I will say this, you have a lot of courage to post that. I don't mean in a condescending way, I just mean that you've probably gotten some anti-theist stuff thrown your way.
NOTE: In the following few paragraphs, being desirable could also mean survivability.
That being said, I have to disagree with you. The idea of evolution is that a species slowly changed over time due to mutations. The vast majority of mutations are harmless and the occasional one affects the individual. Usually, these are harmful and the individual is killed, either by a predator or natural causes stemming from said mutation. On the off chance that the mutation is helpful, it first has to make the individual a desirable mate and if it makes a difference, the gene is passed on. The offspring of that individual now also have that mutation and spread it around throughout dozens or hundreds of generations making others without said mutation less desirable.
To see this in action, you could take a bacterial culture and introduce a harmful element. Most of the bacteria would be killed but the few remaining either were not close enough to it to be affected or have a mutation that protects against that. All the surviving bacteria now reproduce through mitosis and many more bacteria have the mutation (mitosis results in 2 genetically identical copies). As the generations pass, the mutation continues to be passed on and eventually the entire bacterial culture is immune to the harmful agent; they evolved to gain an immunity.
We can see evolution in action. It's impossible in mammals because we don't live long enough to see it happen but it's there. That being said, a grandfather or even a great * 10[sup]10[/sup] grandfathers would not have remotely resembled apes in any way. When you go back hundreds of thousands of years, there is a little more resemblance.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death for your right to say it."
- Voltaire
Oh look, someone with a brain! How nice to see you! *waves*
I agree with you completely. I may be an atheist but I hate extremists or fundamentalists of any kind when it comes to religious debates. I just tend to agree with the atheists but that's just semantics. For example, did you know there's an atheist channel on YouTube? They do a podcast about how all religions are dumb. When I first encountered it after watching some videos of Stephen Fry debating, I couldn't help but laugh. It's as ridiculous as people decrying gay marriage. Let people believe what they want to believe and if they don't agree with you, who cares? How is what they believe interfering with your everyday life (unless it's about changing the school system)?
To sum up a badly written piece, I would like if both ideas were taught in schools equally so students could make their own minds up to satisfy themselves and I would like people stop looking down on people who don't think share the same ideas as them.
The reason both ideas aren't taught equally is that they aren't equal. One is science; the other is not. One is supported by evidence; the other is not. Teaching both side-by-side creates a false equivalency that harms students' ability to actually learn. It would be like teaching the Flat Earth concept alongside teaching that the earth is round, or teaching alchemy next to chemistry.
And how would you determine which ideas to teach in this situation? There's more than one form of Creationism, after all. If we're going to offer Young Earth Creationism as an alternative to evolution, then surely we need to offer Theistic Evolution as an alternative to YEC. And then we'll need to offer Aliens Did It as an alternative to all of THOSE. What criteria can you use to determine which un-supported views should be treated as equivalent to a scientific theory?
To sum up a badly written piece, I would like if both ideas were taught in schools equally so students could make their own minds up to satisfy themselves and I would like people stop looking down on people who don't think share the same ideas as them.
Honestly lads and lassies, people are people. In the long run people will always believe in religion, science and both together. Each to their own and the world moves on.
This isn't a matter of mere opinion, Eoghan Kelly, and one side--Creationism--violates the rules of the game. You want to teach Creationism in a religion class or a history class, fine. Have fun. In science? The ONLY way I'd accept it is as a defunct theory that was disproven long ago. Any attempt to portray these two as equally likely is intellectually dishonest and fraudulent. The theory of Creationism was disproven, and it was disproven, despite what Creatoinists will tell you, long before evolution was proposed. It's WRONG. Simple as that. Teaching it as a theory with the same validity as evolution is precisely as justifiable as teaching the Geocentric theory or the biology of dragons.
And students CAN'T make up their own minds, frankly. They don't have the data. You're asking uneducated people, given horribly mangled data (there's no other way to establish the equivalency you demand), to evaluate one of the most complex suites of theories in science. The problem should be obvious--but it gets even worse. The data are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, but the problem is getting the data to the students. You need to understand genetics, geology, physics, chemistry, and deep time to really get a grasp of the data, and since evolution is the foundational principle of biology it's interwoven throughout the entire enterprise of showing the data. The very act of showing the data to the students violates the equivalency you're trying to establish. Why do you think Creationists don't look at the fossil record?
Finally, what about people like me? If the Creationists win--and make no mistake, teaching these theories as equal IS a Creationist win--my job, my livelyhood, is on the line. This is personal. They are calling ME a liar and a fraud, which is just about the worst attack on my professional credibility they can launch, without the common courtesy of providing evidence--to provide one example. I've called a number of them out on it (they prefer to leave it general, so they don't have to defend it; once you pin them down, their arguments vanish).
Again, I'm all for "Live and let live". When they leave me alone and stop attacking me, my friends, and my family (I've got relatives that have done work in relevant fields as well), I'll stop defending myself and them. Until then, sorry, it just doesn't work that way. You don't get to punch me in the nose then scream that I'm not allowed to fight back.
For example, did you know there's an atheist channel on YouTube? They do a podcast about how all religions are dumb. When I first encountered it after watching some videos of Stephen Fry debating, I couldn't help but laugh. It's as ridiculous as people decrying gay marriage. Let people believe what they want to believe and if they don't agree with you, who cares? How is what they believe interfering with your everyday life (unless it's about changing the school system)?
I'm interested in what this "atheist channel" is because from that description it could be more than one. And even more if I assume you are ignorant about the actual purpose of the channel. Not saying you are but if you were the possibilities of what channel you talk about would rise.
There's a lot of dumb channels on youtube. 9/11 conspiracies, spirit pseudo-science, ghosthunters, Ray Comfort, ... I'm always curious about finding new ones to watch.
I was pointing out that everyone [by which I mean evolutionists] started jumping down my throat because I asked for evidence. It wasn't so much directed at you as opposition to your arguments, but as a general question.
Yet is was a specific response to a specific quoted portion. Please don't do that then say it wasn't your intent to address me.
If you are looking for evidence in the same way you have with me, I have trouble seeing why you're surprised. Your later question about how non-detrimental traits is inane and I'm having a little trouble taking your objections to evolution as an honest, face value statement.
If they're not detrimental, why wouldn't they? Hell, only certain detriments impact the chance of propagating, so even they don't open a question here.
Seriously, I'm confused by this question. How does heredity not answer this by default?
Again, not really you, you, just in general and a reactionary statement.
Yes, you do. Why wouldn't you? If it's proven wrong then it's proven wrong whether you did it the easy or hard way.
It's not a very good use of time to search through crap from people who have shown they make weak, biased, and poorly researched papers just in case they might have said something useful. It'd be like giving a monkey a typewriter and searching pages of gibberish in case there's a brilliant novel in there.
To be fair, it can be worthwhile to examine arguments you know are wrong. There's a guy in paleontology (forget his name--Dinwatr would be able to give better details than I can) who was (in)famous for making arguments that everyone knew were wrong (including the guy making them). But PROVING them wrong required a lot of work, and advanced the science quite a bit. So even bad arguments can have value.
The problem is that most Creationist arguments were thoroughly dealt with over a century ago. Anything useful that could be taken from them already has been.
If they're not detrimental, why wouldn't they? Hell, only certain detriments impact the chance of propagating, so even they don't open a question here.
Seriously, I'm confused by this question. How does heredity not answer this by default?
This has already been explained better in previous posts.
I don't know how to explain it any better, though I'll try and give an example.
If there were 100 couples, 1 with a mutation that isn't beneficial yet, but may be in the future.
If each couple gave birth to 3 offspring we now have 297 entities without the mutation and 3 with. With each new generation the number without the mutation grows faster than those with the mutation. Sure it's still there but it's prominence within the species diminishes with each new generation.
Again, not really you, you, just in general and a reactionary statement.
"<youtube=", then the numbers and letter part that follows the "v=" but not including anything with "&" in the Youtube url.
Quoting any post with an embed will also show you the relevant code.
What are you trying to say with this video?
I watched a few minutes into your 3h mark and so far it's the assertion that the legend of atlantis is true despite being called a story by the author himself, that the mayan calendar somehow is "the most advanced calendar ever" and 3 minutes in we're suddenly at the secret illuminati society.
Is there a specific point you are trying to make that I missed? Because firstly I can't really see any connection to the topic at hand and secondly I'm pretty sure I could disprove the whole thing point-per-point if it weren't so long I can't be bothered to watch all four hours.
For example: ~3:11:30
"Science found in the 50s that silicon shows the same principles of life as carbon. [...] Sponges deep in the ocean made from a hundret percent silicon were also discovered, which shows that silicon life doesn't just work in theory but they actually exist right here on this planet."
To say that sponges are made from silicon is like saying that humans are made from calcium. Sponges may USE silicon as a building material for their skeleton, that doesn't mean that that on a cellular level every C is replaced with Si. Silicon does have similar properties but as far as I know carbon is still far better at spontaneously forming organic compounds.
*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.
You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.
They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.
See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;
You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.
So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.
I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.
"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"The Bible says so."
"How does the bible saying so make it true?"
"Because God himself arbitrated it."
Rinse and repeat.
Heck, let's take that even further:
"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"How else other then a intelligent design, could such complexity be created"
"By immeasurable scales and forces of time, energy and movement, how does complexity prove gods handiwork?"
...
Yeah I don't know where to take this reasoning. Eventually every argument directed at Faith boils down to God is unknowable and all powerful, therefore he did it. The only physically quantifiable source of his existence are Religious Texts and, besides the internal contradictions observable within those texts, virtually every major event that counts as "proof of god" can be disproved by scientific evidence and testing.
The Irony of your final remark is not lost on anyone debating with you I'm sure.
Look. Here is an analogy so you can visualise how I, and others, see this topic:
The universe is a puzzle. For ease of visualisation, let's call it a jigsaw. This jigsaw is not like other jigsaws in that we can't truly know what the final image is until the last piece is in place. What's more, the jigsaw does not get easier the further you progress, it actually gets harder.
Religion saw this puzzle first. They used the power of observation to put the simplest and most basic pieces together, giving them a really rough outline of this immense puzzle. They then, in all their excitement, guessed as to what the final image was. From this point on they started directing their solution towards this suspected finished image. Eventually their guess started to show signs of fallibility. This resulted in schisms among the problem solvers, creating a variety of alternative outcomes as to what the final image was. The problem still being that they are still guessing based off of very little.
Eventually things got so muddled and confused that they started to jam pieces in spots they didn't fit in and even threw away pieces that appeared to not fit anywhere. Long before they even finished a fraction of the puzzle, they started joining their "established" sections together and then decided to paint their vision of the finished image over the gaps. Then proceeded to frame the image and claim it was finished and that no one should touch it... or look too closely... or pretty much inquire about anything related to it other then to talk about the finished image and how amazing it is.
Of course you had multiple finished images all saying they were the "true" finished image and shit just got confusing and nasty as a result.
Then some young buck named science looked at this finished image a bit closer then religion would have wanted and saw all the flaws. The pieces that don't fit, the pieces that were missing (discarded) and the fact that a big gaping hole in the puzzle was just painted over.
Science though thatt was odd and decided to reconstruct the identifiable pieces in his own time. He was methodical, only taking small leaps of guess work to help focus his efforts, sometimes getting the run of himself and trying to solve pieces beyond his current comprehension, but always corrected himself when pieces stopped fitting. Eventually he had surpassed religion with a more complete image, though still far from being truly complete. From this point on his guesswork was more clever and calculated, basing his next actions off of observable patterns in the image. Even large gaps between chunks of finished segments were starting to show form trough these patterns. His guesswork started to become more detailed and defined, capable of predicting where the next piece would sit with frightening accuracy.
This is where science is now. The puzzle is far from complete and progress is slow... but it is certain. He acknowledges that the puzzle is not complete and that his guess work might not be accurate, so is willing to go back on segments he once though were correct if the patterns start to fall apart. But fortunately due to his methodical nature, this mistakes are few and when they do appear the damage is only minute, only requiring the reshuffling of minor pieces.
People are now interested in this Science guys attempt at the puzzle, not just because the image is coming out differently from all the past assumed outcomes, but that he willingly allows people to look at the image, question his reasoning and even help out if they want to. Science involves the admirers... he doesn't expect anything of them other then to respect the process of solving the puzzle and not to get too excited about the outcome as that can lead to misdirection.
Finally, Science also doesn't punish people for prodding at his logic, since to Science it's a win-win. Either he's right and the true image keeps taking shape over time, or he's wrong, changes his approach and the true image takes shape over time. At this point he knows enough to see what is working, the patterns all add up and fit nicely, the only pieces that he questions are the newest placed pieces, since they are still placed on hunches and assumptions based off of patterns, but he is not afraid to dismantle segments who's patterns are just falling apart.
Religion gave up on the goal of solving the puzzle, discarded the pieces that didn't fit his assumptions, jammed others into places they didn't fit and then painted the final image of what they envisioned long ago. They then framed it and put it up on the wall and said, "This is the answer to the puzzle!".
Science, young and ambitious, disagreed and started from scratch, this time without fooling himself into imagining what it would be, but rather let it organically show itself as he pieced it together. He developed processes and studied patterns all in the aim of finishing the puzzle, not achieving a desired result.
Religion started it but was too arrogant to see past his own vision. Science is now taking the helm and is determined to see the true finished puzzle. That is his only goal and he does it slowly and methodically.
You sir(and many others)have made it impossible to post without feeling redundant!That analogy is so condescending-I am ashamed to not have thought of it myself!Do you find it ironic that some people will only understand science when you explain it using a completely made-up story that has some real parts to it?
My friend,a satanist,tells me to just ignore uneducated people and take advantage of them.
Thanks for the recognition. I was afraid that analogy would fade away unnoticed /vanity
To be honest, my goal isn't to look down on their viewpoints, but considering how fundamentalist Faith based viewpoints stem from indoctrination and pressure from childhood (I recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk) means you are trying to target logic and reasoning's that stemmed from those early impressionable days. The only way to approach these topics is to drastically simplify it (which has a catch, since simplifying the complex leads to logical gaps, which causes a retort to turn around and become fuel to the fire).
Also to embed you type youtube=*insert the garbled code after watch?v=* within the square bracket parenthesis
So for example, the video I linked would be youtube=8Eam-z1bwrk then close the whole thing within the "[]" parenthesis. So you get this:
Finally... I wouldn't agree with your friends opinion, nor his life choice (or at least, how he identifies himself).
The video was nonsense.Yet because there are some facts in it,it is swallowed whole.
You disagree with what life choice?
Satanism?Why?Based on your posts,I know you won't mind explaining.
I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.
Stoicism/piety and all that jazz.
It's as ridiculous as people decrying gay marriage. Let people believe what they want to believe and if they don't agree with you, who cares? How is what they believe interfering with your everyday life (unless it's about changing the school system)?
It's sad how some people don't actually look at the substance of what they're talking about and equate two very different things willy nilly because it was too much for them to actually check whether they actually compare on anything but a superficial level.
I know exactly what I'm talking about here. I know a lot about both of these topics and while the comparison may be a very simple one without much depth, it serves its purpose. While they may be different, both the evolution/creationism and the gay-marriage things are related to the Bible and Catholicism. The point was that you can believe whatever you want, just don't try to tell people what they can or can't do/believe in but it probably won't ever affect you.
Quaxar said:
I'm interested in what this "atheist channel" is because from that description it could be more than one. And even more if I assume you are ignorant about the actual purpose of the channel. Not saying you are but if you were the possibilities of what channel you talk about would rise.
There's a lot of dumb channels on youtube. 9/11 conspiracies, spirit pseudo-science, ghosthunters, Ray Comfort, ... I'm always curious about finding new ones to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience
There it is if you want it. They do debates among other things but it seems to be that the majority of their material is equal rights for atheism (e.g. if there's a manger outside a city hall then also putting up a giant atom) and getting religion out of the classroom. Some of it is anti-theism though so be forewarned.
That's one side of the discussion I really don't like: when people start saying that evolution is a fact. It's not. It's a scientific model, a particular scientific model which is backed by a huge pile of evidence, but it's not a "fact" and never will be, unless the hypothetical creator of the universe itself suddenly appears and tells us "yes, this is exactly how it works"
Mmm...not really. The process of evolution is "fact". It happens. We've, as a species, gathered more than enough evidence; new and old; to show that the process does, indeed, occur.
The particulars of how it occurs, why it occurs, and what factors determine the prevalence of one genetic mutation over another, are the parts in question. As in, the "theory" portion of the Theory of Evolution.
To put it simply: We know evolution occurs, we just don't know exactly how and why (entirely).
Same as with gravity.
The Theory of Gravity isn't questioning whether gravity is real, but rather how it works and why it's present in our universe.
Lugbzurg said:
Let's look at a few things. One moment, Evolution says that little cells slowly evolved into complex lifeforms. Next, it says that these complex lifeforms start devolving into simpler lifeforms.
You can't have a slowly-developing heart, brain, lung or any of that. There are several important parts that must all be there right from the get-go, or the creature will die.
Considering that these lifeforms are supposed to evolve into some better creature, how is it at all likely that two lifeforms could end up being compatible after evolution has taken place for any number of generations?
I'd recommend looking up Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution. There's blatant proof that there is indeed a grand creator. You've just gotta pay attention, putting two and two together. Then, it becomes obvious.
I watched that film. It was hilarious. The leaps (and failings) of logic and lack of understanding, misinterpretations, and complete denials of real, scientific truths almost literally had me rolling on the floor laughing.
By minute 10 I couldn't believe the amount of ludicrous bullshit I was hearing. Every claim made was tenuous at best and down-right idiotic at worst.
Blatant proof? It sure was. It was blatant proof of how ignorant the filmmaker(s) were.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Look, I don't care what religious belief you hold. That's irrelevant to me. What I DO care about is people spreading untruths and denying vast oceans of evidence that show the validity of certain scientific claims. Often simply because someone told those people a book written thousands of years ago (and rewritten and altered an untold number of times since then) says that science is "wrong".
The fact of the matter is, evolution is a real, quantifiable, natural process that virtually all organisms experience. The only; and I do mean only; thing that is up for debate is how and why evolution occurs.
The video was nonsense.Yet because there are some facts in it,it is swallowed whole.
You disagree with what life choice?
Satanism?Why?Based on your posts,I know you won't mind explaining.
I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.
Stoicism/piety and all that jazz.
Nonsense? That video was one of the most rational, level-headed, and informative videos I've ever seen on Youtube.
There was virtually no word that man spoke that didn't ring true in one form or another. He may have taken a few 'examples' to a level one might consider approaching extreme, but all-in-all, he made a lot of sense.
In fact, I think it bares reposting the video for more people to see:
Also, the sentence: "I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.", is the very definition oxymoronical. You are not an atheist if you believe there is or are a deity or deities. That makes you a theist.
Well okay, fair enough. But the difference is he no doubt put careful thought into them. I imagine it's more like what Schrödinger intended with his cat thought experiment. Whereas Creationists arguments aren't intended to answer anything or provoke thought, it's biased stuff that's meant to prove their religious views. If any of them are honest in what they think they're doing I think they have some big biases that would make it not so useful to listen to them.
The guy's name is Dolf Seilacher. A famous example of his type of questions is to present a typical Paleozoic fauna--you know, bryozoans, crinoids, brachiopods, a few cephalopods--and ask "What does this represent?" Obviously, it's a shallow marine system we all say. "How do you know?" That one took me a week to work out in grad school.
There have been some useful Creationist criticisms in the past--up until 1925 or so. Unfortunately, that's about it. The field no longer presents even entertaining criticisms of evolution.
Lugbzurg said:
Evolution says that little cells slowly evolved into complex lifeforms. Next, it says that these complex lifeforms start devolving into simpler lifeforms.
This is an over-simplification, to the point where it's nearly dishonest. Evolution more or less says that every line of organism is attempting multiple solutions to the problems presented in fitness space simultaneously. Some of these, yes, include simple organisms becoming more complex, and complex organisms becoming simpler (good luck quantifying that--I've seen attempts, and they've ALL failed). But that's not even half the picture. The ONLY way to build the model you've presented is to pick one twig at the most distal (recent) end of the evolution of life on Earth and say that it's evolution as such--a ridiculous notion, though a pervasive one.
You can't have a slowly-developing heart, brain, lung or any of that. There are several important parts that must all be there right from the get-go, or the creature will die.
Not even close to true. There are many types of circulatory systems, representing a fairly gradual transition from no circulatory system (Platihelmenti, for example) to open circulatory systems (Moluska) to the mammalian system. Seems to me I recall seeing snails meandering down my front porch earlier this week. As for brains, again, we've got quite a number of various types along a continuum, from neural nets (Cnideria) to ganglia (decapoda) to actual brains (vertebrates). Lungs are similar. And those are LIVING organisms--things that have retained the more primitive structures. You go deeper into the past and things get weird. The concept of "tissue" breaks down at a certain point.
This is nothing more than Irreducible Complexity in a cheap suit, and it fails for the same reasons.
Considering that these lifeforms are supposed to evolve into some better creature
No. POPULATIONS evolve such that their members are better suited for their LOCAL, CHANGING environments. "Better" is a constantly shifting target--that's what I meant when I described fitness space as boiling.
how is it at all likely that two lifeforms could end up being compatible after evolution has taken place for any number of generations?
This isn't even close to true. A detailed study of biology is required, and easily demonstrates the errors in this argument. And if someone's not willing to do that work, I have to wonder why they're engaging in this discussion in the first place.
And that there just kinda sums up how ridiculous the situation is, that an evolution thread is seen as a religion thread. It should be possible to discuss it without any religious connotations.
Because they don't like evolution's implications and how they don't fit in well with their world view (which is often informed with a religious creation story that doesn't match the known facts particularly well - which is no surprise given that our scientific knowledge about the world has grown exponentially as a species since the original people laid down their thoughts in paper).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
