The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[Thinker]

I've already taken biology, that's how I'm coming to these
conclusions.

Either you had an ignorant teacher or you were asleep during the lessons.

 

[kal-el]

Either you had an ignorant teacher or you were asleep during the lessons.

Why? Is it because I don't buy the Darwinian theory?

 

[Thinker]

Why? Is it because I don't buy the Darwinian theory?

No. It's because you make statements like: "For science to suggest that man
comes from the monkey, and so on, is totally stupid."

As science does not suggest that, either you had an ignorant teacher or you
slept through what was actually said.

 

[nkgupta80]

Why? Is it because I don't buy the Darwinian theory?

yeah man, you show a bad understanding of Evolution, and its consequences in biology, medicine, and genetics.

 

[kal-el]

yeah man, you show a bad understanding of Evolution, and its consequences in biology, medicine, and genetics.

Well excuse me if my views don't correspond to Your tastes.

 

[nkgupta80]

its not about tastes, its just facts or points of evolution you don't seem to understand. You make it seem like evolution comes out of philosophical textbooks and faith. Today's theory of evolution is very different from Darwin's. And the whole theory is based on not only evidence we see and find around the world, but ALSO working applications of it in medical/biological/genetic research. When a theory has numerous working applications, it gains a lot more validity.

 

[zk655]

I'm sure if I went to a natural history museum, and asked questions, I'm more than convinced that they would give me one-sided answers. Supporting evolution Only.

I've already taken biology, that's how I'm coming to these conclusions.

Well you see the reality of the situation is that you have closed your mind to the discussion and are unwilling to accept new information. The fact that you are "Sure" you would only get one-sided answers to questions just means you are unwilling to listen and probably don't really want to hear them anyway. That's to bad. Especially since it is people on the creation/intelligent design side of the argument that are always accusing people of being close minded.

I'm glad to hear that you at least took a biology class. Most people aren't even willing to do that. I hope that your conclusions really were based on what you heard in class rather than pre-conceived notions that you brought into class with you.

It is important to note, however, that having taken a biology class, you should know that evolution doesn't EVER say that humans came from monkey's. So your assumption that it does, perhaps means that you didn't fully understand what was being taught.

 

[nkgupta80]

you may say that scientists are closed minded as well in not excepting an intelligent creator as a possibility. Well of course they can't including a factor like this into science would completely ruin the scientific process. Why? Because with this powerful factor I could explain anything in the world and thus end scientific inquiry right then and there.

 

[zk655]

Well excuse me if my views don't correspond to Your tastes.

It isn't your views that are the problem. Its that your views appear to be UNINFORMED, yet you are trying to use them as proof that evolution is false.

If this conforms to your personal faith and brings you comfort than more power to you. You are certainly free to believe whatever you want and I for one applaud it.

However, there are a lot of people with the same uninformed view trying to have it pushed into public school curriculum. This isn't anything new, people have been trying to discredit science as a means of pushing personal religious agenda on school children for years. What is different this time, is that its actually getting consideration.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"The theory of gravity is slow to change simply because it has been verified through countless experimentation over many years. Had you entered into a discussion during the period in which Newton was formulating his theory or when Aristotle was describing items at rest in their natural place, you would have seen a rapidly changing stream of thought. Even today, if you were to ask a physicist who was studying string theory and a physicist who leaned more towards classic newtonian physics you might get very different explanations regarding the principles and functions of gravity."

Yup. Recent observations that the expansion of the universe is speeding up are contrary to what our "law" of gravity would predict. This requires that either it must be modified or that some other unknown force be introduced. Right now, this force is being called dark energy. So far no one has attributed the effect to intelligent design though I suspect it is only a matter of time.:roll:

 

[nkgupta80]

Yup. Recent observations that the expansion of the universe is speeding up are contrary to what our "law" of gravity would predict. This requires that either it must be modified or that some other unknown force be introduced. Right now, this force is being called dark energy. So far no one has attributed the effect to intelligent design though I suspect it is only a matter of time.

why not just attribute everything to intelligent design.....

 

[kal-el]

It isn't your views that are the problem. Its that your views appear to be UNINFORMED, yet you are trying to use them as proof that evolution is false.

If this conforms to your personal faith and brings you comfort than more power to you. You are certainly free to believe whatever you want and I for one applaud it.

However, there are a lot of people with the same uninformed view trying to have it pushed into public school curriculum. This isn't anything new, people have been trying to discredit science as a means of pushing personal religious agenda on school children for years. What is different this time, is that its actually getting consideration.

I for one, have No personal religious agenda. If you read some of my other posts you would know that. Science is excellent. It is the doorway to our happiness. All those fools against science don't know how to see and forgot where they come from.

Originally posted by Kenneth T. Cornelius
Yup. Recent observations that the expansion of the universe is speeding up are contrary to what our "law" of gravity would predict. This requires that either it must be modified or that some other unknown force be introduced. Right now, this force is being called dark energy. So far no one has attributed the effect to intelligent design though I suspect it is only a matter of time.

Modified, yes. You guys speak of mutations, but mutations are simply random genetic errors that get passed from one generation to the next. Not All changes are errors though. In sexual reproduction, genetic info between parents combines randomly, except in a distinct process that's specified by the organism. Modification is not only chance errors, but also chance process right under the direction of that organism.

 

[zk655]

I for one, have No personal religious agenda. If you read some of my other posts you would know that. Science is excellent. It is the doorway to our happiness. All those fools against science don't know how to see and forgot where they come from.

I haven't read any of your other posts and if I have come to conclusions about you that are inaccurate than I apologize. However, this has become a very important topic to me, because people with an uninformed idea of science in general and evolution in particular, have begun to receive generous amounts of time and consideration in meetings with school boards and politicians and their ignorance and personal ideological beliefs may have an actual impact on how science is taught to our children.

 

[Thinker]

In sexual reproduction, genetic info between parents combines randomly, except in a distinct process that's specified by the organism. Modification is not only chance errors, but also chance process right under the direction of that organism.

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

[kal-el]

Well Thinker, to put it in laymen's terms, when two things (organisms) have sexual intercourse, their traits, ie hair color, pigment, etc, combine randomly, usually it depends on the kind of the organism. Modification, on the other hand, it not just this, different processes decided by what type of orgainism we're talking about.

originally posted by zk655
I haven't read any of your other posts and if I have come to conclusions about you that are inaccurate than I apologize. However, this has become a very important topic to me, because people with an uninformed idea of science in general and evolution in particular, have begun to receive generous amounts of time and consideration in meetings with school boards and politicians and their ignorance and personal ideological beliefs may have an actual impact on how science is taught to our children

I see where you are coming from zk655, but I am Not against science, to say the least. When I say I beleive in Inelligent Design, I do Not believe in a "divine" creator, who created it all in one week, rather just a "supreme being", but not a "supernatural entity". As for discounting evolution, I can buy some of it, like the first organisms were unicellular, and everything might have took off from there, but I don't believe this happened by chance, as I think there had to be an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Thinker]

Well Thinker, to put it in laymen's terms..[\QUOTE]

Try putting it in English.

...when two things (organisms) have sexual intercourse, their traits, ie hair color, pigment, etc, combine randomly, usually it depends on the kind of the organism.

What depends? How does it depend?

Modification, on the other hand, it not just this, different processes decided by what type of orgainism we're talking about.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[steen]

Modified, yes. You guys speak of mutations, but mutations are simply random genetic errors that get passed from one generation to the next.

As good as place as any to jump in.

How do you know they are "errors"? They are changes, they are reprogramming of DNA base pairs. Why are they "errors"?

Not All changes are errors though. In sexual reproduction, genetic info between parents combines randomly, except in a distinct process that's specified by the organism. Modification is not only chance errors, but also chance process right under the direction of that organism.

I doubt you can show the organism direct anything.

 

[steen]

I think the theory of evolution is just that- only a theory.

I am worried about your claim. It indicates a serious lack of knowledge of what science is. To claim a SCIENTIFIC THEORY to be "only" a theory shows a serious ignorance of even the most basic foundation, namely the Scientific Method. If you understod this minimal point in science, you would know that the "only a theory" claim is simply stupid. I trust you will rectify your ignorance to further intelligent discussion on this rather than us observing a ranting against something you don't know anything about, and have only heard about from creationist lie-sites.

 

[steen]

I can find alot of holes in that theory. For science to suggest that man comes from the monkey, and so on, is totally stupid.

But then, science doesn't suggest any such thing, and neither does the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Could you please show us the respect of actually know what it is you are talking about before attacking it?

Many people were "spoonfed" that this learning is acceptable as truth.

Not from science.

The earth is too complicated to come by random chance, or necessasity.

Really? because you say so? What is it that is to complicated?

And anyway, what does the origin of the Earth have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? It seems like you don't even know what it is, yet you argue against it. That is not exactly a display of integrity.

It is simply the fruit of an outside intervention.

SIGH! Another "because I say so" blind postulation, attempting to portray wishful thinking as "fact."

care to provide the evidence?

 

[steen]

How could an intelligent mind, or guiding force possibly be behind evolution?

Why would it have to be?

As Einstein said, there cannot be a watch without a watch-maker.

Oh, did Einstein say that? Care to provide the quote and context? Or did you merely lift this off a creationist lie-site? Quote-mining is not exactly a sign of intelligence and credibility.

All of you who believe that we come from the monkey through a slow, evolutionary process,

Who does that? Are you really THAT ignorant of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and its evidence that you claim it shows the monkeys as our ancestors? You are really in deep water here, and it doesn't look like you know how to swim here.

believe that the beautiful watch we are, has built itself by accident.

A watch is an inanimate object without any autonomous growth. It is not an organism. What is the purpose of such an irrelevant and off-topic analogy?

It is a bit like saying that if we put all the components of a watch together in a bag and shook it around for awhile, we would eventually get a perfect working watch.

No, it isn't. Nothing in the Science even hints of such a silly claim.

Try a million times if you want.....

Try make that claim a million times if you want....

 

[steen]

I've already taken biology, that's how I'm coming to these conclusions.

Your claim doesn't make sense. Your claims go directly against biological knowledge, so either you are not speaking the truth, or you didn't learn what you were taught, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what you learned.

All three of which are disturbing.

 

[steen]

Well excuse me if my views don't correspond to Your tastes.

Your views don't correspond to reality, they don't correspond to facts. Your claims about the Scientific Theory of Evolution do not match what the Scientific Theory states.

So your views DO show a serious ignorance of what you are trying to argue against. And no, if it is not ignorance, then it is deliberate dishonesty. Trust me, at this point you are better off admitting ignorance than be exposed as a liar.

 

[kal-el]

Steen, are you through verbally bashing me yet? I don't think you care to debate this topic, it seems like you just want to exchange thoughless verbal chicarades, since you quoted me from a couple pages ago.

 

[Thinker]

Steen, are you through verbally bashing me yet? I don't think you care to debate this topic, it seems like you just want to exchange thoughless verbal chicarades, since you quoted me from a couple pages ago.

Steen pointed out several places where you displayed ignorance of what you
were arguing about. It would seem reasonable either to accept the criticism or
to demonstrate why it is invalid.

 

[steen]

Steen, are you through verbally bashing me yet?

I am merely disagreeing with many of the points you make and I am pointing out that a lot of what you are claiming about Evolution and Science is not actually either. I am sure you agree that if you debate an issue, trying to battle strawmen instead doesn't do anything for the debate.

I don't think you care to debate this topic,

Why? because I disagree with your claims and point out where your claims were incorrect?

it seems like you just want to exchange thoughless verbal chicarades, since you quoted me from a couple pages ago.

Huh? What is the significance of your point?

Care to ACTUALLY DEAL with the reservations about your posts that I have listed? Are you actually going to deal with the issue?