The misinterpretation of evolution
- Thread starter Flac00
- Start date
Actually, it's more like 35%, Richard Dawkins said so recently when he was evaluating the Republican Presidential candidiates. It's even grimmer than it seems. I agree with your argument and it's getting worse in places like Texas where they are actually teaching misinformation to children. I got this all from Reddit lol.Flac00 said:
How is it science? What research has been done on the subject? What peer reviewed journals have had entries on it? What major scientific establishments have acknowledged it as a science? It is just one big argument from ignorance. It isn't science.Forlong said:
Michael Behe, the leading scientist behind it, has acknowledged that you would have to completely redefine the definition of "science" for ID to even try to qualify.
@The-Epicly-Named-Man
You mean kids in the US aren't taught Evolutionism in some schools?
How do they teach biology?
You mean kids in the US aren't taught Evolutionism in some schools?
How do they teach biology?
such a good game!Dimitriov said:Everything I know about evolution I learned from this game:
This is how mammals superseded the reptiles!
Educational stuff
'intelligent design' doesn't explain the microbes on mars, or any of the UNintelligent designs in this world... if i were religious i would be reluctant to believe the 'we were made as us' part, because we have flaws ourself, and if we were created in the image of a perfect being, then we ought to be perfect beings, just less powerful, but we are not perfect, so we can't have been made in the image of a perfect being, and it can't be a ;mistake' on the part of this perfect being, because if you are perfect then you can't make mistakes, as that is one of the human imperfectionsDann661 said:
Well to respond in kind, thank you for showing what someone pretending to have read the source provided would look like. Did you perhaps miss the little detail of Kizmiller v. Dover? You know, where the term was first really examined and was overwhelmingly demonstrated to be the same concepts used in Creationism presented in a more PC form? Did you also miss the part where the flagship book for the concept was quite literally first made as a creationist textbook and the bulk of the changes made to it were changing most instances of 'creationism' to 'intelligent design', 'creationist' to 'design proponent' and one particularly damning error which had the end result being 'cdesign proponentists'? Perhaps you also missed the Wedge Document saying in no uncertain terms that the entire purpose of the Intelligent Design movement was to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"?Forlong said:
Incidentally, you might want to take a look at a little ditty called Expelled exposed. Expelled was a very intellectually dishonest film which rehashed some of the more outlandish logical fallacies to ever disgrace the movement.
I learned that tapping B stops evolution,some creatures only evolve when given rocks,and others only evolve when given to someone else. Which is difficult if none of your friends have Gameboys.
This thread needs some clarifications. First Intelligent Design isn't just Creationism.
Creationism falls mostly in to two subsets. God created humanity as it is today, and God created life and made the rules of evolution. Neither is testable because they both require leaps of faith. This does not however make creationism invalid because it comes down to personal faith. If you insult someone for personal faith you're just as much of an idiot as you claim they are.
Second Intelligent Design covers subjects like the Hypothesis of Extraterrestrial design of humans. In such cases as a highly evolved race that lived on earth perhaps millions of years ago, or non earth originated animal life created us. Both cases are untestable unless we find significant fossil, or archeological proof, or if we encounter such species. If we do find a alien race that claims to have built us they'd better have proof of such.
Third is that Darwin did not build the theory of evolution, his contribution was natural selection which is discredited. Evolution can not be proven because we have never witnessed it actually happening. On top of that there are so many holes in the fossil record that as much as 99% of life that ever lived on earth, left no trace on the earth. That is why there are "missing links."
None of these hypotheses, theories, or faiths are yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There just isn't enough solid fact to prove any of these. So it is indeed up to each person's individual view. Personally for me I believe that it's most likely that an extraterrestrial race designed us for what ever purpose they had. Be it leaving their own imprint across the galaxy, making reliably intelligent workers, or simply just being able to say they did it. But it can't be proven true of false now, maybe in the future it can, but now it's still just a thought. As are Creationism and Evolution. For all we know they could all be somewhat correct.
Creationism falls mostly in to two subsets. God created humanity as it is today, and God created life and made the rules of evolution. Neither is testable because they both require leaps of faith. This does not however make creationism invalid because it comes down to personal faith. If you insult someone for personal faith you're just as much of an idiot as you claim they are.
Second Intelligent Design covers subjects like the Hypothesis of Extraterrestrial design of humans. In such cases as a highly evolved race that lived on earth perhaps millions of years ago, or non earth originated animal life created us. Both cases are untestable unless we find significant fossil, or archeological proof, or if we encounter such species. If we do find a alien race that claims to have built us they'd better have proof of such.
Third is that Darwin did not build the theory of evolution, his contribution was natural selection which is discredited. Evolution can not be proven because we have never witnessed it actually happening. On top of that there are so many holes in the fossil record that as much as 99% of life that ever lived on earth, left no trace on the earth. That is why there are "missing links."
None of these hypotheses, theories, or faiths are yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There just isn't enough solid fact to prove any of these. So it is indeed up to each person's individual view. Personally for me I believe that it's most likely that an extraterrestrial race designed us for what ever purpose they had. Be it leaving their own imprint across the galaxy, making reliably intelligent workers, or simply just being able to say they did it. But it can't be proven true of false now, maybe in the future it can, but now it's still just a thought. As are Creationism and Evolution. For all we know they could all be somewhat correct.
We are a type 1 civilization....meaning we have a long way to go before everyone is easy going about the complexity behind our coming into being on this mammal train. Apparently our only type 2 feature is Rock n Roll culture..which rock n rollers understand among each other...a global culture.
I go mushroom hunting in the Autumn(yes, in the Autumn, heh), and I find these Pacific golden Chanterelles, which is like a sturgeon, or a cockroach..or another organism that has stayed with an unchanging form for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time( didn't know the specific millions or billions for those fungus, fish and insects)
As for Social Darwinism and it's potential ugly face. In our brave new future...there are all sorts of struggles sure to come, but it all get's put on it's face when you have physically beautiful idiots and physically repellent genius, and of course vice versa.
It also be seen that seeing our own origins outside the box is impossible maybe...because humans have put their population centers in the lie of volcanoes, on land scoured flat by hurricanes, and right on fault lines....in the relatively quiet times before civilization smashing events....a blink in time for a mountain....a thousand generations of people. This shows that we cannot see our precise place in the scheme of "thing" "s"
I recommend the wild speculation about evolution by the science fiction/philosophy writer Colin Wilson.....for the more adventurous and less stuffy exploring minds.
I go mushroom hunting in the Autumn(yes, in the Autumn, heh), and I find these Pacific golden Chanterelles, which is like a sturgeon, or a cockroach..or another organism that has stayed with an unchanging form for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time( didn't know the specific millions or billions for those fungus, fish and insects)
As for Social Darwinism and it's potential ugly face. In our brave new future...there are all sorts of struggles sure to come, but it all get's put on it's face when you have physically beautiful idiots and physically repellent genius, and of course vice versa.
It also be seen that seeing our own origins outside the box is impossible maybe...because humans have put their population centers in the lie of volcanoes, on land scoured flat by hurricanes, and right on fault lines....in the relatively quiet times before civilization smashing events....a blink in time for a mountain....a thousand generations of people. This shows that we cannot see our precise place in the scheme of "thing" "s"
I recommend the wild speculation about evolution by the science fiction/philosophy writer Colin Wilson.....for the more adventurous and less stuffy exploring minds.
You know, in retrospect I'm surprised that TalkOrigins good old Index to Creationist Claims hasn't popped up yet. That's about as comprehensive a list of misconcpetions about evolution (and the rebuttals to them) as you get.
Hold the fucking phone. I'll ignore the rest of your post. This, however, needs addressing. Immediately.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
See, you I like. I'm an Atheist myself, but I don't mind you being Christian, believing what you think is 'the right explanation' (just to put it simply, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but just to make this easy, and not a 3 paragraph explanation about all this.). The best part here I think is that you don't mind what others think.Dann661 said:
aside from that... I don't know. Evolution is just quite a difficult thing to grasp. It happens over the course of so long, that you will hardly notice anything of it. The only thing you can possibly see happening in your lifetime is social evolution... but that's a completely different story.
The way I go about it is I'm a Christian and there are a lot of things about my religion that make legitimate sense, but others that don't. So when I see things like fossils, i wont throw away the idea of evolution because hell, its proof. But I still believe in my religion, so my theory is just it doesn't make sense and I'm cool with that. No one actually knows how the beginning of humanity began and the truth of it may very well be that no one will. So arguing about it isn't going to make a difference because I think if humans ever do find the answer, it probably will not make sense, and possibly come off as stupid which could lead to it being denied. Seeing as that is not yet the case, everyone's opinion is literally a guess and just depends on a person's respective belief. So I really don't care about each persons ignorance because it might as well make as much sense as my own belief, and to each man his own.
Edit: With that said, I find knowledge and discussion to be enlightening so while arguing and throwing a fit may be pointless, discussing it still has its value.
Edit: With that said, I find knowledge and discussion to be enlightening so while arguing and throwing a fit may be pointless, discussing it still has its value.
Wikipedia isn't a scientific source, and is considered generally unreliable as a source for information because of how many people can, and do edit it. You want a source, visit the nearest university, visit the library and Biology department there. I'm no scientist, scholar, professor, or expert on the subject. But this is what I learned in Biology class. Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection, and he was pretty close, but missed the target.RedEyesBlackGamer said: