You sure you aren't thinking about Theistic Evolution rather than Intelligent Design? Because it kinda sounds like it.Mimsofthedawg said:
The misinterpretation of evolution
- Thread starter Flac00
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How so? Because all I see is people being corrected and educated on what evolution is and how it works. You are implying anti-theistic behavior, right? Just so we are clear.dantoddd said:
Its funny how when experts are divided on an particular topic its the ones that disagree with your opinions that must be wrong or uneducated.
This isnt highschool science we're talking about here this is the real deal. Im not gonna go all out because this is a public forum but if you wanna argue your point then back it up. Just parroting 'its already been proven' or 'everyone believes in it' isnt gonna make it true. You need legitimate experimental evidence found in journal articles not wikipedia websites.
Ill get you started. Explain to me how the process of glycolysis came about through darwinian processes. Try & consider the massive hurdles involved.
Oh & dont give me just so excuses. Only Creationists can use miracles as a valid explanation in accordance with their paradigm.
This isnt highschool science we're talking about here this is the real deal. Im not gonna go all out because this is a public forum but if you wanna argue your point then back it up. Just parroting 'its already been proven' or 'everyone believes in it' isnt gonna make it true. You need legitimate experimental evidence found in journal articles not wikipedia websites.
Ill get you started. Explain to me how the process of glycolysis came about through darwinian processes. Try & consider the massive hurdles involved.
Oh & dont give me just so excuses. Only Creationists can use miracles as a valid explanation in accordance with their paradigm.
Minus the whole 'there's no proof and we might as well start teaching the other side of EVERYTHING that doesn't have facts to back it up'.JamesWebber said:
After all, it's only according to SOME that The Holocaust happened - there' still a theory out there that it was all an elaborate hoaxes.
We should teach both sides, just to be fair.
You might like this:tanis1lionheart said:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/
Because geocentricism deserves equal time, dang it!
Anywho, it isn't supporters of evolution who need to pony up evidence. They have, a lot of it. Isn't it your turn, ID supporters? And don't try to poke holes in evolution. That does nothing to prove your idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
as an agnostic i agree with the bunch of people that say there could be a god behind it but there is proof of evolution and all that so no big deal. i also spend a good ammount of my time being an unemployed lazy person arguing with religious wingnuts and the idea i get from how they understand evolution is what i call the "pokemon evolution" the idea that one day a bunch of monkeys just transformed into humans. and there is a dent in my table from the ammount of times i have had to explain that it would take millions of years
How about this, instead of giving the old run-around of "Prove this and now this...and when you're done prove this this this and that too", the lack of any of which would only show an area that needs further study rather than an actual contradiction (On a tangent it's worth noting that the phrase "we don't know" doesn't mean something "can't be explained", it means "we don't know", nothing more, nothing less, so the old 'you can't explain X' line is rather pointless to begin with) why don't you go ahead and tell me which of the following statements you disagree with?darkstarangel said:
1) Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
2) Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
3) Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
4) A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
5) Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
6) Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
7) Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
8) This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).
Unless you can show some concrete evidence against the theory of evolution: yes. You are.darkstarangel said:
Wikipedia is a good enough source for when people know nothing at all about the subject at hand, which is very much the case here. Not perfect, but good enough.
No. Because even if I or somebody else would explain it, you'd just go to the next pathway which you don't understand. I'm a scientist; 'we don't know yet' is a perfectly valid answer. This is a major argument from ignorance.
Derp. If you really think 'god did it' is a valid scientific explanation (good luck testing that one!), everyone debating with you is wasting their time.
Just some food for thought, not trying to offend.kouriichi said:
OT: For me personally, I rarely hear arguments for creationism outside of the internet. I checked the numbers for how many people belief in evolution here in Australia and almost 80% go with evolution. So I don't hear it much but intelligent design and evolution can co-exists peacefully honestly. One's science and one's a belief so you can't compare something so different like that.
I'm doing BioInformatics (in the context of evolution) at Uni and to put it nicely it is a MASSIVE *****. The Computer Science and Algorithm Design is complex, nasty and ugly let alone trying to teach us the Biology of it all.hannan4mitch said:
TBH, anyone who comes on a forum and spouts about how wrong people are about evolution is probably wrong themselves.
---
I think most people choose to misunderstand evolution, because its not "complete" so to speak.
This!Vindictus said:
The thing that confuses me about the creationists is that they are only pushing for their (usualy christian) version, do they also support teaching the muslim version, hindu version, greek gods version, aztech version, Incan version, norse version, cherokee verion, zulu version and so on? I shall have to stop there because there are a lot more.
They are all as equaly valid as the pushed creationist christians, so would you support "teaching the controversy" when it comes to creation stories? Aferall there is no consensus at all, just go look up how many diffrent ones there are!
Clearly you would support teaching all of them and letting the kids decide which is correct aye?
Here's the thing: if someone hasn't done enough research to learn what the basic terms mean, then I have reason to assume they don't know what any of the more complex stuff means. Someone who thinks evolution can be disregarded as "just a theory" probably doesn't even know about (let alone understand)things like the Hardy-Weinberg Equation. Yet these people routinely get pissy when the people who HAVE done the research don't accept their arguments. They can't do the most basic research, but they want to be seen as experts on the subject. It doesn't work like that. When they can demonstrate that they know what they're talking about, then we can worry about how good their logic is.Tin Man said:
And admitting it earns you huge bonus points. Of course, you didn't start out from the position of trying to discredit evolution, so it's not as surprising that you would admit to being wrong. It's the Creationists who seem incapable of acknowledging that they aren't experts on all things science-related.
I've done enough internet debating to know when to walk away, trust me. This is just something that's come up often enough to make me really want to know what the hell is going on inside these people's heads. I can't fathom how someone can be shown that they got basic facts wrong, but still think they know enough about the subject to say the experts are wrong.
That was inevitable. People who who don't know about evolution were bound to come into a thread titled: "The misinterpretation of evolution". Intelligent Design is viewed as a simpler and more religious friendly alternative to evolution. Insert conflict. Hopefully, a lot of users will leave more educated then when they came in. That is the most important thing. If that wasn't the goal, then this would just be pointless preaching to the choir.dantoddd said: