Why do people reject evolution?

[HalfTangible]

Several reasons.

1) The false assumption this can be observed over a short period of time. (hint: it generally can't)

2) The false assumption that it contradicts any form of diety (hint: it doesn't) from atheists and theists alike. This one REALLY bugs the heck out of me just because of how hostile and senseless it is. A wise theist once said, "I love Darwin. He was the first to look under the hood and try and see how god makes things work."

... Granted, he was a TV character, but it's still a good quote!

3) The fact that this makes humanity look less awesome and more mundane. You'd be surprised how many people assume humanity is destined to be the superior being just because of our intelligence.

4) A bit minor - Pokemon gives a false representation of evolution (it's more like a metamorphosis in that game) as something that very quickly turns one thing into another thing.

5) The word 'theory' (Evolution IS a theory - don't deny it) has a false representation in public consciousness. Generally people think it means something that makes sense but has little to no proof, even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

6) Theists and Atheists don't get along on pretty much anything related to whether or not a god exists (just read the OP and you'll see evidence of THAT - seriously, you're being very hostile) and for some reason Evolution has become one of those things, despite the fact that, as I said in #2, evolution and a divine being are not ideas that contradict each other. Unless you MAKE them.

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve.

But that's just silly. If Adam and Eve were the first and only two people of whom humanity descends then EVERYBODY must logically be able to trace their heritage back to them. Even more so if you consider the mathematics behind genealogy where even going back to the 13th century everybody must statistically be related to Charlemagne.
<youtube=e3sTzLXtojo>

And I won't even go into why the whole notion of "biblical evidence" is dishonest and unscientific.

on a side note why do people start these threads they ALWAYS end in flame wars...

This isn't /b/, we do have moderational supervision. I also find posts tend to go more towards the flame side when a) people don't even read the thread or try to argue anything but simply see the topic and think they are original for posting anti-religious one liners on the tenth page or b) discussion value goes down for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

"Technically, yes. But how many cultures actually /do/?" is the main point there. While technically speaking everybody SHOULD be able to trace their lineage to the first humans, practically speaking, nobody does.

 

[Quaxar]

Maybe we should secretly find a way to grow a human fetus inside a female ape, then gift the pregnant ape to a zoo. That oughta shut some up.

I'm pretty sure that if you could actually pull this off that the exact opposite would happen due to the number of ethics concerns and frankenpeople hysteria as we have seen in both genetically modified food and attempts to genetically engineer pigs so that their organs would be compatible with humans for organ transplantation.

No, I meant it in the sense of providing "evidence" against creationists by making the old "monkey giving birth to a human" dream come true. I bet you that would get some propaganda experts really puzzled, just the problem of what to do with the rational people.

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve.

But that's just silly. If Adam and Eve were the first and only two people of whom humanity descends then EVERYBODY must logically be able to trace their heritage back to them. Even more so if you consider the mathematics behind genealogy where even going back to the 13th century everybody must statistically be related to Charlemagne.

I'm confused as to what your trying to argue.

My point was that because the lineage recorded in the Bible was so short, it does not allow for more than 20,000 years. Thus for a literalist interpration by a believer, the Earth could not not be more than 20,000 years.

I'm sorry, I might have misunderstood you. I was under the impression that somehow there was a claim that only the Jews had a heritage from A&E. Might have misread.

Several reasons.

1) The false assumption this can be observed over a short period of time. (hint: it generally can't)

But... it can. Multiple people (including me) have provided several sources of observed evolution, even including drastic changes generally categorized as "macroevolution". Only problem is that only counts for species with rapid reproduction cycles because nobody wants to bother with a 20-years generation rate so the often asked-for "monkey to human" or "fish to human" experiments are kinda tricky.

2) The false assumption that it contradicts any form of diety (hint: it doesn't) from atheists and theists alike. This one REALLY bugs the heck out of me just because of how hostile and senseless it is.

No, it doesn't indeed. But I reckon it's not the contradiction but more the fact that there's no need for any deity that creeps them out.

5) The word 'theory' (Evolution IS a theory - don't deny it) has a false representation in public consciousness. Generally people think it means something that makes sense but has little to no proof, even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

That's why we need a scientific law of evolution.
Darwin's law of change over time to fit the current environment has a certain ring. And most importantly the word "law" in it.

 

[wulf3n]

So I answered:

But I'll play along. What questions doesn't evolution answer?

At that point, you answered with the current line of talk. Now you're changing your story. Dude, seriously, don't try and change your argument when one can simply follow the links back.

ok. let's do that.

And yet, as soon as someone questions said theory or asks for evidence, you just say they're wrong and must believe in creationism rather than you know provide evidence or admit that the theory of evolution doesn't answer 100% of it's questions.

Note how I'm not saying evolution is wrong, or that I believe it is wrong. I did incorrectly single you out which i've already admitted was incorrect.

then you said.

But I'll play along. What questions doesn't evolution answer? What evidence do I specifically need to provide? Perhaps I can actually help you here by providing something you seem to be missing heavily.

I've bolded the section to which I was referring when I responded with.

How non-beneficial (but not detrimental) mutations propagate through a species?

I was under the impression you were also sick of this pointless conversation in which neither of us really seem to understand what the other is saying, so I attempted to move on to have something about evolution I don't understand explained.

with which you responded.

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?

Which didn't really answer my question, so I attempted to clarify myself better by providing an example of how I came to my question.

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.

then you replied.

Again, using single instances (unlikely) and assuming both complete lack of beneficial status and a static "mutation."

So what you're saying is, if you incredibly contrive an unlikely circumstance and assume linear math where it does not apply, things look bad.

You're asking me to defend why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain" something that doesn't happen in nature as you describe it happening in nature as you describe it. Doesn't this seem a little dishonest to you? If not, would it not benefit you to do some research on genetics and heredity before calling it a wash?

So instead of just saying "That's not how things happen in nature" and then explain what does happen, like

...

you imply that I intentionally created an incorrect scenario with which to disprove evolution.

Besides I never asked you to defend, merely explain, and I never stated the question was something evolution failed to explain.

See, you're not directly stating that I've said anything of the sort, but you're using it as a counterweight to the notion that I'm putting words in your mouth. That's dishonest, and you're essentially propping up your claim that I'm putting words in yuor mouth by putting words in my mouth.

Ok, what you said:

You're asking me to defend.

why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain"

before calling it a wash?

None of which I believe I have said. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

And yet, the reason you accused me of calling you a creationist was your sentiment that you didn't believe or disbelieve. I made an ICP reference, you went on a tirade about us evolutionists, you claimed you weren't talking about me specifically, and here we are.

To which I've already admitted was incorrect of me and apologised for.

I apologise, that wasn't directed just at you, and was more of a reactionary statement.

It seemed obvious to me, I'll endeavour to be more specific in the future.

And now we get back to the initial argument all those pages ago. Once again i've simply asked a question, and instead of answering it, you've just said I'm doing it wrong, and implied some devious scheme to undermine evolution.

I did neither of the above.

The "you're wrong". Would have been a fair enough assessment had you actually explained what exactly made it wrong.

Again, using single instances (unlikely) and assuming both complete lack of beneficial status and a static "mutation."

So what you're saying is, if you incredibly contrive an unlikely circumstance and assume linear math where it does not apply, things look bad.

And then you go on to say I fabricated a scenario as an attempt to say evolution is incorrect calling it "wash".

You're asking me to defend why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain" something that doesn't happen in nature as you describe it happening in nature as you describe it. Doesn't this seem a little dishonest to you? If not, would it not benefit you to do some research on genetics and heredity before calling it a wash?

I asked you what evolution didn't answer. You gave an example. I asked why that example would be an issue. You instead of answering affirmatively, tried to give a contrived example of what you meant, with no regard as to any real reason it wouldn't work.

I was merely trying to explain my initial question as it appeared you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

You had ample opportunities to say something like "it doesn't make sense to me," or "I don't know." But you were asked what it didn't explain, and you gave this example. Not "what don't you understand," but "what doesn't this explain?"

Incorrect I was asked:

Perhaps I can actually help you here by providing something you seem to be missing heavily.

I don't recall ever saying evolution didn't explain any of the questions I have about it, just that I had questions about it. I didn't feel it necessary to clarify like you suggested as I never said anything to the contrary.

I let you slide a few earlier times on shifting your argument, but now you're trying to change the crux.

I would really like to see where you feel I've "Shifted my argument".

 

[Dinwatr]

5) The word 'theory' (Evolution IS a theory - don't deny it)

Not quite. There's the FACT of evolution--the observed changes in populations through time (yes, we HAVE observed it; we've even observed speciation). Then there's the THEORY of evolution--how those changes occur. It's a bit cumbersome to use the same word for both, but the people who made the terms love linguistic tricks (learn Latin and study taxonomy for a few laughs).

even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

That's wrong. A theory is merely a coherent explanation for something. Number theory is a theory. Germ theory is a theory. Heliocentrism is a theory (no, they don't have to be true; they merely have to be coherent). That's why "It's only a theory" is such an annoying phrase--EVERY explanation is a theory. It can't be anything BUT a theory. It's not me saying that, either--it's a scientist working at a respected university.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM

A better question is, WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT EVOLUTION?

Because it's probably the single-most well-supported theory in science.

But okay, you want to know why? Here are a few references to examine:

Postcranial Adaptation in Nonhuman Primates
The Dinosauria (third edition)
Tertiary Mammals of North America
Animal Skulls
Mammology (fifth edition, I believe)
Earth: A Portrait of a Planet
Evolution: Triumph of an Idea (I'll grant that the title is a bit grandeous, but it's a college-level textbook on the subject)
Future Evolution
Vertebrate Evolution
Life History of a Fossil

Bear in mind that's just a portion of my private stash of books, the ones I can get to without standing up (I have bad eyes; call it the ones within six feet of me). If your question is honest, read those--or their equivalents--and you'll see the reasons laid out before you. These are my technical references (with the exception of two university-level textbooks and one exceedingly well-referenced book by one of my favorite paleontologists); these are what professionals in the relevant fields use as evidence.

If you REALLY want to get down to the nitty-gritty details I have a reference on decapod evolutionary patterns that you and I can rip apart together. I'd love to see you counter the arguments made in that book. Unfortunately, you'll have to read a number of the above references to understand it. No offense to you, it's just that discussions of this type get pretty detailed, and you need to know certain jargon to keep up.

Or more to the point, why should I accept what you have to say on the matter?

Well, I'm paid for my opinion on paleontology, so I'm an expert. This is what I DO. I'll grant you that my biochem is a tad weak and I'm not up on the latest on epigenetics at all, but when it comes to offering sufficient proof of evolution I'm more than qualified. My field studies how it happened, after all.

Secondly, don't believe what I have to say on the matter. Those books up there--and any half-way descent book on the subject--will point you to where you can find the facts out for yourself. I've studied them. Hell, I've held them in my hands. One of the most profound moments in my life was holding a member of the Ediacaran fauna, and another was finding the proof that I had in fact found a transitional species (the orbit of a decapod the size of your pencil eraser--the CRAB was that size, not his eye. Walked straight into a door because I simply didn't see it). But don't take my word for it. If you want to see the evidence for yourself, the evidence of my field is out there for you to look at. It'll take some effort, though. Fossils tend to not be found real close to civilization.

On a personal level I reject evolution (but more specifically your evolutionary world view) because anytime I have encountered its supporters I have felt belittled and attacked.

First, that's irrelevant. Personal feelings don't matter where the facts are concerned. Second, how the hell do you think WE feel? You're basically calling us ALL morons, after all. But I don't reject Creationism because it's supported by arrogant, petty liars. Trust me, those aren't exclusive to Creationism. I reject it because the data simply do not support it.

I cannot accept your statement because I naturally shy away from things that could harm me.

Ask anyone around me--if I'm going to threaten to harm you, I'll come out and say I'm going to harm you. I'm not subtle about threats, so there's absolutely no need to imply that I'm threatening you in any way (which is what you're doing here--trying to equate agreeing with evolutionary theory with violence). I've shown you my data. If you're honest, you'll examine it. Once you do, the conclusion is inevitable. If you don't examine it, we'll know you're not honest. It's as simple as that.

 

[Something Amyss]

You're both wrong. One if failing to acknowledge the problem being presented

Ahhh, the old false equivalence fallacy rears its ugly head again.

 

[Wyes]

Several reasons.

1) The false assumption this can be observed over a short period of time. (hint: it generally can't)

5) The word 'theory' (Evolution IS a theory - don't deny it) has a false representation in public consciousness. Generally people think it means something that makes sense but has little to no proof, even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

1) As others have said, Evolution can be observed over a short period of time (e.g. Bacteria etc.)

5) Again, this is not true. A scientific theory is an explanation for a given phenomena, which is supported by evidence (and by extension has some 'predictive' or retro-active predictive ability). If it is not reproducable, then it is not likely to make it to the 'theory' stage (because it'd be pretty hard to find evidence for it).

even though scientifically it means something that can be supported and proven but not reproduced (i think)

That's wrong. A theory is merely a coherent explanation for something. Number theory is a theory. Germ theory is a theory. Heliocentrism is a theory (no, they don't have to be true; they merely have to be coherent). That's why "It's only a theory" is such an annoying phrase--EVERY explanation is a theory. It can't be anything BUT a theory. It's not me saying that, either--it's a scientist working at a respected university.

This is also not quite right; what you're describing is a hypothesis, a testable coherent explanation for something. Every theory contains a hypothesis, but not every hypothesis is a theory.

This is not to say that we can't have theories which are not true, for example Geocentrism (I can only assume this is what you meant, rather than Heliocentrism, which is the current theory as far as the Solar System is concerned). Geocentrism is a good example of a poor theory; the conclusion was decided on before looking at the evidence, and then the evidence was played with until it fit the theory (e.g. Ptolemy's epicycles).

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve.

But that's just silly. If Adam and Eve were the first and only two people of whom humanity descends then EVERYBODY must logically be able to trace their heritage back to them. Even more so if you consider the mathematics behind genealogy where even going back to the 13th century everybody must statistically be related to Charlemagne.
<youtube=e3sTzLXtojo>

Even if the Torah/Bible is literally true, our first common relative should be NOAH and his wife, since ever other human was slaughtered by the flood. Finding Adam's and Eve's unique genes should be impossible when you have that much of a genetic bottle neck. Also, if evolution doesn't happen (thus, NO mutation of genes) shouldn't we all have same 92 genomes that Adam and Eve had, no a single difference, and thus have a much similar genetic code that humanity actually has?

 

[FriedRicer]

I was not talking about your video at all.I agree with you.Btw-Extreme examples are still examples. This is the video that is nonsense:

{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDOkMEK4uk}
Did emded it right?

An athiest has a lack of belief/faith in gods.
That does not exclude someone from making an argument as to why they could think their is a god or what the definition of one might actually be.

Yeah, someone pointed out the bits of the prior conversation that showed you were talking about a different video. I had only seen your last post, and the video embeded within, so I was under the impression you were calling that video nonsense.

The post had confused me. My mistake; apologies.

However, an atheist is defined as - "one who believes that there is no deity". When you said, "...I think there is a god-like-thing.", it sort of precludes the possibility of you being an atheist. It's probably more appropriate to say you're a theist.

Unless you meant Agnostic or something similar.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On a side note, after watching the intended video, all I can say is:

Holy hell was that a collection of bullshit on top of bullshit. I've listened to conspiracy nuts; the kind that believe aliens built the pyramids and that there's a race of reptilian-mole-men living under our cities; whose rants made more sense than that video.

From minute one it was nothing but meta-physics, pseudo-"science", misleading allegories, and out-right lies.

I couldn't sit through much more than a half an hour. If I missed something "profound" after that 30-minute mark, or the random spots I skipped to, then so be it. I will NOT be watching that drivel again.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One final thing, and then I promise I'll shut up. This is the embed code for the Escapist Forum (for youtube) -

[+youtube=********]

Just remove the plus sign and replace the asterisks with the URL code for the video you want to embed. So, in the case of your video, it would be IaDOkMEK4uk.

It's usually the string of random numbers and letters just after the watch?v= in the URL bar.

Thanks for your response,I had been meaning to ask again how to embed so no worries!
I watch the video for comedy.I put it on and sleep to it...yup.

To be an thiest I would have to believe.
Based on no thought/evidence for the most part.
I THINK god exists(not a sentient one) based on arguments made through logic.
They are not proofs but thoughts based on empirical observations on cause and effect.
Cause and effect can potentially progress forever but not REGRESS forever.
The original source is what I think a true god is.
But I arrived at those conclusions without a belief.Not thiest
And I think you can know or not know if a god exists.Not agnostic
What am I?

 

[dslatch]

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

 

[dslatch]

D-D-DOUBLE POST!!

I blame the pastafarians.

 

[Quaxar]

To be an thiest I would have to believe.
Based on no thought/evidence for the most part.
I THINK god exists(not a sentient one) based on arguments made through logic.
They are not proofs but thoughts based on empirical observations on cause and effect.
Cause and effect can potentially progress forever but not REGRESS forever.
The original source is what I think a true god is.
But I arrived at those conclusions without a belief.Not thiest
And I think you can know or not know if a god exists.Not agnostic
What am I?

A very confusing person.
No but seriously, I'd ask you how you can know there is a god without believing in any? I know I have two hands and therefor I can safely believe it as well.
I'd call you a gnostic deist probably. You believe there is some form of a god although not personified and you know that.

snip

Snap

Snippity

Snappity

I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).

But he's right that your initial comparison was a bad one. You compared things that cannot be wrong to things that can.

Plus, what about the fact that they try to teach it in school? Is it cool to teach kids known falsehoods as truth in school?

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

You realize that we have NO idea how gravity is transmitted? It has been said before in the thread but I'll repeat it: evolution has more evidence than gravity. And both of them are equally viable scientific theories supported by tons of hard evidence, "100% proven beyond doubt" is no scientific concept. I can never 100% prove that you are not a hyper-intelligent giant praying mantis disguised as a human but I can for all intents and purposes assume you aren't.

Please don't make the mistake so many already do, <url=http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Why_is_Creationism_not_a_Scientific_Theory%3F>Creationism is no scientific theory, it can't even be a hypothesis because it fails to fulfill basic requirements. This has been said multiple times in this thread alone, there's a very nice explanation of why by Dinwatr somewhere but I wasn't able to find it because it's too many pages.
And because of the fact that Creationism is NOT scientific it has as much to do in any science class as evolution in a religious class. In fact, I'd say even less.

Are you seriously suggesting that public vote decides what scientific theories are valid? I've never been part of any voting concerning quantum theory... and it's a shame because I've long been against giving the up-quark a half-spin.
I'd also like to direct you at a post of mine <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.394799-Why-do-people-reject-evolution?page=19#16039827>a few pages ago with a proper study about the topic. Assuming of your 80% christians the 40% that don't believe evolution are all creationists it still only leaves us with roughly 32%.

Would you mind if we took the atomic theory out of classrooms and instead put in one where all matter is composed of tiny cats and emitted light is actually a tiny ball of yarn? If you don't like it you can just put your kids in a different school. And what if we put in mandatory flogging, I'm sure there's still private schools yours can go to if you don't like it.
You see where I'm coming from?

 

[dslatch]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

You realize that we have NO idea how gravity is transmitted? It has been said before in the thread but I'll repeat it: evolution has more evidence than gravity. And both are equally viable scientific theories, "100% proven beyond doubt" is no scientific concept.

Please don't make the mistake so many already do, <url=http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Why_is_Creationism_not_a_Scientific_Theory%3F>Creationism is no scientific theory, it can't even be a hypothesis because it fails to fulfill basic requirements. This has been said multiple times in this thread alone, there's a very nice explanation of why by Dinwatr somewhere but I wasn't able to find it because it's too many pages.
And because of the fact that Creationism is NOT scientific it has as much to do in any science class as evolution in a religious class. In fact, I'd say even less.

Are you seriously suggesting that public vote decides what scientific theories are valid? I've never been part of any voting concerning quantum theory... and it's a shame because I've long been against giving the up-quark a half-spin.
I'd also like to direct you at a post of mine <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.394799-Why-do-people-reject-evolution?page=19#16039827>a few pages ago with a proper study about the topic. Assuming of your 78% the 40% that don't believe evolution are all creationists it still only leaves us with around 30%.

Would you mind if we took the atomic theory out of classrooms and instead put in one where all matter is composed of tiny cats and emitted light is actually a tiny ball of yarn? If you don't like it you can just put your kids in a different school. And what if we put in mandatory flogging, I'm sure there's still private schools yours can go to if you don't like it.
You see where I'm coming from?

As i have said countless times on this damn thread. ready for it. there is no sense i trying to convince others.

A vote does not effect scientific theory, it effects curriculum's made by school boards. A school board in the bible belt will approve it, one in silicon valley will not.

I was talk a creationism when I was in school I think grade 5. it didn't destroy my mind, when my parent learned they asked which one i believed i said 'i didn't understand either of them' (i later chose the one with hairless monkey's(why did we evolve out of the tail?)) . When i said gravity was proven i meant... pick up a pen, hold it above your head and release it where does it go, in the general direction of the earths core. Proven in the sense that we know it's there. And how about a new comparison: All matter has mass.

Creationism isn't science, intelligent design is a bit closer to science i consider it a contrary theory to evolution that deserves to be heard. an argument is both ways. as in i wont pull my kids out of a school because i do not agree with what is being taught. I will just teach the other side and try to nudge them towards whichever one i agree with... cats are cute. if the floggings could instill manners like please and thank you opening doors for others, human dignity respect and the Socratic method i wouldn't mind.

When i pulled the 78% number it was 4 or 5 in the morning after waking because of insomnia, as in was I wrong.

Any-who I'm off to work.

 

[dslatch]

snip.

Theory in science is not what you think it is. For an explanation to reach the status of a theory (before that it is a hypothesis at best) you need confirmation in repeated, recreationable experiments and observations. When the hypothesis has enough evidence to back it up (with the methodology I mentioned) it gets 'promoted' to a theory. A theory is also as close to fact as possible - it is usually backed up by lots of evidence both recreatable and observable (like evolution).

Creationism and Intelligent Design both build upon the argument that a superhuman being had a hand in all of it - be it the first nudge in creatin this planet in such perfect conditions to allow the development of life or intervention in all the development until now - and this argument is by all logic neither observable nor do we posses the ability to recreate it. All the evidence is created by 1: reinterpreting existing data (calling out false measure methods [which had next to no ground], interpreting god or biblic events into timelines based on easily disproveable arguments) with far-stretched logic or 2: lies.

To put it blatantly simple: Evolution is not a belief, it is science. You may twist terms and so forth, just because some chose to blindly accept what they are taught by teachers without looking up the evidence by themselfs does not mean that there is a parallel to theistic beliefs. Because unlike theistic beliefs (as in ID and Creationism) there is evidence that supports evolution (and thus it is a theory and not gibberish - unlike creationism and ID).

And even if you want to go the route that it is a belief and people should be able to belief what they want: What happens if someone without an agenda and an open mind looks up the evidence for both? Any person would realise that it is simple: Evolution would be a belief based in facts. Theistic beliefs are beliefs based on fairytails and dogmas centered around old farts reinterpreting it every 15 years.

snip.

Theory in science is not what you think it is. For an explanation to reach the status of a theory (before that it is a hypothesis at best) you need confirmation in repeated, recreationable experiments and observations. When the hypothesis has enough evidence to back it up (with the methodology I mentioned) it gets 'promoted' to a theory. A theory is also as close to fact as possible - it is usually backed up by lots of evidence both recreatable and observable (like evolution).

Creationism and Intelligent Design both build upon the argument that a superhuman being had a hand in all of it - be it the first nudge in creatin this planet in such perfect conditions to allow the development of life or intervention in all the development until now - and this argument is by all logic neither observable nor do we posses the ability to recreate it. All the evidence is created by 1: reinterpreting existing data (calling out false measure methods [which had next to no ground], interpreting god or biblic events into timelines based on easily disproveable arguments) with far-stretched logic or 2: lies.

To put it blatantly simple: Evolution is not a belief, it is science. You may twist terms and so forth, just because some chose to blindly accept what they are taught by teachers without looking up the evidence by themselfs does not mean that there is a parallel to theistic beliefs. Because unlike theistic beliefs (as in ID and Creationism) there is evidence that supports evolution (and thus it is a theory and not gibberish - unlike creationism and ID).

And even if you want to go the route that it is a belief and people should be able to belief what they want: What happens if someone without an agenda and an open mind looks up the evidence for both? Any person would realise that it is simple: Evolution would be a belief based in facts. Theistic beliefs are beliefs based on fairytails and dogmas centered around old farts reinterpreting it every 15 years.

Don't take offense but you sound a tad anti-religious. I'll say it a again. my point is good luck shaking the resolve of a believer. And so what if they research it, if they have faith they will not falter. Belief and faith do not need facts they need faith in beliefs.

NOW im off to work...

 

[Quaxar]

As i have said countless times on this damn thread. ready for it. there is no sense i trying to convince others.

No, there is indeed not. But it is kind of sense in pointing out fallacies in arguments so undecided people are not being tricked by false evidence and such.
If anyone tells me that the eye could not have evolved because "what use is half an eye?" I'll sure as hell point out how even a simple photoreceptor to distinguish light from dark has exellently aided earthworms for millennia.

A vote does not effect scientific theory, it effects curriculum's made by school boards. A school board in the bible belt will approve it, one in silicon valley will not.

I was talk a creationism when I was in school I think grade 5. it didn't destroy my mind, when my parent learned they asked which one i believed i said 'i didn't understand either of them' (i later chose the one with hairless monkey's(why did we evolve out of the tail?)).

Votes affecting curricula is exactly why we can't have close-minded YEC in those school boards. Because a) teaching religious topics outside of non-mandatory religion classes is against any constitution (especially the US) and b) teaching lies as facts is harmful to society as a whole. It's good that you didn't get swayed by either concept until you were old enough to properly think for yourself but that doesn't mean that everyone else will also be uninfluenced. Especially considering how there's private schools where they ONLY teach YEC.

And tails are kind of unnecessary for our lifestyle. Even our closest cousins, the big apes, don't have tails because they are simply of no use when you spend most of your time on the ground. They are essential for a tree-life for grabbing and balancing, once you spend a lot time on the ground and/or get big enough a tail won't do much for you.

When i said gravity was proven i meant... pick up a pen, hold it above your head and release it where does it go, in the general direction of the earths core. Proven in the sense that we know it's there. And how about a new comparison: All matter has mass.

Pick up a batch of E.coli, put it on a citrate basis and watch it evolve outside of its genetic baseset. The only thing hindering you is access to these things, not how easy they are to do. Not that there isn't enough evidence right in everyday things. Actually, why don't you just pick up antibiotics and take them for everything and observe that at some point it won't help anymore, that's a pretty good example, especially for the US with its idiotic "antibiotics free for everyone all the time" policy.
New comparison from me then: all life has common and similar structures

Creationism isn't science, intelligent design is a bit closer to science i consider it a contrary theory to evolution that deserves to be heard. an argument is both ways. as in i wont pull my kids out of a school because i do not agree with what is being taught. I will just teach the other side and try to nudge them towards whichever one i agree with... cats are cute. if the floggings could instill manners like please and thank you opening doors for others, human dignity respect and the Socratic method i wouldn't mind.

Creationism is almost identical to Intelligent Design, only that the word "god" is replaced by "intelligent designer".
I suggest you read up on the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>Kitzmiller v. Dover creationist trial (or the <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI>full docu on youtube), the only instance where we have found a creationist transitional fossil, <url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists>Cdesign proponentsists.
Once again, ID is no scientific theory in any proper meaning of the word and can never be, the only place it has in a biology class is to show and disprove its flaws and partly stupidity and why it is an exellent example for a pseudo-science.

 

[medv4380]

You're both wrong. One is failing to acknowledge the problem being presented

Ahhh, the old false equivalence fallacy rears its ugly head again.

Ahhh, the old, calling something a fallacy because it makes me sound like I'm a philosophy major, and it just so happens that I like to use it as an "auto win" button because people, and myself, don't know what it means. Which, by the way, is an appeal to a FALSE authority, which is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. In a way it's also an Ad-hominime the way you're using it.

Saying that someone is failing to acknowledge the problem presented by the question, and the other is failing to describe the problem is not a false equivocation. It is only an equivocation, as in, saying to things are equal, and in this case they are only equal in that they are both wrong. An equivocation alone is not a fallacy. The fallacy version requires additional context. False Attribution and Quoting Out of Context are common false Equivocations which are Equivocation Fallacies. Since I never actually quoted you there really isn't much there to prove an Equivocation Fallacy.

All I did was call you both out, and presented the problem with the solution. There isn't much their to deconstruct into any fallacy, but you're welcome to try.

You should actually take a philosophy class if you're going to waste words attempting to call people out on fallacies. You'll be right more often that way.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Alrighty the comparison was bad. just a disclaimer first i do believe in evolution. what i have been arguing in the not the falsehood of either point of view. I've been trying to comment that a creationist aint likely to change their mind or an evolutionist.

The evidence is overwhelming for both sides according to both sides. Evolutionists say it is 99% proven. Creationists (or intelligent design-ers?)say their theory is 99% proven. They are sill theories and not proven 100% beyond a doubt(like gravity), creationism or intelligent design has therefore just as much merit as evolution just depends on who you talk to. As in they both do have the right to be taught. In a class, and yes a science class; they are scientific theories.

The argument of 'well since they're teaching intelligent design, they have to teach every other creation story' not really. Most other creation stories aren't called science by a vast majority of the USA or their believers. according to PEW 78% percent of the USA is a form of christian. And I'd bet my hat a majority like to believe their creation story. So lets say only 73% of the USA believes in the creation story, well fuck now democracy kicks in.

Any-who you aren't in school I'm guessing, and if you have kids you can nudge them in what ever direction you want. There is no point in arguing. A creationist, intelligent designer, evolutionist or a pastafarian is not going to change their opinion if the truly have faith in their beliefs. As in it aint no skin of your dick.

1. Well for starter evolutionist can actually show you why it's 99% proven, we can give you facts, evidence, observations, and experiments while Creationist / Intelligent Designers show you the bible, there is absolute no evidence to support creation.

2. No creationism isn't a scientific theory it doesn't even qualify as a hypotheses, it's basically an untested idea, if you don't understand why this is watch my video on Creation Science made easy video I posted a few pages back.

3. Listen 78% percent of the USA can believe in creation if they want to, they can tech creation in their church if they want to, but not in a science class room because it's not science, just like saying "God told me to run over my husband" is not an acceptable excuse in court.

4. You got it right when you called creation a story because it is a story nothing more nothing less. stories are fine just not in a science class room.

5. Yes it is skin off my member, because it's taking away from real science, there's a thing called separation from church and state, and the church has no place in a public class room just like it has no place in a court room.

 

[dslatch]

As i have said countless times on this damn thread. ready for it. there is no sense i trying to convince others.

No, there is indeed not. But it is kind of sense in pointing out fallacies in arguments so undecided people are not being tricked by false evidence and such.
If anyone tells me that the eye could not have evolved because "what use is half an eye?" I'll sure as hell point out how even a simple photoreceptor to distinguish light from dark has exellently aided earthworms for millennia.

A vote does not effect scientific theory, it effects curriculum's made by school boards. A school board in the bible belt will approve it, one in silicon valley will not.

I was talk a creationism when I was in school I think grade 5. it didn't destroy my mind, when my parent learned they asked which one i believed i said 'i didn't understand either of them' (i later chose the one with hairless monkey's(why did we evolve out of the tail?)).

Votes affecting curricula is exactly why we can't have close-minded YEC in those school boards. Because a) teaching religious topics outside of non-mandatory religion classes is against any constitution (especially the US) and b) teaching lies as facts is harmful to society as a whole. It's good that you didn't get swayed by either concept until you were old enough to properly think for yourself but that doesn't mean that everyone else will also be uninfluenced. Especially considering how there's private schools where they ONLY teach YEC.

And tails are kind of unnecessary for our lifestyle. Even our closest cousins, the big apes, don't have tails because they are simply of no use when you spend most of your time on the ground. They are essential for a tree-life for grabbing and balancing, once you spend a lot time on the ground and/or get big enough a tail won't do much for you.

When i said gravity was proven i meant... pick up a pen, hold it above your head and release it where does it go, in the general direction of the earths core. Proven in the sense that we know it's there. And how about a new comparison: All matter has mass.

Pick up a batch of E.coli, put it on a citrate basis and watch it evolve outside of its genetic baseset. The only thing hindering you is access to these things, not how easy they are to do. Not that there isn't enough evidence right in everyday things. Actually, why don't you just pick up antibiotics and take them for everything and observe that at some point it won't help anymore, that's a pretty good example, especially for the US with its idiotic "antibiotics free for everyone all the time" policy.
New comparison from me then: all life has common and similar structures

Creationism isn't science, intelligent design is a bit closer to science i consider it a contrary theory to evolution that deserves to be heard. an argument is both ways. as in i wont pull my kids out of a school because i do not agree with what is being taught. I will just teach the other side and try to nudge them towards whichever one i agree with... cats are cute. if the floggings could instill manners like please and thank you opening doors for others, human dignity respect and the Socratic method i wouldn't mind.

Creationism is almost identical to Intelligent Design, only that the word "god" is replaced by "intelligent designer".
I suggest you read up on the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>Kitzmiller v. Dover creationist trial (or the <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI>full doku on youtube), the only instance where we have found a creationist transitional fossil, <url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists>Cdesign proponentsists.
Once again, ID is no scientific theory in any proper meaning of the word and can never be, the only place it has in a biology class is to show and disprove its flaws and partly stupidity and why it is an exellent example for a pseudo-science.

Very well made argument. Just one thing though, the people of YEC do not see ID as a lie.

I do not mind if ID is taught, if the other is taught as well. Otherwise where is the fun that. The point of a science class in my opinion is to teach and make one think. It's harder to think of one thing and accept it if there is nothing to compare it to.