Poll: Evolution and the other side

[varulfic]

Ugh, another one of these threads? WHY? This isn't a discussion worth having. We don't make a bunch of Flat-Earth threads with polls asking if you think the planet is round. I'm sick of all these threads giving credence to a debate that by all rights should be non existant.

 

[evilneko]

Ugh, another one of these threads? WHY? This isn't a discussion worth having. We don't make a bunch of Flat-Earth threads with polls asking if you think the planet is round. I'm sick of all these threads giving credence to a debate that by all rights should be non existant.

Yeah, why can't we have a Germ Theory-Denialist thread? Or maybe even an Anti-Vaxxer thread!

 

[kidd25]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

that the fault of the church for educating their people, or you know the schools. Also what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[varulfic]

Ugh, another one of these threads? WHY? This isn't a discussion worth having. We don't make a bunch of Flat-Earth threads with polls asking if you think the planet is round. I'm sick of all these threads giving credence to a debate that by all rights should be non existant.

Yeah, why can't we have a Germ Theory-Denialist thread? Or maybe even an Anti-Vaxxer thread!

Yeah, that'd be fun. This dead horse is tender enough by now. If we are gonna have a idiotic discussions, let's atleast have some variety.

 

[kidd25]

snip

How much of a serious look do you need when deciding which has more merit:

Something that is backed up by fossils, carbon-dating, mountains of evidence and has been proven time and time again,

Or...

Some crap that people pulled from thousands of years old fairy-tales that says that the earth is 4000 years old and man was made from dirt.

I mean, really, you have to be mads kinds of retard to even consider the latter option.

well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?

 

[kidd25]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

 

[DracoSuave]

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates/

Oh crap, this guy again.

Before we can even ADDRESS this guy, let me point out to you exactly what the scientific method is. It's a cyclical process and it goes a little something like this.

First, you create a hypothesis. This is your idea of what could possibly be the truth.
Then, you experiment. You create an experiment that can test the boundries of your hypothesis. The point here is not to prove yourself right... the point is to prove yourself wrong.
Thirdly, you observe. You run the experiment, and you start recording the data.
Lastly, you synthesise. You take the data and you try to figure out what it all means. Does it counter the hypothesis? Does it cause you to rethink or add on to it?

....which leads you to forming a new hypothesis based on that experimentation.

This is the scientific method. When one is 'doing science', this is what they are doing.

A scientific THeory is not a hypothesis. It's not 'an idea.' It's what happens when something has been tested and tested and tested through the scientific method so many times that scientists can actually state 'You know what, I think we got something here.' And then it is tested more and more and more.

The Theory of Evolution HAS been wrung through the scientific method so many times it's absolutely rediculous. And it's STILL being put through the method because that is what you do..

Evolution can be described as scientific because it has science to back it up. And by science, I mean centuries of hardcore research and experimentation. Actual fucking work was put into that.

Intellegent Design, however, is not scientific. I have read the sum total of experimental work done in this field. It is written on the back of every napkin at your local MacDonald's. Where nothing is written. Because no actual scientific work has been done. This concept has yet to be tested or experimented with in the realm of the scientific method. Its adherents are not scientists, but religionists with an agenda to destroy science. The only differences between ID and Creationism are the name and the manner of debate. Creationism points to the bible, and ID tries to use fallacy to confuse people who believe in science but aren't knowledgable of what science actually entails.

As a result, they tend to gloss over details like... in the video you provided, how can it be that oxygen could form in a closed system with water and electricity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis]. He talks a good game, but he's the sort that reads science textbooks, but does not actually engage in science.

For any who support creationism or intellegent design. If you want to be taken even half seriously by any evolutionist, posting the same FALLACIOUS "debate" posted by a guy who doesn't know what electrolysis is isn't going to win anyone over.

The method you must take is simple, and it's the same stuff your science and math teachers put on your tests when you skipped to the end.

Show the work. screenshots Experiments, or it didn't happen.

 

[Kair]

There is no science among the biased.

 

[FernandoV]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Proof of this?

 

[DracoSuave]

Humans are apes.

Wrong.

Apes are primates.

Right.

Nothing I said contradicted that.

Except for you made the fundamental fallacy of logic that is so obvious that you're called on it and expected to know your error.

Here's an example:

Birds can fly.
Bees can fly.
Therefore, birds are bees.

Humans are Primates. Apes are Primates. Humans are not Apes. Understanding this simply concept is necessary to understand the basics of species classification. Being unable to grasp this already puts one at a disadvantage in a discussion involving fundamental biological theory.

 

[Wapox]

I have studied creationism... I remember most of it.. and it's all..... BULL!
Seriously.. creationists take some phrases from Scientists and state them as proof that science failzzz... BULL!

 

[kidd25]

There is no scientific evidence for creation. It is just a bible literalist's last defense against reality

well depends all on how you look at it, some people believe that the difference between living things and non-living things, is one way to argue. that if the big bang started everything then did we get living organism from non-living organism, and how can science prove this kind of logical thinking that one race of apes have and that others don't (keep in mind that brain size doesn't make that much a difference). some other but, i'm not really feeling to well to argue on it. Also if anyone would like to fix, or change anything Please do and have a nice day.

 

[AlexNora]

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates/

Oh crap, this guy again.

Before we can even ADDRESS this guy, let me point out to you exactly what the scientific method is. It's a cyclical process and it goes a little something like this.

First, you create a hypothesis. This is your idea of what could possibly be the truth.
Then, you experiment. You create an experiment that can test the boundries of your hypothesis. The point here is not to prove yourself right... the point is to prove yourself wrong.
Thirdly, you observe. You run the experiment, and you start recording the data.
Lastly, you synthesise. You take the data and you try to figure out what it all means. Does it counter the hypothesis? Does it cause you to rethink or add on to it?

....which leads you to forming a new hypothesis based on that experimentation.

This is the scientific method. When one is 'doing science', this is what they are doing.

A scientific THeory is not a hypothesis. It's not 'an idea.' It's what happens when something has been tested and tested and tested through the scientific method so many times that scientists can actually state 'You know what, I think we got something here.' And then it is tested more and more and more.

The Theory of Evolution HAS been wrung through the scientific method so many times it's absolutely rediculous. And it's STILL being put through the method because that is what you do..

Evolution can be described as scientific because it has science to back it up. And by science, I mean centuries of hardcore research and experimentation. Actual fucking work was put into that.

Intellegent Design, however, is not scientific. I have read the sum total of experimental work done in this field. It is written on the back of every napkin at your local MacDonald's. Where nothing is written. Because no actual scientific work has been done. This concept has yet to be tested or experimented with in the realm of the scientific method. Its adherents are not scientists, but religionists with an agenda to destroy science. The only differences between ID and Creationism are the name and the manner of debate. Creationism points to the bible, and ID tries to use fallacy to confuse people who believe in science but aren't knowledgable of what science actually entails.

As a result, they tend to gloss over details like... in the video you provided, how can it be that oxygen could form in a closed system with water and electricity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis]. He talks a good game, but he's the sort that reads science textbooks, but does not actually engage in science.

For any who support creationism or intellegent design. If you want to be taken even half seriously by any evolutionist, posting the same FALLACIOUS "debate" posted by a guy who doesn't know what electrolysis is isn't going to win anyone over.

The method you must take is simple, and it's the same stuff your science and math teachers put on your tests when you skipped to the end.

Show the work. screenshots Experiments, or it didn't happen.

yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)

i would give you book references but lets face it books are not free and i get the feeling no one is going to drive to the local books store to look at them xD

(plus this video has a Q&A at the end that i think is interesting)

 

[kidd25]

I have studied creationism... I remember most of it.. and it's all..... BULL!
Seriously.. creationists take some phrases from Scientists and state them as proof that science failzzz... BULL!

.... what? um no please do some more studies before making fun of every creationists, "creationists take some phrases from Scientists and state them as proof that science failzzz" also what? are you saying that we use scientist phrases against them and it fails? or that we use it and science fails? please be more clear.

 

[AngelicSven]

The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.

'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.

 

[kidd25]

This may sound very offensive, but it's just curiosity, I am assuming you are a young person, you obviously are on the Internet, and you actually believe that the world is 6000 years old and was made in 7 days? How and/or why?

well simple, God is a thing that is self-sustain and is all-powerful, thus creating the universe he shaped the world, and gave a sense of time to it as well. I don't really know how old the world is, but God claims to do all that is good. to put it in a human way of doing things, like an artist creating a wonderful, incredible painting that can never be duplicated in just a few days.

 

[kidd25]

The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.

'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^

 

[Virgilthepagan]

I checked "no" on this, not because I haven't looked into the Creationist line of argument, but because saying there's a field of "scientific research" for creationism is an inherent paradox.

The fundamental argument for creationism is that an unfathomable deity (invariably Christian, though let's say...Zeus for this one) started/guided the human race on the path to its present day forms and functions. Note I called him unfathomable. Scientists have to test and prove a hypothesis, and it has to stand up to rigorous review from their peers. Saying that a scientist had actually hypothesized and then proved there was a "God" is the mother of all facepalms. No self respecting man in any related field to evolutionary biology would simply say

"welp, I've proved the existence of an impossible to understand life form". I imagine they'd go on to study It and try to find out where "It" came from.

Want to say you believe in Creationism? Fine. But don't lay any claim to scientific reasoning, there just isn't any there, and most of the people trying to claim otherwise don't have the degrees.

 

[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)

 

[Virgilthepagan]

The keyword in the phrase 'Theory of Evolution' would be theory.
I just saved you a lot of time.

'Logic' is my Captcha. That's interesting.

Fun fact, so's gravity. Reaching the status of scientific theory is essentially the same as fact. The term theory's kept, because unlike certain concepts and counterarguments it's never accepted by scientists as the perfect end all be all. It just means it's considered fundamentally correct, barring tweaking.