Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Avalanche91]

I know its against the rules stated by the OP, but I'm not even 30 minutes into the video and my facepalm-o-meter is already nearing the max potential.

I am sorry, but I can not see creatonism as a science, and this guy is literally talking out of his ass..

The guy claims we have no evidence for the evolution theory, and claims scholars are willfully ignorant of the facts.......
.......I
........what?

I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad. Is this guy for real? SERIOUSLY? This goes beyond projecting, this is just flinging his own shit.


My apologies for merely critiquing the source material used in the OP. My intention was merely to point out the extreme contradictions in the lecture given by a spokesperson of the creationist side of the argument. In my experience evolution theories tend to give more plausible scenario's and some actual facts instead of speculation, denial and hot air.

that was all.

 

[zakkro]

Yes, I have. I'd argue that a lot of people who do see a pattern emerge, though: all, or most of, the evidence put forth by creationists (more specifically the ID proponents) are really there to discredit evolution, not help prove their own point. They have it set up so that the only two possible choices are their side, or evolution, which is a fallacy onto itself, and is amazingly transparent.

 

[Evidencebased]

Seriously, I would honestly love to see one piece of this so-called "evidence" for Creationism. It doesn't even have to come from the OP -- who apparently gives zero shits about their own topic and is just asking for PMs ad nauseum -- but any "evidence" from anyone would be great.

Evidence?

Anyone?

...Bueller?

 

[karamazovnew]

Back in my believer age, I used to read a lot about, well, everything. There were a bunch of books dealing with both sides of evolution and creation. And even as a faithful, I thought that the creationist books were a bunch of utter crap. I began seeing Darwin's evolution theory as true while reading books which said he was wrong, how messed up is that? I now regard Darwin to be the biggest genius of all times, surpassing Einstein in improving our understanding about how everything works.

But a fun thing about being a reformed atheist(although I coin the phrase "agnosto-spiritual polideist") is that you can then read religious texts and understand them for the first time. The Bible is a splendid read once you start from scratch. The New Testament in particular is just... wow. Arm yourself with a few history books about life in Roman Judeea and you finally begin to understand the Bible. Yeap, everything there is true, although not in the way you might think. "He that hears let him hear, and he that understandeth let him understand". Best book ever written.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Science is about cosmic order.

Faith is about cosmic purpose.

The truly enlightened mind can embrace both without conflict.

EDIT: ...that came off as reallly judgemental, so allow me to amend. What I'm trying to say is that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, nor does one have to shoehorned in order to fit with the other.

It baffles me that so many of the faithful are so willfully ignorant on matters of history and science, driving themselves to a closed-minded isular community that does nothing but hurt the most basic tenets of faith.

It equally baffles me that so many atheists decry the "closed-minded creationists" of the world while they are, simultaneously, some of the most closed-minded people I've ever encountered, shutting out any possibility of a supernatural power at work in universe and using flimsy psuedo-scientific arguments to "prove it."

 

[evilneko]

/ThreadHop [small]As if it weren't obvious[/small]

I'm going to have to say no, because there isn't any.

Now if you ask if I've looked at the pseudoscience, misinterpretations, logical fallacies, and lies that creationists claim is evidence, then yes I have.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I don't think Creationists understand science very well. You can't experiment on hypotheses that don't have a condition in which they are false. The very notion of untruths being morally reprehensible is antithetical to the scientific process for this simple fact.

Also, why can't we poke holes in the evidence you presented us? That's what science is for: poking holes in (disproving) every goddamn thing until we find the things we can't poke holes in, which we accept as fact, until we figure out new methods of hole-poking.

 

[CityofTreez]

In the primary schools around here, from the ages of 4 up to 11 we are taught about Christianity.

They teach us all about Creation, and since we knew nothing to begin with we accept this as complete truth. Well I say "teach us ABOUT", it's more like "Tell us". They don't present it as a theory, or as something that might have happened. They tell us that it DID happen. We had to pray several times a day and also recite hymns.

So everyone around this area grows up being a Creationist really. We have science lessons about nature and our bodies, but the subject of the universe and creation is avoided really.

What I'm trying to say is, what actual research can be done on Creationism? I became interested in science quickly after leaving that cult (oops, school) and made a decision to believe in science and facts. I looked at Evolution and it seemed like a great theory with plenty of accumulating evidence to support it.

So having spent the first half of my life as a Creationist, I think that qualifies as research. Since there is no physical evidence for creation, it is kind of hard to research - unless you are talking about researching other people's theories on creation.

To sum up, I did give creation a chance. I didn't have a choice while learning about creation, but I made a choice to believe in science when I was 12. Some of my old school friends still are creationists, and that's fine.

I was in the same situation as you growing up. Went to school in a hard right creationist christian school (cult..)

I was taught that we were supposed to take the bible literal, they taught the earth was only 6,000 years old and all that jazz. When they did talk about evolution, they went to the childish argument "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are we giving birth to humans and not monkeys?" /facedesk

Thankfully, I reached the age of sanity before it was too late for me.

 

[yookiwooki]

I'm sorry, I really tried to make it through the video, I really did. I could only make it like 6 minutes in.

 

[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!