Evolution Bashing Thread

[anagirl]

I would say that pupils are presented with the facts so that they come the necessary conclusions themselves.



I don't know how you were taught the sciences, but in my school-days we were taught by experiments and projects so we could discover and document scientific laws for ourselves. Would you not count that as "examination and discovery"?

 

[HelenL]

I'm afraid I wouldn't. There were set procedures to follow in order to get to the 'right' conclusion. There was no real examination and discovery as the whole point of the exercise was to prove Boyle's Laws (for example), or that black and white squares can, if enough are mounted on a pin, spin round in the sun.

There was no 'let's take this Magnesium, some phosphate, a bit of gunpowder, any one of those chemicals over there and set light to it' which would have been much more fun. Science at Hogwarts is about discovery Science at school is about learning facts and following rules.

 

[tes]

Natural Selection

 

[yahyamurtaza]

They need guidance to come to those conclusions; they're not going to figure out the laws of thermodynamics by themselves, for example.

Well, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure, but I think more likely you were told to expect the result in question. Even were that not the case, were you ever for example told to use an Ouija board, given an hour to play with it, and then had the ideomotor response explained to you?

 

[Allyssa]

I never claimed that they would. I was questioning your understanding of "critical thinking". Perhaps the natural sciences are not the best example. You said to me that the lack of belief in pure reason was a result of a poor education system. What would you say to the numerous philosophers who have challenged human reason and its ability to allow humanity access to the ultimate truth?

The belief that reason is fundamentally flawed is, and has been, held by some rather erudite and intelligent people.

 

[Flutterbies]

Clearly, I disagree with the notion that reason is fundamentally flawed; surely that very staement is a non sequitur?
Critical thinking is the rational analysis of phenomena; a classic example was the astrologer in Australia who said that more youthful Gemini drivers suffer accidents, so clearly Gemini was a bad sign to be born under for driving. Then a critical thinker pointed out that kids tend to get their driving licences ASAP, and June is Australia is the wettest (monsoon) month, so all they had really found was a correlation between birth month and climactic conditions. That's critical thinking; looking for a rational explanation, rather than a supernatural (astrological, "god did it") one.
If you want me to rant about the flaws in the education system, I'm more than willing (of course!), but it would need another thread. Perhaps you'd like to start it?

 

[x_emo_x]

No thanks.

I know what you think critical thinking is - I'm just wondering whether you've ever once considered that there might be things that reason and critical thinking can never explain.

 

[dudeguy13]

Well, bit of a sidetrack, eh guys? I've noticed none of the creationists have been back for awhile. I'll be posting my replies later, just taking a break now.

 

[WishfulSpirit]

Yeah you've got a point. Back to evolution.

those monkeys eh? they dont look like us do they? oh no.

there, thats my argument.

 

[gennelson]

Hugh,

That logic is infallible. You win.

I can no longer argue such impenetrable wisdom.

 

[frankS]

Goodness, so much to respond to....I havent been on a lot so I missed a lot here, sorry I did skim and read just about every post so far tho' I have a question for all. Ok, before we go any further, can we at least agree on the fact that everything was created and there wasnt just a big bang explosion that started everything....can we at least agree on that there was a creator involved here? That created all life even if things did (once created) began to evolve, can we agree on that much. And then I'll pick up from there Or disagree
But when I think of evolution, there is the theory that sticks in my mind concerning the "Big Bang" theory that just totally pushes the idea of a creator out of the picture, and that much is just unbelievable, to say that everything is just as it is, and for no reason, and no one created it to be so.....wouldn't you think???

 

[SteveA8]

You've seen my avatar right?

 

[cgeb]

I disagree.

If there was a creator - who created the creator?

 

[riddlemethat777]

Who created the creator.....don't know....and a question we may never know, and maybe a question we don't need to know but maybe he always existed He is alpha and omega

But to say there is no creator that started it all just doesnt make sesnse to me. It had to start from somewhere. There is no way an explosion in space could have done all this. But even if it was a big explosion that did all this, then what caused the explosion? what was it that exploded? Wouldn't someone have had to create that too? If there was no creator of something, then there couldn't have even been an explosion, because then there would have been nothing there to have exploded. There would just be nothingness, no matter no attoms no nothing. So therefore there must have been a creator some where right???

 

[kippertothecup]

I'm not too sure how I gave a statement of belief (Never used the words "I believe" in that specific post.) But, you still don't seem to grasp the concept.

LilBunnyRabbit and Kimpatsu have both posted good replies that you still have not answered. Instead of repeating their excellent points, I'll let you answer those before we go on. Frankly, I'm getting frustrated with your unwillingness to look at fact, but that's alright. I'll let you circle their questions for awhile. And no offense, you're a nice guy from what I gather, but your questions have been very circular, despite my multiple attempts to break the problem down further and further.

Yama Tombo - I'm not done with you yet.


No. No I wasn't. I'll try to break this down a little more. I know the english language can be challenging.

I was referring to the fact that you contradicted yourself in your own post. I'm going to restructure that little segment so you know what I'm talking about.


I'm not sure. Why don't you answer your own question?

Good work Yama. Thanks for doing my job for me. Everything after that is the part that comes out of a grade 11 biology textbook, where you learn about how energy transfer occurs in some cells. None of that does anything to help your point though. As a matter of fact, by posting it, you agree with me somewhat.



I'll defer to LilBunnyRabbit on this one, since he did such a good job of explaining the answer. For those who haven't read it, it's post #98. Check it out. As a side note to that point, it's pretty easy to dredge up whatever useless facts you want to try to back up basically any claim you want, provided someone "important" made it, oh say, about 1900 years ago and wrote it down.

I'll say it again. Believe what you want, but don't try to deny the science just based on your faith. If you want to discuss science, let's stick to that.

 

[AbercrombieGirl]

Somewhere in the very long "God" thread I set forth my assertion that (1) something is eternal, and (2) this eternal thing is our creator (we came from it, somehow), and (3) therefore, in the interest of simplicity, we could call this eternal thing "god," and (4) therefore, our debate is not really on whether "god" (that eternal thing) exists, because it does exist and we came from it, but rather, our debate concerns the characteristics of this "god."

This "god" for atheists is matter. Matter must be eternal. It has no creator.

 

[onederful2nite]

Have a look at theories on time being the fourth dimension or something like that, and things like that. Basically they treat time as a finite thing, and in theory it allows for time travel. Check out string theory too.

 

[Keaton]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it can't be true.

Wow. Excellent, excellent point aikiMac. You have defined this discussion at a much deeper level. I suppose now that the characteristic under debate here is whether creation was consciously (At some level) and intentionally created by a "creator". This debate really transcends the whole scientific thing and simplifies it quite effectively to what each individual believes.

I believe that it was not intentional, and that "the watchmaker is blind", as Kimpatsu likes to quote. By the way, I'll be looking for that book sometime soon. It sounds interesting. Others believe that creation was intentional. That's fine. That is each individual person's prerogative. However, the issue with me begins when people deny the scientific base behind evolution. That's when I feel the need to debate.

 

[victor_smg]

Examples:
1) "Start with a single light-sensitive cell, and within half a million years (which is peanuts on the geologic scale), you'll have a fully functioning eye."

Ohhh ... so I just wait around, and wait, and wait, and then I'll have an eye. Hmm. I don't know anyone who's 0.5 million years old, do you? This is a statement of faith conceptually the same as a belief that God did it way back in time when none of us were alive to see him do it.


2) "Then, as the organism in question evolves, the "scaffolding" that supported the unnecessary addition atrophies to nothing, so the mutation now becomes essential."

To say "it evolves" does not answer my question. I was looking for the "how" of how it evolved. This statement is conceptually the same as saying "God made it that way in the first place."


3) "Let's say that genetic mutation causes 1 out of every 1000 creatures to develop a crude lens."

Again, my question was how the lens came to be. This is conceptually the same as saying, "Poof, God put the lens there whole in the first place."

Thanks for the talks, Coffin, but I don't think any of us really know it happened. I'll go off and chase other threads for awhile now.

 

[Babis]

exactly....good point that should go also for this



Many people do not understand the "FACT" That there is a creator, so they try with their flawed human minds to come up with theories on top of theories trying to solve. it pushing away the one fact, that there is a creator that started everything............ Science is good, yet science and the scientists have many flaws, only because they are human therefore they can't help it. There is a creator, some scientists don't understand this, so they make up evolution to try and help them understand, but that doesn't mean that it (a creator) can't be true.