, partly for being the first to be found and partly for the relative completeness of the fossil. Lucy is not just a few skull fragments.

"Millenium Man" or rather Orrorin tugenensis truly didn't leave us much to go on, but there's enough to say it existed and is different in significant ways from other hominids.

As for Ardipithecus, same story as Lucy, only more so. You've been sorely misinformed.

In none of these examples has an entire animal been reconstructed from paltry remains as you seem to imply. The closest you come to that is with Orrorin tugenensis but even with him, there are enough fossils to classify it and thus, he gets a name.

 

[UltraXan]

No because there isn't any.

Scientific creationism is an oxymoron.

You, sir, hit the nail dead on the head.

Anyway, there is 0 scientific evidence of creation. There IS scientific evidence for evolution, and it seems MUCH more likely that it happened, but as many people know, it is only a theory and hasn't been fully proven to be true. But let me ask you a something. There are two theories as to how we came to be. There is creation, and then there is evolution. What do you think is more believable? Being created just as we are by an invisible, all powerful being, one that doesn't have any solid proof for existing, or a theory that explains not only how we came to be, but how every animal on the planet came to be and adapt to their environment through mutation and evolution. A theory, I might add, that has proof to back it up, despite not being 100% definitive. All those religious people have to realize that what they're believing just doesn't make any sense compared to the alternative. COMMON SENSE, PEOPLE, YOU NEED MORE OF IT!

 

[monfang]

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

If this happens so often as you seem to imply then you should be able to provide an example or two or three.

Lucy (started with skull fragments I believe) , Eosimias (The proof comes from two grain sized pieces of bone.), Millennium Man (A tooth started it now they have 13 bones from diffrent individuals, not even full bones), Ardipithecus (Same as before, but mostly teeth.)

Lucy isn't the only australopithecus ever found, just the most famous, partly for being the first to be found and partly for the relative completeness of the fossil. Lucy is not just a few skull fragments.

"Millenium Man" or rather Orrorin tugenensis truly didn't leave us much to go on, but there's enough to say it existed and is different in significant ways from other hominids.

As for Ardipithecus, same story as Lucy, only more so. You've been sorely misinformed.

In none of these examples has an entire animal been reconstructed from paltry remains as you seem to imply. The closest you come to that is with Orrorin tugenensis but even with him, there are enough fossils to classify it and thus, he gets a name.

Have you seen any of those bones? They are so badly damaged and look so similar that it takes a bit of imagination to put them all together. And by imagination, I mean leaps of faith. Scientists even say it themselves.

The first, fragmentary specimens of Ardipithecus were found at Aramis in 1992 and published in 1994. The skeleton announced today was discovered that same year and excavated with the bones of the other individuals over the next three field seasons. But it took 15 years before the research team could fully analyze and publish the skeleton, because the fossils were in such bad shape.

After Ardi died, her remains apparently were trampled down into mud by hippos and other passing herbivores. Millions of years later, erosion brought the badly crushed and distorted bones back to the surface.

They were so fragile they would turn to dust at a touch.

Shreeve, National Geographic magazine, October 1, 2009, ?Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found?, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

How does one put together the badly damage and degraded bones of a creature they have never seen before?

Millennium Man as a total of 20 bone fragments (as I know of them.) Here is a picture that I can find of them: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v8i12g1.gif

The three largest are leg bones. They look like dog or cat bones to me but, anyway. I question again how they are able to take those and make this: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v8i12g2.jpg

Leap of faith, maybe? Lets hope they don't make the same mistake that they did with the Nebraska Man. (They found a tooth they believed was from a neanderthal. Turns out it was from a pig.)

 

[evilneko]

Even if I granted you everything in your post, it neither falsifies evolution nor supports creationism.

Anyway, I hung around this thread so long in part because the forums were being glitchy. I'm going to do something more fun for a while instead.

 

[Nemesis729]

I was forced to go to church every sunday for the first 17 years of my life, It's all bullshit, I realized that when I was 10, I'm pretty convinced not even the priests buy any of it

 

[Defenestra]

I have looked in to what is rather optimistically called Creation Science, but as it seems to be composed almost exclusively of an argument from complexity, being that life and the universe are simply too complicated to have arisen without outside help, therefore God, I clicked No on the poll.

Because 'I do not understand how this could be the case, therefore it is not.' is a damn stupid argument, and is not science in any way, shape or form.

 

[infohippie]

Poll is broken. It does not have the option "There is no scientific evidence for creation" therefore I can't select anything.

 

[Faladorian]

The only thing I've ever seen creationists "debate" about is asking their opponent: "If creationism isn't true, how do you explain this?"


It's simply the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy inflated to a cancerous mass.

 

[Worgen]

There is no other side of evolution, there is evolution and there is people being stupid, you dont see people claiming that the universe revolves around the earth anymore and anyone who did would be called a retard and pushed into a mud puddle, its stupid we still let people be stupid about evolution.

 

[zehydra]

I have, back in high school. (Actually ID, not creationism specifically. The two are compatible, but not the same thing. For instance, there are atheist/secular ID scientists)

I have come to accept Evolution a long time ago (it makes sense).

 

[Sight Unseen]

I have, back in high school. (Actually ID, not creationism specifically. The two are compatible, but not the same thing. For instance, there are atheist/secular ID scientists)

I have come to accept Evolution a long time ago (it makes sense).

It's not possible for an atheist to be an ID scientist unless he doesn't believe the lies he's making and only doing it for money. Atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a God. Intelligent design, by definition, is the idea that a God-like creator made the universe (in a SHOCKINGLY similar way to Biblical creation, imagine the odds...) and all life in the universe. By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to believe in intelligent design, because then he would be a theist...

 

[Sight Unseen]

*snip*

Oh goodness, where to start with this load... how was I taking stats out of context and blatantly mis-using them? There was a study performed where participants stated their race and religion and then answered a series of questions relating to the judeo-christian religions, and atheists statistically scored the highest out of all of the other groups. I assure you I am no troll.

SOURCE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8030672/US-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers-quiz-finds.html

I have had my fair share of debates with creationists in the past, and I feel like I have heard all of the arguments that they have to offer, and can fairly easily refute all of them, and I'm not even an expert when it comes to evolution. I have also read enough of the Bible myself to know that it is completely bullshit and that it cannot be taken any more seriously as a theological text than Harry Potter. I am also fairly educated on the mechanisms of evolution and the "rules" of science, being a 4th year biotechnology major.

I hate to say it, but your creationist friend is pretty naive and borderline dumb. Science NEVER works by filling in any unknowns with "this must be unexplainable, it MUST be magic". Science deals with gaps in knowledge as just that, a gap in the knowledge. They make no presumptions about what that gap may mean until they can find evidence to back up their claim. Creation is NOT science, it is religious dogma that can be easily proven to be bullshit, so it SHOULD NOT be taught as science in a science classroom, because that is an insult to what science actually means. Creationists have no peer-reviewed and accepted papers in the literature, and merely spew out immature and easily refuted arguments. Also the supposed holes in evolutionary theory are all very minor holes (such as missing a transitional species in the fossil record, when 10 other such transitional species are already known) whereas the holes in creation are gigantic inconsistencies which outright contradict each other making it impossible for it to be right.

Finally, I have never heard of this so called "hydrogen-bond dating" but I call bullshit. Having a fairly good understanding of what a hydrogen bond is, I know that this would be a completely unreliable way to date anything. Hydrogen bonds are just weak interactions between molecules/atoms and they are very easy to break. They could never provide a reliable basis for dating anything, whereas radioactive decay dating is reliable (and there are multiple different tests acting on different principles that all show roughly the same results)

Ok two things. Number one, the hydrogen dating method is used by studying the hydrogen contained in a certain kind of radioactive material (I want to say Uranium). They don't test for it normally because we know that under normal circumstances, it should only last for about 15,000 years (it degrades MUCH quicker than anythign related to radio-carbon dating). But we've found uranium (or whatever said radioactive material was) under normal circumstances that all date back to 6000 years. This isn't just one or two occurences. This is from rocks at a variety of levels within the sediment, scattered at locations around the world. something like 170. All, that's right all of them are recorded to be about 6000 years old.

I sincerely don't believe that you've earnestly studied any Creationist texts. and I was also a biotech major before changing to history (and I got into genetics and all that stuff, so I understand the evidence behind it all). It is from this back ground in biology that I cannot safely assume evolution is wrong... but I also can't wipe away Creation.

Look, I'm not sitting here tryign to fight with you. I sincerely don't understand why people come off as so vehemently against Creationism in terms of science. NOTHING in the scientific realm should be cast off as "unstudiable"... that defeats the whole purpose of science. Therefore, I will not argue with you about anything after this post, unless you want to have a civil discussion (which thus far, you are not willing to). Respond if you feel like it, but belittling me only satisfies yourself and hardly proves anything.

If you want more information, you should look for a movie on netflix called Dragons or Dinosaurs. While I found some faulty logic in it (it's obviously more of a propaganda film than a legitimate scientific documentary, to say nothing of its outdated arguments against evolution [simply put, some of the things they SAY is found in evolutionary theory has been done away with a long time ago]) it raises both some good points and evidence.

I would be interested to see your source for the "hydrogen dating" I google'd hydrogen dating and found absolutely nothing, and I don't have enough information to make a judgement on that right now, but from the way you're describing it sounds like its made up. A source would be helpful.

Nobody has ever said that anything is unstudyiable, but if you're going to try and force your "theory" into the scientific world you'd better be prepared to support it with facts, and thus far, creationists have failed spectacularly at that. I'm not going to bother checking that video because you admit that it's a propaganda film, so I'm not even going to try and separate what facts they may have from their propaganda.

 

[mcnally86]

hooooooooooooly crap I could not listen to just him for even one minute haha.
skipped to the Q and A, on a side, loved how that proffessor repeaditly asked him to stop avoiding the questions. So, is there any chance you know of any actual creationism science? his whole speech appeared to be an attempt to discredit evolution anyway. All i can recall from my time in catholic school is 'On the nth day(5?), god created the animals'.

You had to watch his thing. Basically he said do not teach origin in schools only observable natural selections or anatomy. He was saying tax money should not teach anything not 100% provable. He did not want creationism or evolution taught in schools. It was pretty interesting, and yes he probably could sell glasses to a blind man.

EDIT: And I realize this is brilliant on his part. He made it so he didn't have to defend his beliefs but at the same time use them against other people.

 

[Grospoliner]

Yes, and the fact is, there is no evidence supplied by creationists. Merely conjecture. At no point does any single creation scientist supply sufficient evidence for the creation hypothesis.

 

[JCBFGD]

Seeing as how evolution has been proven to be fact many, many, many times over, no, I've not put any effort into studying a pseudoscience believed only by people who figuratively put their fingers in their ears whilst stomping on the ground and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Evolution is fact. The exact method of evolution is the only thing that's a theory now. Sorry to burst your bubble.