Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
- Thread starter Mr.Right
- Start date
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Challenged? By you? You have contributed nothing but snide remarks and intentionally mischaracterize the science and the people who engage in it at every turn. That is not discussion. Now, this is the last time I am going to say this then I file a complaint. FUCK OFF.
Tuatara
Gold Member
The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Then they should keep their religious beliefs off the science forum and in the religion forum where it belongs.
Tuatara
Gold Member
fact
\ˈfakt\noun
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders
\ˈfakt\noun
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
Yes you are scientifically illiterate.
Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders
Your reluctant concession is acknowledged. Perhaps one of your esteemed colleagues would like to pick up where you have failed.
I think the Saudis regard evolution with suspicion as well.
Mr.Right
Guest
- Mar 19, 2015
- 1,659
- 231
- 65
- Thread starter
- #710
And just what is the definition of a species? There are different opinions. Which one do you use? There is also the question of kinds. Just because they are not fertile with each other does not mean they are different species, and they are still the same kind. They still have the same number of chromosomes.
Tuatara
Gold Member
Creationists can also be found in other religions besides Christianity. Creation history can be found among Jewish and Islamic religions. The vast majority of creationists are Christians. I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't believe in evolution.
Tuatara
Gold Member
Stop using the term "kinds" There is no such thing as "kinds" in the Taxanomy of animals.
Main Taxomonic ranks:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class Order
Family
Genus
Species
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
I wrote this blog on another forum about three years ago, and have decided to post it here.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION
"The evolution of the brain not only overshot the needs of prehistoric man, it is (perhaps) the only example of evolution providing a species with an organ it does not know how to use."
- Arthur Koestler
All ribbing aside, Koestler's remark reminds us that as powerful as the human brain appears to be, it is pliable, easily deceived. With that in mind, we must endeavor to focus on the facts and not be led astray by logical fallacies, deception, fear of the unknown, or wishful thinking.
Science is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Scientific discoveries have brought radical change in the past 400 years. From Galileo's telescopic discoveries, Newton's calculus, gravity, and optics, Darwin's origin of species, Mendel's pea experiments, Einstein's relativity, to genetic sequencing and the Large Hadron Collider, science has brought about great scientific and social revolutions; ever challenging us to rethink who and what we are, our place in the universe, our adaptations to everyday life, and in our understanding of the nature of our world and the universe. It is both frightening and wonderful to contemplate what humans have accomplished in such a short time. Fear and wonder; what stimulating motivators they can be.
Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are not close-minded know-it-alls. Most would be the first to admit how little we actually know with certainty about anything. We are, however, worry warts. We fret over every detail, every missed opportunity, and cringe at the thought that we might make a career-ending mistake, understanding nonetheless that mathematically, certainty is highly overrated.
Darwin fretted. So did his colleagues. They were aware of many of the scientific and social/religious implications of the theory. The last thing they wanted was to get bogged down in an unnecessary argument over the religious implications of Darwin's discoveries. Unavoidably, that is exactly what happened. More unfortunate is that the argument continues in the general population today, despite the fact that evolution is not incompatible with mainstream religions, and is accepted by most of those mainstream religions and the world's scientific community. Such has been the way of all scientific discoveries in the west. Change is rarely simple and never easy.
The theory of evolution was a culmination of several hundred years of scientific inquiry. It has been a hard-fought battle in scientific and theological circles. One of the most difficult battles was getting it taught in our education system, as the Scopes trial amply demonstrated. Although Scopes lost the case, it put a spotlight on the radical religious thinking of fundamentalists, who were ridiculed by the press and by much of the general public. In 1961, creationism was revived with the publication of The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, who founded the Creation Research Society (CRS). The society was focused on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and was profoundly anti-evolution and anti-mainstream science. Contrasting with those who supported creationism in the 1920s, half of the founding members of the CRS held advanced degrees in biology, and one held a doctorate in biochemistry. One so-called geologist was in the group, but was later found to have lied about having a degree.
The purpose of the society was to file suit to get creationism taught in public schools. To date, those efforts have been unsuccessful, particularly after teaching creationism in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings.
Others later organized the Discovery Institute, proclaiming it a scientific organization despite the fact that it had no certified credentials as a scientific organization, had no laboratory, conducted no scientific research, and published no peer reviewed scholarly work in accredited scientific publications. They renamed creationism "Intelligent Design" (ID). These folks supported efforts to get ID taught in the Dover, Pennsylvania public schools through deception, fabrication, quote mining, and mischaracterization of scientific data and the experts who research and publish it. At the least, their behavior was grossly unethical. The case went to court, and in a landmark decision, the presiding judge, a conservative appointee, agreed that ID was a subterfuge for creationism, and ruled that teaching it in public schools was in violation of the earlier bans on creationism in public schools. He was critical of the experts who testified on their behalf, the lawyers who defended them, and the Discovery Institute itself.
Despite the fact that Intelligent Design/Creationism has been discredited on both legal and scientific grounds, it survives today, promoted mostly by very vocal, and well funded fundamentalist evangelicals in many popular media outlets, particularly on the internet. Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism is a scientific theory. They are, literalist religious arguments with no valid scientific facts to support the claims. Neither arguments belong in science class in public school. Whether or not one has an honest belief in ID, its most ardent supporters have been shown to be intentionally misleading the public by mischaracterizing the science and those who engage in it. Their goal is to sew public doubt about the most successful scientific theory ever devised in order to sway people into supporting teaching it in public schools. We must endeavor to counter their efforts at every turn if we are to keep our schools free from religious tyranny.
A priori and a posteriori arguments are legitimate foundations for philosophical questions. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory not a purely philosophical argument. In philosophy, you can make any argument you choose to make. The only rules are those that apply to logical consistency. In science, facts always come before theories, not vice versa. One don't frame a scientific theory and then run out and fit facts to it. One fits the theory to verifiable facts. Evolution does the latter. Creationism and its subterfuge, ID, does not.
In fact, as far as anyone has been able to discern, they don't even propose an alternative other than "God did it" (which is a tautology not base on scientific principles) because they are too busy trying to tear down evolution, as if discarding a scientific theory makes some other idea valid. That isn't how it works, of course.
Although dissention is heavily built into the scientific method, long discredited arguments are an unnecessary distraction for scientists and educators who have to waste their time and efforts on countering every spurious claim made to educate the public to what the science actually says. This is an ongoing issue for educators that cannot be ignored because our country is falling grievously behind internationally in nearly every scientific field. Although the failure falls squarely with our education system and our legislators, the anti-science crowd is not helping the situation, likely by design. Their efforts, if unchecked, will have profound negative repercussions for the future growth and maturity of our nation.
Contrary to the long refuted claim that Creationism/Intelligent Design best explains life on Earth than a 'non-directed process such as evolution', Darwin's theory has matured because it has been shown to be a directed process via natural selection, and is currently the only scientific theory that unambiguously explains the diversity of life on this planet. Using the sciences of physics, chemistry, geology, and biology, the theory of biological evolution tells the amazing story or how life on this planet became so remarkably diverse. Creationism and ID cannot use these disciplines to make a reasoned affirmative argument because their overriding dogma, "God/undetermined agent did it" doesn't actually explain anything.
- OROGENICMAN
SCIENCE AND RELIGION
"The evolution of the brain not only overshot the needs of prehistoric man, it is (perhaps) the only example of evolution providing a species with an organ it does not know how to use."
- Arthur Koestler
All ribbing aside, Koestler's remark reminds us that as powerful as the human brain appears to be, it is pliable, easily deceived. With that in mind, we must endeavor to focus on the facts and not be led astray by logical fallacies, deception, fear of the unknown, or wishful thinking.
Science is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Scientific discoveries have brought radical change in the past 400 years. From Galileo's telescopic discoveries, Newton's calculus, gravity, and optics, Darwin's origin of species, Mendel's pea experiments, Einstein's relativity, to genetic sequencing and the Large Hadron Collider, science has brought about great scientific and social revolutions; ever challenging us to rethink who and what we are, our place in the universe, our adaptations to everyday life, and in our understanding of the nature of our world and the universe. It is both frightening and wonderful to contemplate what humans have accomplished in such a short time. Fear and wonder; what stimulating motivators they can be.
Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are not close-minded know-it-alls. Most would be the first to admit how little we actually know with certainty about anything. We are, however, worry warts. We fret over every detail, every missed opportunity, and cringe at the thought that we might make a career-ending mistake, understanding nonetheless that mathematically, certainty is highly overrated.
Darwin fretted. So did his colleagues. They were aware of many of the scientific and social/religious implications of the theory. The last thing they wanted was to get bogged down in an unnecessary argument over the religious implications of Darwin's discoveries. Unavoidably, that is exactly what happened. More unfortunate is that the argument continues in the general population today, despite the fact that evolution is not incompatible with mainstream religions, and is accepted by most of those mainstream religions and the world's scientific community. Such has been the way of all scientific discoveries in the west. Change is rarely simple and never easy.
The theory of evolution was a culmination of several hundred years of scientific inquiry. It has been a hard-fought battle in scientific and theological circles. One of the most difficult battles was getting it taught in our education system, as the Scopes trial amply demonstrated. Although Scopes lost the case, it put a spotlight on the radical religious thinking of fundamentalists, who were ridiculed by the press and by much of the general public. In 1961, creationism was revived with the publication of The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, who founded the Creation Research Society (CRS). The society was focused on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and was profoundly anti-evolution and anti-mainstream science. Contrasting with those who supported creationism in the 1920s, half of the founding members of the CRS held advanced degrees in biology, and one held a doctorate in biochemistry. One so-called geologist was in the group, but was later found to have lied about having a degree.
The purpose of the society was to file suit to get creationism taught in public schools. To date, those efforts have been unsuccessful, particularly after teaching creationism in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings.
Others later organized the Discovery Institute, proclaiming it a scientific organization despite the fact that it had no certified credentials as a scientific organization, had no laboratory, conducted no scientific research, and published no peer reviewed scholarly work in accredited scientific publications. They renamed creationism "Intelligent Design" (ID). These folks supported efforts to get ID taught in the Dover, Pennsylvania public schools through deception, fabrication, quote mining, and mischaracterization of scientific data and the experts who research and publish it. At the least, their behavior was grossly unethical. The case went to court, and in a landmark decision, the presiding judge, a conservative appointee, agreed that ID was a subterfuge for creationism, and ruled that teaching it in public schools was in violation of the earlier bans on creationism in public schools. He was critical of the experts who testified on their behalf, the lawyers who defended them, and the Discovery Institute itself.
Despite the fact that Intelligent Design/Creationism has been discredited on both legal and scientific grounds, it survives today, promoted mostly by very vocal, and well funded fundamentalist evangelicals in many popular media outlets, particularly on the internet. Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism is a scientific theory. They are, literalist religious arguments with no valid scientific facts to support the claims. Neither arguments belong in science class in public school. Whether or not one has an honest belief in ID, its most ardent supporters have been shown to be intentionally misleading the public by mischaracterizing the science and those who engage in it. Their goal is to sew public doubt about the most successful scientific theory ever devised in order to sway people into supporting teaching it in public schools. We must endeavor to counter their efforts at every turn if we are to keep our schools free from religious tyranny.
A priori and a posteriori arguments are legitimate foundations for philosophical questions. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory not a purely philosophical argument. In philosophy, you can make any argument you choose to make. The only rules are those that apply to logical consistency. In science, facts always come before theories, not vice versa. One don't frame a scientific theory and then run out and fit facts to it. One fits the theory to verifiable facts. Evolution does the latter. Creationism and its subterfuge, ID, does not.
In fact, as far as anyone has been able to discern, they don't even propose an alternative other than "God did it" (which is a tautology not base on scientific principles) because they are too busy trying to tear down evolution, as if discarding a scientific theory makes some other idea valid. That isn't how it works, of course.
Although dissention is heavily built into the scientific method, long discredited arguments are an unnecessary distraction for scientists and educators who have to waste their time and efforts on countering every spurious claim made to educate the public to what the science actually says. This is an ongoing issue for educators that cannot be ignored because our country is falling grievously behind internationally in nearly every scientific field. Although the failure falls squarely with our education system and our legislators, the anti-science crowd is not helping the situation, likely by design. Their efforts, if unchecked, will have profound negative repercussions for the future growth and maturity of our nation.
Contrary to the long refuted claim that Creationism/Intelligent Design best explains life on Earth than a 'non-directed process such as evolution', Darwin's theory has matured because it has been shown to be a directed process via natural selection, and is currently the only scientific theory that unambiguously explains the diversity of life on this planet. Using the sciences of physics, chemistry, geology, and biology, the theory of biological evolution tells the amazing story or how life on this planet became so remarkably diverse. Creationism and ID cannot use these disciplines to make a reasoned affirmative argument because their overriding dogma, "God/undetermined agent did it" doesn't actually explain anything.
- OROGENICMAN
Tuatara
Gold Member
One of the best videos on the Creation Vs. Evolution debate
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Source?
Tuatara
Gold Member
Tuatara
Gold Member
Right out of his a$$
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
The American Disgrace: Manipulation, Lies, and Deceit.- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 10
-
-
Well . . . at Least "Transboys" (girls who believe they are really boys) Won't Get Pregnant. Right?- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 3
-
