Speaking of pulling ideas out of your ass, do you have any actual evidence that Creationism was never a scientific theory?Olrod said:
Why do people reject evolution?
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
We're talking science here. I've provided my evidence, along with references. I expect you to do the same.Olrod said:
And what was discussed by those early Creationists WAS NOT a God of the Gaps idea. It was a legitimate and reasonable interpretation of the evidence they had at the time. The fact that you can't even give an accurate depiction of what those scientific Creationists were saying strongly indicates that you don't actually know anything about that period in the history of evolutionary thought. You're taking modern Creationist arguments and attributing them to the Creationists of the past--which is a deeply flawed methodology, considering I told you where to look to find good summaries of those arguments. I don't expect you to immediately jump up and find the book I cited, but I DO expect you to look into it at least a bit and educate yourself on the topic if you wish to discuss it. Your statements about what the scientific Creationists believed and the nature of their arguments are demonstrably wrong.
Creationism is wrong, yes--but if we react with emotional outbursts rather than reasoned arguments supported by data, we're no different from them. And the data more or less prove that scientific Creationism is a whole different beast from modern Creationism. You can ignore those facts if you want, but then in what way are you different from modern Creationists?
It is nothing more than huborus and temporal chauvinism to think that you're immune to those same errors that the scientific Creationists encountered. I'm sure there are paleontological theories I agree with that will, when more data become available, be demonstrated to be flawed. I can even point out a few that I'm waiting on (taphonomy is a young field, after all). That's the nature of science. It's not just scientific Creationism that has been disproven. Uniformitarianism sensu stricto was the same. Given the fossil record we had at the time it was reasonable to conclude that everything evolved slowly and gradually. We found new data, and found that that's not actually always true--many phyla evolve in bursts around the time of speciation (Punctuated Equilibrium). Newtonian physics gave way to relativity. Dinosaurs were found to be swift and agile, not lumbering hulks. Disproven concepts litter the side of the road that is the history of science, and one of them is labeled "Creationism". Phlogestem was never found. It's nothing to get worked up about. It's simply a historical fact.
For what feels like the thousandth time:dslatch: said:
When I'm left alone to do my research without having to stop and listen to people with no education in my field tell me how I should be doing my job, and accuse me of fraud, and attempt to make my job impossible, THEN we can talk about "live and let live". Until then, I'm fighting a defensive action. I'm trying to make it so THEY LEAVE ME ALONE. If you think they are, you're not paying attention.
Secondly, science isn't the type of thing where everyone's opinion is equally valid. There are rules. Modern Creationists are attempting to side-step those rules. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that I shouldn't complain when I'm playing chess with someone and they try to light my pieces on fire. This isn't fashion, or what music you like to listen to, or what TV show is the best--this is science. I don't agree with evolution because it's my opinion, but because the data support it and I'm honest.
You really should have looked it up. I wasn't even referring to the Flat Earth Society or Zeteticism. That's a nice little bag of tricks all its own.Dinwatr said:
Since you're up too high to even do a simple search I'll point you at the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
The concept that most people of Columbus having to prove the world was round is the actual myth. It started because someone wrote a fake biographical account of Columbus in 1828. The truth of the matter, is that Columbus was trying to prove the Size of the Earth, not its shape. It was then pushed as Fact by the Draper and White Conflict Thesis. In fact, the books your referencing all go back to the Conflict Thesis. Which is Historical, Academically, and Provably false. If you actually want to read something meaningful and historically accurate about the conflict between religion and science you might actually read Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction edited by Gary Ferngren.
It's a College Level History book on Science & Religion, and is considered the definitive work by Historians.
You could also watch the foremost Historian on Creationism, Ron Numbers,
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/num-frame.html
since you can't be bothered to actually do a simple google.
I like how you dogged the real issue. Are you actually ok with how Fransis Collins has been treated? One of the best Evolutionary Biologist in the world and people like Dawkins try to push him out of the field just because he's a Christian. If you can't compromise with an Evolutionary Theist the the only reason Christians and other don't accept Evolution is because you force the issue about Gods existence or non existence.
It's funny that you even cut out the part where you're an idiot for attacking someone who was presenting a pro-evolution argument. Are you going to ignore that little fact, or continue to pretend you are on something more then a soap box.
It's Still Check Mate.
you act like its all so harmlessVault101 said:
its not
ignorance and misinformation is not harmless...creating an enviroment where saying you don;t belive in god will make peopel hate you is not harmless
again..faith is for home...not schools[/quote]
What i said was do not force your opinions on other people on an internet forum. Dude, simmer down.
How does one force their opinions onto others on an internet forum? I mean, anybody who doesn't want to see your opinions can just not read them, not click the thread title, or put you on ignore. There's no potential for force (unless you're going to define "stating your opinions on a forum" as force, in which case every single post made on every topic qualifies).dslatch said:
I made a mistake. I assumed that the group promoting the Flat Earth theory that I knew about is the one you were referring to. Obviously, I was wrong.medv4380 said:
When you get off your high-horse long enough to admit that YOU'RE not infallible either, we can continue this conversation. Until then, it's pointless.
Why do I even bother? You people aren't even reading what I write. I'm going to bow out of the conversation--you children appear to consider my posts an unnecessary nuisance, and I'd hate to let little things like historical facts get in the way of your fun.Olrod said:
That is not a consistently applied definition though. One can find flaw with it quite easily by simply looking at polytheistic faiths. While such faiths often have a creator deity, they also have deities for many other aspects of life and more than a few of them have a definitive origin. Take the Greek Pantheon as a case in point: The eldest of the Olympians were born to the Titans Cronus and Rhea, who themselves were born to Uranus and Gaia, who themselves sprang from Chaos. And of course among the olympians we have the god of the sky (Zeus), god of the Sea (Poseidon), god of the Underworld (Hades), goddess of marriage (Hera), goddess of fertility and agriculture (Demeter), god of wine and ecstacy (Dionysus) goddess of love (Aphrodite), god of war (Ares), messenger of the gods/psychopomp (Hermes), etc. There are similar geneologies and diversity in the Norse, Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons. Truthfully, I'm not certain it's valid to limit the definition of 'god(s)' to Creator Deities.FriedRicer said:
Nothing short of you apologizing for original attack directed at me will cause that, and I bet you don't even know what it was you were responding to since the Post your replied to only had a fragment of what I was replying to in it. You lost the moment you decided to attack someone presenting a pro-evolution argument. You should take your own advice and read what's being said before you blurt out a meaningless garbage attack.Dinwatr said:
You're the perfect poster child for why this argument won't make progress.
"Scientific" doesn't mean "correct". And if you don't know what "scientific" means, how can you possibly know what is and is not a scientific theory?Olrod said:
So you don't have any evidence to support your claims, and you can't refute the evidence Dinwatr offered to support the opposite claim, yet you still think you're correct. You seem to have some things in common with the modern Creationist movement.
Clueless Hero said:
Actually im not claiming any theory is better than the other, creationism has its own account for the differences as does evolution. What im saying, or rather what im answering, is the question to this post which asks why people dont accept evolution. And that is one of the many reasons why. But that was of several of my units covering genetics. Infact, that unit was more focused on the diseases, gene sequencing & the function of genes. It did mention the evolution but mostly recombination since thats the only observed method. Everything else was just general & theoretical at best.gwilym101 said:
Changing chromosome numbers (polysomy) whether adding or removing is detrimental to the health, & thus survival, of an organism. Only three Chromosomes can produce a viable zygote which eventually leads to defects due to an increase in gene product. The most common we know of is Downs syndrome with an extra chromosome 21. The chromosomal fusion theory is based on not much evidence at all. Certain binding domains for nucleosomes on chromosome 1 or 2, if I recall properly, has a slightly different sequence than usual & this has basically been claimed to be a centromere even though it has no resemblance to a centromere. However, if such an event were possible it would produce the same results as polysomy & natural selection would weed it out.
Quaxar said:
Quaxar? Im not sure if we chatted about this last year, I remember the pony profile pic. Im the guy doing the molecular biology degree, if you remember? Oh well.Quaxar said:
Yes, in that unit we covered translocations & the lot. Translocations are the only accidental means of exchanging different chromosome segments but are pretty much deleterious or even fatal. As I mentioned before if even an organism can survive a translocation it cannot produce viable offspring because the translocated chromosomes will no longer be homologs to the conjugates haplotype. Random assortment in the gametes can also eliminate the translocations from being passed on.
And these jumping genes, the transposons & retrotransposons are regulated & directed. For example, if more of a gene product is needed a gene can be duplicated & spliced in a promotor or enhancer region. Genes dont just randomly fly all over the gene pool. And this isn't even including non-protein coding DNA. In chromosomes (or chromotids more specifically) The function of a gene is usually due to its position in the chromosome, even for bacteria. If you mess this up then you can screw its function entirely.
Also, I dont know what you expect for an answer from Balmong about what evidence means. Evidence is data that can be interpreted to support a theory or model. You have cited all the 'evidence' for the endosymbiotic theory but have ignored the data that conflicts with it. The mitochondrial/chloroplasts dont have what you would consider complete genomes. The DNA in these organisms code for parts the proteins they use. The rest is translated from the cells nuclear genome & transported to the organelles & it has differences in the universal genetic code, such as different start & stop codons to the nuclear genome. If the rest of the mitochondrial genome transfered to the nucleus as theorised then that means either the nuclear or introduced genome would have had to conveniently mutated all those codons to same sequence just by pure luck all in one shot. They also lack the peptidoglycan cell wall that bacteria contain.
It frustrates me when the general public are only given one sided information to support a premise rather than give all the data as a whole & let them make an educated decision. This is why the original poster asked why are there still people who dont believe evolution. This is why
That's true.I might be arrogant.But that doesn't make what I said any less closer to an actual definition.Words can change,but the abstract thought of the thing we observe would stay the same.Dogs by any other name would still act as a dog would.Some words change some don't.This one can become more accurate.The definition of a god has not been agreed upon when comparing other religions or secular opinion.And I don't think "my" definition is personal.It seems to me that the above description was easily understood in the past but was then given human traits.Also,truth's are not exclusive or original to any one person.No one "owns" geometry and maths.I fail to see the arrogance of trying to create an actual definition out of an inflated word.Lieju said:
What is your definition of a god?
Are there any problems with my definition so-far?
Help would be appreciated!
Honestly,I didn't consider those gods to be relevant anymore.I think those 2 things(and maybe more?)are what would make an actual god.But why isn't it valid to limit it?What would you add or subtract?Asita said:
Might be. Not sure, my memory is pretty bad sometimes, especially when it comes to this sort of thing.darkstarangel said:
I think I just simply have to disagree with you there. Translocation does carry a higher risk of abnormalities in offspring but not necessarily all the time and it certainly doesn't kill off every possible child.darkstarangel said:
I'd also like to point you to <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation>Robertsonian translocation:
<quote=Wikipedia>Most people with Robertsonian translocations have only 45 chromosomes in each of their cells, yet all essential genetic material is present, and they appear normal.
Chances of abnormalities in children rise, naturally, but that isn't to say that there can't be healthy ones among them.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't each gene have its own promoter region in front of it that contains information where and when the gene is to be expressed?
That's like taking a book that is a collection of short-stories and rearranging the order of the stories. It doesn't matter if story A is at the beginning or in the middle because it can still be identified by its title and it is not necessarily connected chronologically to any other story in that book.
And completely unconnected with that, I'd just like to point you to a <url=http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf>5-page paper about the merged human chromosome 2 and that was done back in the early 90s.
I was asking what evidence he'd like because endosymbiontic theory and the like might not be what he was looking for but rather the good old "observance evidence" that seems to, in some people's minds, make the whole field of biology unreliable.darkstarangel said:
Might not have picked the best example with human cells since they're so far down the evolutionary tree that we've come a rather far way since the mitochondria entered. I don't really feel like researching and discussing the possible evolutionary steps of human cell organisms as I'd much rather spend that time on zoology and botany for my exam on friday but going back on the evolutionary tree quite a step let me just mention that we can literally take a Charophyta's (a type of green algae) chloroplast out and have it behave like a cyanobateria, although of course tose two not being completely the same anymore.
One-sided evidence and flat-out deception is exactly what a lot of YEC propagandists do for a living. I was merely presenting some evidence that would show a logical step from single cellular to complex multicellular. I didn't give a full pro/contra since I'm no lecturer of cellular or evolutionary biology (at least for the next decade or so) but a mere BSc student.
And, let me clarify that this is no attack but simply a remark concerning your original statement of being YEC and also the fact that this seems to be the general concensus among many of this believe, even if big genetic mutations are absolutely impossible (which I'd obviously disagree with) that would probably ruin a whole field of research but still not make a young-earth even a microbe's jump more likely or scientific. But I disgress, this isn't really part of any argument.