• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

Slantedfacts

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Reality Super HiWay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
What do you mean with "missing facts"? And are you now talking about all of science?
untrue. You are making an outright misrepresentation.
No, it depends on wheter you provide a honest representation of science or whether you deliberately misrepresent science in order to push the politics of your faith.

About this comment:
No, it depends on wheter you provide a honest representation of science or whether you deliberately misrepresent science in order to push the politics of your faith.

honest representation?? There are NO conclusive facts to prove that evolution is correct.

Show me the EXACT transformation with NO missing links.

in simple logic - a missing link is JUST THAT "Missing" - no matter how bad you want it to be true - it falls short of being the TOTAL TRUTH!

Ya' wanna know what the stupidity of all this REALLY is?

I personally have said something in the effect that Bible and Science are saying the same thing in different words - but the Bible (which you apparently lack enough knowledge in) is totally wrong to you!

One suggestion - just remember - Science is NOT infallible!
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Slantedfacts said:
honest representation?? There are NO conclusive facts to prove that evolution is correct.

Show me the EXACT transformation with NO missing links.

Simple, Culex molestus has evolved from Culex pipiens. This is an example of speciation that has happened and been observed.

Slantedfacts said:
in simple logic - a missing link is JUST THAT "Missing" - no matter how bad you want it to be true - it falls short of being the TOTAL TRUTH!

And to continue with your simple logic, the Bible is missing any evidence to substantiate it. So, I guess that means that the Bible falls short of any level of truth.

Slantedfacts said:
Ya' wanna know what the stupidity of all this REALLY is?

I personally have said something in the effect that Bible and Science are saying the same thing in different words - but the Bible (which you apparently lack enough knowledge in) is totally wrong to you!

You may have said that, but they are not. The Bible is saying that God did it. Science is following the observations, and developing an explanation based on those observations. There is not one observation that leads to the conclusion that "God did it".

Slantedfacts said:
One suggestion - just remember - Science is NOT infallible!

The Bible has several points that have been shown to be wrong, so neither is the Bible infallible.

And, unlike the Bible, science can admit to mistakes, and corrects them. The Bible requires blind faith.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Slantedfacts said:
honest representation?? There are NO conclusive facts to prove that evolution is correct.
your claim is false. Every research study in this field shows specific examples of Evolution. It is a conclusive fact that Evolution happens.
Show me the EXACT transformation with NO missing links.
Well, there are several examples. Mr Fungus came up with one. Here is the documentation (incl. the specific mutation) of another one:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
in simple logic - a missing link is JUST THAT "Missing" - no matter how bad you want it to be true - it falls short of being the TOTAL TRUTH!
Rather, itshows your incredible ignorance. Just because creationists claim there is a 'missing link" doesn't mean that it is missing. The example from Mr. Fungus and I clearly gives examples without any intermediaries missing, f.ex.

And again, why is Evolution dependent on a "missing link"? Don't you know what Evolution is? Sure seems like you are making arguments based on your own ignorance rather than based on any relevant critique of Evolution.
Ya' wanna know what the stupidity of all this REALLY is?
That you are making remarks that have nothing to do with evolution or are so irrelevant that they don't disprove evolution, your bizarre misrepresentation/misperception none withstanding. Like your ongoing yammering about a "Missing link." How does that disprove Evolution?
I personally have said something in the effect that Bible and Science are saying the same thing in different words
And that is kind of true, yes. That doesn’t mean that your misrepresenting Evolution is valid, though.
but the Bible (which you apparently lack enough knowledge in)
Really? What makes you come up with that unsubstantiated weird claim?
is totally wrong to you!
No, it isn't. Stop lying about me.
One suggestion - just remember - Science is NOT infallible!
Never claimed it was. But you making false claims about science or spouting misrepresentations about evolution that only serves to show how incredibly ignorant you are about this, THAT doesn't show any science infallibility.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Slantedfacts said:
About this comment:


honest representation?? There are NO conclusive facts to prove that evolution is correct.

Show me the EXACT transformation with NO missing links.

in simple logic - a missing link is JUST THAT "Missing" - no matter how bad you want it to be true - it falls short of being the TOTAL TRUTH!

Ya' wanna know what the stupidity of all this REALLY is?

I personally have said something in the effect that Bible and Science are saying the same thing in different words - but the Bible (which you apparently lack enough knowledge in) is totally wrong to you!

One suggestion - just remember - Science is NOT infallible!
I think that we should just refuse to reply to these kinds of posts until they go back and read the rest of the thread, and maybe find out...you know... what words mean, like: science, biology, evolution, data, evidence, faith, ect.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-Demosthenes- said:
I think that we should just refuse to reply to these kinds of posts until they go back and read the rest of the thread, and maybe find out...you know... what words mean, like: science, biology, evolution, data, evidence, faith, ect.

It's a nice thought, but then he would just assume that he won.
 

Party_Of_Lincoln

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Ever heard of the law of thermodynamics? Well LAw>Theory.

Second do you realize that preaching evolution is a violation of church and state? That since athieism is a considered religion, that anything associated with athiests beliefs (evolution) have to be banned from public schools. So really evolution being allowed in the schools is a reason for why intelligent design should be put in schools. If one religion is given the abilty to have their own views in a school, and the others not, then this is even worse because it is state sponsored religion. So in order to be fair, and follow the constitution you must allow intelligent design.

Did you also know that you assume something is normaly true if there is no counter evidence. If I cannot prove that I am not purple, then logically you have to believe I am purple because all other colors are ruled out. The same can be said of god, and intelligent design. If you cant in any way disprove intelligent design or god then logically all that is left is that they exsist. I can disprove evolution, by pointing out that 1. it breaks laws with a theory. 2. never explains the eye. I dont know if this has been discussed yet, but the eye is the main thing that evolution cant answer. Evolution is based on the fact that things jump because of a survival of the fittest, such as my arms getting longer in each generation, which will lead to many bonuses to me, allowing that trait to be inbred and used in my species creating a line of DNA of long arms. However look at A. the eye. B. the brain. C. any complex organ. Now how did these come about. Did I have a mirror for my eye and that helped me, or what about a nerve ending to my eye, or the lens, or any part of a complex structure (remeber evolution relies on a slow change through the eons. It cant just be one day my baby is born with an eye, it requires generations of a slow process) if the mirror didnt help me than it would be bred out, because according to theory non-good traits will be bred out. So in order for evolutionist to explain the eye they will have to explain how we got it through evolution. For example if we used the theory of evolution to build a building with the trait to keep us warm, then when we poor the foundation, it would in no way help us keep warm and therefore would be "bred out". However when building buildings we use intelligent design, we look at it and see that it may not keep us warm, but we realize that the final product will, so we continue to build. This is what intelligent design is, that a higher being dictated the eye be created, when he was at a mirror he didnt give up, like evolution would have, he continued to build over the eons. Evolution cant explain anything, case closed evolution is disproven leaving only one other way, and as stated this means we have to use Intelligent design because all other ways have been disproven (purple analogy).
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Ever heard of the law of thermodynamics? Well LAw>Theory.

Second do you realize that preaching evolution is a violation of church and state? That since athieism is a considered religion, that anything associated with athiests beliefs (evolution) have to be banned from public schools. So really evolution being allowed in the schools is a reason for why intelligent design should be put in schools. If one religion is given the abilty to have their own views in a school, and the others not, then this is even worse because it is state sponsored religion. So in order to be fair, and follow the constitution you must allow intelligent design.

Did you also know that you assume something is normaly true if there is no counter evidence. If I cannot prove that I am not purple, then logically you have to believe I am purple because all other colors are ruled out. The same can be said of god, and intelligent design. If you cant in any way disprove intelligent design or god then logically all that is left is that they exsist. I can disprove evolution, by pointing out that 1. it breaks laws with a theory. 2. never explains the eye. I dont know if this has been discussed yet, but the eye is the main thing that evolution cant answer. Evolution is based on the fact that things jump because of a survival of the fittest, such as my arms getting longer in each generation, which will lead to many bonuses to me, allowing that trait to be inbred and used in my species creating a line of DNA of long arms. However look at A. the eye. B. the brain. C. any complex organ. Now how did these come about. Did I have a mirror for my eye and that helped me, or what about a nerve ending to my eye, or the lens, or any part of a complex structure (remeber evolution relies on a slow change through the eons. It cant just be one day my baby is born with an eye, it requires generations of a slow process) if the mirror didnt help me than it would be bred out, because according to theory non-good traits will be bred out. So in order for evolutionist to explain the eye they will have to explain how we got it through evolution. For example if we used the theory of evolution to build a building with the trait to keep us warm, then when we poor the foundation, it would in no way help us keep warm and therefore would be "bred out". However when building buildings we use intelligent design, we look at it and see that it may not keep us warm, but we realize that the final product will, so we continue to build. This is what intelligent design is, that a higher being dictated the eye be created, when he was at a mirror he didnt give up, like evolution would have, he continued to build over the eons. Evolution cant explain anything, case closed evolution is disproven leaving only one other way, and as stated this means we have to use Intelligent design because all other ways have been disproven (purple analogy).

Thanks for the wisdom. It's appreciated.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Ever heard of the law of thermodynamics? Well LAw>Theory.
Arwww, HELL. Are you on this subject as well? It must be a curse. I did something wrong in my former life and now I am being punished by posters who spew falsehoods as if they believe them. SIGH!

In Science, a law is not more than a theory. They are different, Scientific laws are representing fixed mathematical relationships, nothing else. Scientific theories are the end-product of the Scientific theory after all the data and evidence are in. A Scientific theory never turns into a Scientific law and vice versa. You really need to learn a bit more about this, like, hmmm., like perhaps looking in a 7th grade science textbook?
Second do you realize that preaching evolution is a violation of church and state?
Damn, we have a real comedian here, a real :joke:
That since athieism is a considered religion, that anything associated with athiests beliefs (evolution)
This got to be one of the dumbest claims ever made here? Anybody care to put it to a vote? This joker is saying that science is atheistic, isn't he?

I have had enough.:roll: :doh
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
I wasn't being sarcastic. Even though I only read half of what Lincoln-Person wrote, cuz I got bored.
You weren't sarcastic?:shock:

That crap about law>theory? Come on now.:confused:
 

Party_Of_Lincoln

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
My response Steen Style:


LOL! You are an ignorant puppy. I have proven my theory right countless times and I can say your dumb. Your wrong Im right. Well, thats sealed I just did some hard work and disproved him.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
You weren't sarcastic?:shock:

That crap about law>theory? Come on now.:confused:

Well, a law is greater than a theory cuz it's been proven. A theory is just an idea/hypothesis written on paper that can be used to wipe your ass if it's wrong.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
Well, a law is greater than a theory cuz it's been proven. A theory is just an idea/hypothesis written on paper that can be used to wipe your ass if it's wrong.
OH GAWD, not you to? You MUST know that there is a huge difference in Science between a LAW and a THEORY and that they are not ranked like you claim they are? You MUST know this, right? Do you KNOW what the Scientific Method is? Your claim is essentially saying that just about all science is invalid. You REALLY need to reconsider your claim here.

In Science, a law has not been "proven," no. It merely is a fixed mathematical relationship that always sofar have been found to be the same. You guys really need to cease displaying so much ignorance.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
OH GAWD, not you to? You MUST know that there is a huge difference in Science between a LAW and a THEORY and that they are not ranked like you claim they are? You MUST know this, right? Do you KNOW what the Scientific Method is? Your claim is essentially saying that just about all science is invalid. You REALLY need to reconsider your claim here.

In Science, a law has not been "proven," no. It merely is a fixed mathematical relationship that always sofar have been found to be the same. You guys really need to cease displaying so much ignorance.

So the law of gravity isn't proven? I'm not a scientist, so it doesn't matter to me. All I know is that if I let go of a hammer, it's gonna hit my foot, resulting in agonizing pain that may last for minutes. I only got Cs and Bs in Science. So no, I don't know the difference. Happy now? Direct me to a site where I can aquire this knowledge.
 

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
If I cannot prove that I am not purple, then logically you have to believe I am purple because all other colors are ruled out.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise. If you cannot
prove that you are not purple you can only conclude that you have no
information about your state of purpleness. It means neither that you are
purple nor that you are not.

"Proof" is a dangerous term to use, as, once you get away from its
mathematical meaning, it degenerates into a very weak term. In common
usage, proving something means finding evidence in favour of it that
outweighs evidence against it.

As there is zero evidence supporting creationism it is useless to apply
the word "proof" in any sense; it is not even worth considering it as an
hypothesis.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Donkey1499 said:
So the law of gravity isn't proven? I'm not a scientist, so it doesn't matter to me. All I know is that if I let go of a hammer, it's gonna hit my foot, resulting in agonizing pain that may last for minutes. I only got Cs and Bs in Science. So no, I don't know the difference. Happy now? Direct me to a site where I can aquire this knowledge.



The "Law" of gravity is not a proven fact in scientific circles.....it is a working Law. Current work attempts to explain the problems with Newtons "Law" on a micro scale, as while the newtonian model works beautifully in the Macro...it breaks down on very small scales.

This explanation of scientific theory terminology may benefit this thread:

Hypothesis: An Idea created to explain an observation

Theory: A hypothesis which has gone through experimentation, Peer review, and repeated testing on multiple fronts, AND which has been confirmed as a likely explanation of observed phenomenon

Law: A Fundemental explanation for observed phenomenon. Most laws are the result of a combination of theories used to "Fill in" the body of the law.

Very few Scientist will tell you they Have facts....as the nature of scientific theory is not condusive to such black and white terms, and everyone knows there will be more Data in the future. These data might call into question any one theory, or add credence to the same. We are also painfully aware of the "Hawking Clause"....wherein one individual is capable of throwing a field of Science off kilter, simply by the power of his/her Brain.

I find a quote by Carl Sagan quite fitting where science is concerned.

" with extrordinary claims, Comes the need for extra-ordinary proof"
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
So the law of gravity isn't proven?
Corect. It merely is a fixed relationship between force and acceleration. There is no 'proof," only empirical observation.
I'm not a scientist, so it doesn't matter to me.
NO KIDDING?
All I know is that if I let go of a hammer, it's gonna hit my foot, resulting in agonizing pain that may last for minutes.
Ah, but now you are talking about the Scientific THEORY of Gravity. Whan you talk about the LAW of Gravity, then it is a fixed numerical relationship, nothing else. You obviously have no clue about the difference of the terminology here, merely trying for your own ignorant misrepresentation based solely on what you WANT it to be, right?
Direct me to a site where I can aquire this knowledge.
High School science textbook should do the trick. Otherwise, here are some good sites that are easy to read, on the Scientific method, explaining some of this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely."

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Ever heard of the law of thermodynamics? Well LAw>Theory.

I'm familiar with it, are you? It is moot to the point of evolution. The laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. The Sun gives us a continuous input of energy. That energy is what drives life. The majority of he energy released by the Sun disapates into space, reducing the overall amount of energy available, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Second do you realize that preaching evolution is a violation of church and state? That since athieism is a considered religion,

Not even close. Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing more. Saying that it is a religion is like saying that absolute zero is hot.

You are saying that the lack of something is the same as that thing.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
that anything associated with athiests beliefs (evolution) have to be banned from public schools. So really evolution being allowed in the schools is a reason for why intelligent design should be put in schools. If one religion is given the abilty to have their own views in a school, and the others not, then this is even worse because it is state sponsored religion. So in order to be fair, and follow the constitution you must allow intelligent design.

Well, since your opening premise upon which you base this is wrong, then we can dismiss this as well.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Did you also know that you assume something is normaly true if there is no counter evidence. If I cannot prove that I am not purple, then logically you have to believe I am purple because all other colors are ruled out.

Again, not even close. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative. If you are making a claim (i.e. that you are purple), then it is up to you to prove that claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the more stringent the level of proof needs to be.

If you claim to be a person who is purple, that goes against every observation of people throughout history, so you are under the onus of a very high burden of proof. In a case like this, I would accept nothing less than actually physically seeing you, and having the opportunity to make sure that you were not artificially pigmented in some fashion.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
The same can be said of god, and intelligent design. If you cant in any way disprove intelligent design or god then logically all that is left is that they exsist.

You cannot disprove that you aren't a figment of my imagination, therefore, according to your concept of logic, you are nothing but a figment of my imagination.

Do you see how ridiculous this line of "reasoning" is?

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
I can disprove evolution, by pointing out that 1. it breaks laws with a theory.

What law does it break?

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
2. never explains the eye. I dont know if this has been discussed yet, but the eye is the main thing that evolution cant answer.

Ahh, the old "irreducibly complex" argument. Well, here are the major intermediate stages that could have come about.

1. photosensitive cell
2. aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
3. an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
4. pigment cells forming a small depression
5. pigment cells forming a deeper depression
6. the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
7. muscles allowing the lens to adjust

Now, in the case of a fish eye, this is estimated to take 1829 1% changes. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html)

So, we can see that the eye is not irreducibly complex, but that we actually have a viable sequence showing it developing.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Evolution is based on the fact that things jump because of a survival of the fittest, such as my arms getting longer in each generation, which will lead to many bonuses to me, allowing that trait to be inbred and used in my species creating a line of DNA of long arms. However look at A. the eye.

Taken care of above.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
B. the brain.

Even easier. Look at animals from simple to complex. You can follow the progress from no brain structure, to a loose network of neurons, to a ganglion, to simple brains, to complex brains.

This one is (sorry for this pun) a no-brainer...

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
C. any complex organ.

Well, I've shown that the eye and brain (the two most common used by creationists/IDots) can be explained, there is no reason to think that others can't be. For most of the organs, you can look to existing animals. Start with the simple and move to the complex, and you'll be able to follow how the development of an organ may have come about.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Now how did these come about. Did I have a mirror for my eye and that helped me, or what about a nerve ending to my eye, or the lens, or any part of a complex structure (remeber evolution relies on a slow change through the eons. It cant just be one day my baby is born with an eye, it requires generations of a slow process) if the mirror didnt help me than it would be bred out, because according to theory non-good traits will be bred out. So in order for evolutionist to explain the eye they will have to explain how we got it through evolution.

Explained...

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
For example if we used the theory of evolution to build a building with the trait to keep us warm, then when we poor the foundation, it would in no way help us keep warm and therefore would be "bred out".

But, the foundation would give us a building that lasts longer and can be bigger and stronger, so it would retained.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
However when building buildings we use intelligent design, we look at it and see that it may not keep us warm, but we realize that the final product will, so we continue to build. This is what intelligent design is, that a higher being dictated the eye be created, when he was at a mirror he didnt give up, like evolution would have, he continued to build over the eons.

Nice try, but we've seen possible intermediary steps for the eye, and we've seen that your building analogy is flawed.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
Evolution cant explain anything, case closed

And creationism/ID explains nothing. It is just saying that "God did it".

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
evolution is disproven leaving only one other way,

Well, seeing as I just refuted your claims, I'd say that it isn't disproven.

Party_Of_Lincoln said:
and as stated this means we have to use Intelligent design because all other ways have been disproven (purple analogy).

Bzzzzzz...

Thank you for playing, try again. Preferably after coming up with something other than an argument from incredulity. And, preferably after learning where the burden of proof lies, and maybe even a little about logic.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Originally Posted by Party_Of_Lincoln
Second do you realize that preaching evolution is a violation of church and state? That since athieism is a considered religion,


This is .....quite possibly.....the most rediculous premis I have yet seen on these boards, and considering the rest of your post....that is saying something.
 

bandaidwoman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
582
Reaction score
25
Location
Covington,Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
MrFungus420 said:
I'm familiar with it, are you? It is moot to the point of evolution. The laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. The Sun gives us a continuous input of energy. That energy is what drives life. The majority of he energy released by the Sun disapates into space, reducing the overall amount of energy available, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

so true! As a ex chemist, I am tired of intelligent designers evoking this. As ex chemist this is offensive because it shows a basic lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. As you stated Mr. Fungus, it only applies to a closed system. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.



In addition, chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. That is the second misinterpretation of Darwinism. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. (we are seeing this in rats who are now resistant to warfarin or rat poison and insects who are resistant to pesticides. Of course it is even more obvious in the microbial world of antibiotic resistance but many believe microevolution can occur without macroevolution......:bs )
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
also, it is amazing how important and productive the idea of evolution has been in biology.

i was recently reading a news article on the new research discoveries on the narwhale's horn. Based on the article, most of the research was and is guided by the idea of evolution. Thus the true function of the horn was discovered through a combination of logic through darwin's evolution and much field research. For example, certain possiblities for the function of the narwhale's horn were completely disregarded using the simple theory of evolution. Other possibilities gained more support as they fit with the idea of evolution and its premise that only desirable features will survive. Thus this constant weighing and elimination of options made the whole process much much easier wouldn't you say? Now how could this "alternative theory of intelligent design bullshiit" even begin to help in this research.

Another example:

I was interning at UT Southwestern two summers ago, and the research was on pancreas acinar cells and the functions of certian cell-receptor associated with the complexes. All the research was guided by the basic idea that these cell structures had to bee evolutionarily favorable for the human. If this idea wasn't there, we'd have no idea how to begin or what to look for (of course i am generalizing a bit).

Overall, evolution helps scientists not only understand phenomena but helps them lead into new questions and make accurate predictions.

-------This in itself should be enough to show the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. I don't know why there is so much controversy then. this is why many scientsits just gawk in amazement that this retarded debate had even arisen.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Next up...South Carolina

A proponent of teaching various theories of human origin, which include creationism, gained support Monday from the state’s public school reform oversight panel.

At the urging of Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, the Education Oversight Committee voted 8-7 to strike from high school biology standards wording that tied schools to teaching only evolution.

Fair wants schools to go beyond Darwinism, and oversight panel members said they would draft new rules before February to address his concerns.


http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/living/education/13394245.htm


Seems the actual teachers....you know the ones who teach...are not happy at all with this
 
Top Bottom