Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

[nkgupta80]

yeah... that brings us to those awful questions like "why do we exist, what is the purpose of life" and so on.

 

[stsburns]

Monotheism was established after the fall of Rome, and is heavily exercised today, of the "Belief in One God". If you believe in a God, then in a sence, you have a mission or purpose of living, instead of being a large modern primate that considers its mission or purpose in life to reproduce, and try to not get eatin or killed. Well that was the best I could put it! But I think we should focus more on Darwin, just as much as we focus on Mohommad and Jesus! Which people try to dodge who they were!

 

[nkgupta80]

not necessarily, for me, christianity or islam, doesn't necessarily offer a logical purpose. If they were such a simple answer to these questions, the questions wouldn't still be speculated among philosophical communities. I wonder that if there is the God Christians describe, why did God create us, why do we have to go through life when we have to live through eternity in hell or heaven anyways, and why did God create the universe. Tons of questions arise that all eventually lead to, what is the real purpose of life. If you ask this to a priest or religious scholar, he/she will end up saying we don't know, or that we cannot understand God's workings or something of the like.

not all scientists think our reason here is merely to reproduce, although it certainly makes some sense. But monotheism isn't the only alternative to that line of thinking.

 

[lamaror]

Hi Fantasea,

Ok let leave it to the parents. Lets not tell the kids that the Sun comes up in the east and set in the west either. Let's not tell our kids that dinosaurs once walked the Earth either. Oh, it is alright to tell your kids that one and one make 3 and a half. We don't want kids to know real things. :roll:

 

[shuamort]

Are we merely shooting the messenger? Discrediting the author of the message? Or, have we come full circle.

My post #81 contains everything I have to say on the subject.

Shooting the messenger? Umm, the "messenger" in that case is the scientists who are saying that there are flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution. This is when they do not have the professional (or authoritative) position to support their claim as I have proved. On the same fold and for fun, I showed that there are more scientists named "Steve" who would just as easily sign a petition and that these "Steves" easily outnumbered the 400 "scientists" who signed the original.

Of course, as with any field, we have people unable to do their job or even understand what's going on. Take for instance the case of local man Rod Levake. A high school science teacher who's a fundamentalist christian. When department chair Ken Hubert asked LeVake point-blank how he planned to teach evolution, LeVake said, "I can't teach evolution." He instantly regretted it. "I said, 'Man, there's something wrong with what I just said,' because I think kids, when they go off to college . . . they have to know about Charles Darwin." LeVake says he simply meant that he couldn't teach evolution as fact. Luckily this idiot is no longer teaching evolution.

 

[shuamort]

Oops, forgot I was killing the messenger with that part about discovery.org not being a real science source. My apologies for that part. But still, it doesn't change any of the facts nor the other reasons the whole thing is debunkable.

 

[Fantasea]

the problem with post #81 is that it may follow the evolutionary process somewhat, but it definately doesn't seem to follow the general process of "creation" in the universe. According to that passage from Genesis, trees were on the earth before the stars are created. Scientific evidence completely disproves that. Its good to sometimes reevaluate what the bible says according to modern scientific thought, but it still creates problems. That is why I look at the creation story as nothing more than a myth, maybe with some nice morals underlying it.

As to the 400 scientists, you know that I can call myself a scientist when I get a degree. All I need is a degree in any remotely scientific field and voila. Hell, I coulda been called a scientist when I was interning in a research lab last summer. Just cause they are 400 skeptical scientists doesn't mean that they have an authority in the greater scientific community. Any scientist holds validity in his claims when he provides indisputable evidence. From the birth of Darwin's theory, there have been constant revisions due to thousands of scientists who made VALID criticisms. The theory has evolved since, and is evolving. But those who merely shout out that the theory is wrong without having evidence cannot be taken seriously.

No good scientist or researcher should take the theory of evolution for granted. However, from understanding this theory, research has taken great strides in biology, genetics, and medicine.

On the 'creationism' side of the question are those of faith in the Almighty who believe that He always was, always will be, and because He is Omnipotent, is responsible for everything which exists, including mankind. They are content with Genesis augmented by some modern knowledge.

They believe that many on the 'evolutionism' side struggle to disprove the existence of a Supreme Being by use of the very intelligence He has conferred upon them.

Many on the 'evolutionism' side find it impossible to believe something which they cannot prove -- the existence of a Supreme Being -- yet have no difficulty in latching on to something else they cannot prove -- evolution. They are easily able to theorize the latter, but not the former.

No doubt, it has something to do with the free will with which all men are endowed. (But, who endowed them with it?)

In the final analysis, scientific inquiry is good and has provided many benefits to mankind. There are those, however, who lacking a degree of humility, become overwhelmed by their own discoveries and assume a sense of self-importance and arrogance that prevents them from understanding how anyone can disagree with their theories.

Because of the "never the twain shall meet" nature of both sides of the question, I believe neither should be taught in the public schools. Those who are interested in pursuing the question can do it at college level when they have the maturity to understand what they are doing.

Simplified, it's all opinion. Educated opinion, but opinion, nevertheless.

 

[shuamort]

And creationism is just uneducated opinion.

 

[Fantasea]

Hi Fantasea,

Ok let leave it to the parents. Lets not tell the kids that the Sun comes up in the east and set in the west either. Let's not tell our kids that dinosaurs once walked the Earth either. Oh, it is alright to tell your kids that one and one make 3 and a half. We don't want kids to know real things. :roll:

Mock all you wish. However, a sensible rebuttle would be preferable.

 

[Fantasea]

And creationism is just uneducated opinion.

"And, so's your old man." Right?

 

[Fantasea]

Shooting the messenger? Umm, the "messenger" in that case is the scientists who are saying that there are flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution. This is when they do not have the professional (or authoritative) position to support their claim as I have proved. On the same fold and for fun, I showed that there are more scientists named "Steve" who would just as easily sign a petition and that these "Steves" easily outnumbered the 400 "scientists" who signed the original.

Of course, as with any field, we have people unable to do their job or even understand what's going on. Take for instance the case of local man Rod Levake. A high school science teacher who's a fundamentalist christian. When department chair Ken Hubert asked LeVake point-blank how he planned to teach evolution, LeVake said, "I can't teach evolution." He instantly regretted it. "I said, 'Man, there's something wrong with what I just said,' because I think kids, when they go off to college . . . they have to know about Charles Darwin." LeVake says he simply meant that he couldn't teach evolution as fact. Luckily this idiot is no longer teaching evolution.

"Might makes right."? "Safety in numbers."? "Birds of a feather flock together."?

 

[shuamort]

"And, so's your old man." Right?

Nice ad hominem attack. If you can't keep it on topic, maybe you're better off not debating.

 

[Fantasea]

yeah... that brings us to those awful questions like "why do we exist, what is the purpose of life" and so on.

Mysteries that gnaw at the mind.

 

[shuamort]

"Might makes right."? "Safety in numbers."? "Birds of a feather flock together."?

What might? We're talking about knowledge here. Sorry if the facts outweigh mythological beliefs. When you have an actual debate, come back.

 

[Zebulon]

Simplified, it's all opinion. Educated opinion, but opinion, nevertheless.

When taken to the extreme, EVERYTHING'S opinion... but start going down that road, and suddenly you start questioning whenther up could really be down and whether or not there really IS a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ANYTHING can be an opinion. I believe Satan created the world, and that I can see HIS hand in all the evil in the world. Do I get to have MY "opinion" taught in schools? Satanistic Creationism as an alternative to Creationism as an alternative to Darwinism? If we're not using ANY plausible, scientific criteria for our teaching, where do we set the limit?

Simplified... if YOU think YOU'RE important enought to get YOUR views on creation taught in schools... we ALL are, or you're hypocritical.

 

[Alan Ryan]

Simplified, it's all opinion. Educated opinion, but opinion, nevertheless.

You simplify far too much. The theory of evolution is not a mere matter of opinion - even of "educated opinion". It's a hypothesis that is supported by an immense amount of evidence which has been systematically collected and evaluated using scientific method. It is not a "proven" theory because all science is tentative and subject to modification in the light of new evidence becoming available.

 

[Fantasea]

Nice ad hominem attack. If you can't keep it on topic, maybe you're better off not debating.

Simply acknowledging your refusal or inability to grasp that the final point, the only one to which you responded to in a post that contained several, referred to both sides of the question.

 

[shuamort]

Simply acknowledging your refusal or inability to grasp that the final point, the only one to which you responded to in a post that contained several, referred to both sides of the question.

Seriously Fantasea. How about you actually attack the issues and not the people. It's getting very tiresome. Your point was made by you and easily refuted by me and others. Go back to the point refuted and defend that.

 

[Fantasea]

You simplify far too much. The theory of evolution is not a mere matter of opinion - even of "educated opinion". It's a hypothesis that is supported by an immense amount of evidence which has been systematically collected and evaluated using scientific method. It is not a "proven" theory because all science is tentative and subject to modification in the light of new evidence becoming available.

While you are not incorrect, one cannot present lengthy and complicated explanations within the limitations of this forum. Besides, that point had been conceded in prior posts.

 

[Fantasea]

Seriously Fantasea. How about you actually attack the issues and not the people. It's getting very tiresome. Your point was made by you and easily refuted by me and others. Go back to the point refuted and defend that.

You ignored everything in post #107 but the final line, to which you tossed off a flippant crack.

If you choose to play the game that way, why become upset when I emulate you?

Perhaps you'd like to revisit post #107? Perhaps not.

 

[Fantasea]

When taken to the extreme, EVERYTHING'S opinion... but start going down that road, and suddenly you start questioning whenther up could really be down and whether or not there really IS a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ANYTHING can be an opinion. I believe Satan created the world, and that I can see HIS hand in all the evil in the world. Do I get to have MY "opinion" taught in schools? Satanistic Creationism as an alternative to Creationism as an alternative to Darwinism? If we're not using ANY plausible, scientific criteria for our teaching, where do we set the limit?

Simplified... if YOU think YOU'RE important enought to get YOUR views on creation taught in schools... we ALL are, or you're hypocritical.

Perhaps you missed this paragraph in my post #107:

"Because of the "never the twain shall meet" nature of both sides of the question, I believe neither should be taught in the public schools. Those who are interested in pursuing the question can do it at college level when they have the maturity to understand what they are doing."

 

[Fantasea]

What might? We're talking about knowledge here. Sorry if the facts outweigh mythological beliefs. When you have an actual debate, come back.

Facts? Are you elevating theory to the level of fact? That's a new twist, isn't it?

 

[shuamort]

Facts? Are you elevating theory to the level of fact? That's a new twist, isn't it?

Only for idiots it would be a twist.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

 

[Zebulon]

Perhaps you missed this paragraph in my post #107:

"Because of the "never the twain shall meet" nature of both sides of the question, I believe neither should be taught in the public schools. Those who are interested in pursuing the question can do it at college level when they have the maturity to understand what they are doing."

I did indeed miss that. Thank you.

I'm actually having so many problems with that, I'm having trouble sticking to one argument without going off on tangents. :mrgreen:

"Neither should be taught in public schools." Where do you draw the lin on THAT one? What ELSE might never reach a common ground that should be dropped out? What if Liberals and Conservatives argued about how history is portrayed in the books? Should we not teach history, now?

"Neither should be taught in PUBLIC schools." If you don't want to teach it in CATHOLIC schools, or any other RELIGIOUS school, go for it. But not in PUBLIC school, where there should be a separation of church and state? Why should they bow to your will?

"... can do it at the college level..." And deny all those that don't go to college a basic understanding of where they came from?

"...can do it at the college level..." Can I teach my Satanic Creationism there? Is that OK with you?

"...the maturity to understand what they are doing." WHOSE maturity? Aren't the TEACHERS the ones that should be MATURE... and aren't they ALREADY? The people here are mature (mostly), and look at the debates WE have, and this is AFTER college... what makes waiting til college any better, besides giving people more time to fill the void left empty to delaying education with any old thing they want, until it's set so deep that rational thought would not dislodge it?

 

[stsburns]

not necessarily, for me, christianity or islam, doesn't necessarily offer a logical purpose. If they were such a simple answer to these questions, the questions wouldn't still be speculated among philosophical communities. I wonder that if there is the God Christians describe, why did God create us, why do we have to go through life when we have to live through eternity in hell or heaven anyways, and why did God create the universe. Tons of questions arise that all eventually lead to, what is the real purpose of life. If you ask this to a priest or religious scholar, he/she will end up saying we don't know, or that we cannot understand God's workings or something of the like.

not all scientists think our reason here is merely to reproduce, although it certainly makes some sense. But monotheism isn't the only alternative to that line of thinking.

It's quite obvious you haven't read the first book of the Bible. In Genisis the earth was created in 7 days. Don't you think people should be punished for their bad deeds? Why should death free them from their Judgement to go to Heaven or Hell? Who are the people you are citing as "Scholors" and "Priests"?