Author Topic: the same old...  (Read 7278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
science is the deductive process of takeing what you observe and trying to determine the most likely cause for it, and then testing your determineation.

how would someone have come up with "god made the earth in seven days" from anything observable today?
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
Darwin's theory of natural selection hasn't fundamentally changed, nor is it a simple theory; in fact, natural selection has been directly observed.  Here's a classic textbook example:  peppered moths live in forests in certain parts of England.  They come in two varieties:  light-colored and dark-colored.  Prior to the early 1800s, the light-colored moths, which blended in well with the color of the tree bark, were present in much higher numbers than the dark-colored moths, which showed up easily against the bark and were eaten by predators.  Then came the Industrial Revolution; factories were built and started putting out large quantities of smoke and soot.  As a result, the bark of the trees darkened.  The moth population started to shift; light-colored moths were now easily visible and frequently preyed upon, while the dark-colored moths blended in with the trees.  What had formerly been a hindrance for the dark moths was now an adaptation.  Over the last few decades, with the implementation of stricter pollution controls, the trees have become lighter, and the moth population has reversed once again.  Natural selection is as simple as that; the organisms best adapted to their environment survive more frequently and are able to pass their genes on to their offspring.

For another example, consider the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which has been plaguing medicine recently.  The few bacteria with mutations that allow them to survive the antibiotic survive it and reproduce; the resulting generations are then all antibiotic-resistant.  If you want the most fundamental example of all, just look at the original: Darwin's finches on Galapagos.  Each species has a unique beak design specifically adapted for the food source in their own habitat.  You may think that macroevolution is questionable, but natural selection is an observable fact that can't be realistically misrepresented.  As was posted before, the fossil record also shows evidence for diversification and speciation; while we may be unsure about the specifics, such as whether evolution occurs gradually over time or in fits and starts, the scientific theory itself is sound and is supported by a great deal of evidence.

As a side note, I also went to Catholic grade school and high school, and evolution was a core feature of every biology class I took.  Yes, we had theology classes that taught Catholic doctrine and beliefs, but we also had the same science courses that most of the rest of the world uses.  You see, it can be done. :p

 
Quote
Originally posted by Mongoose
Darwin's theory of natural selection hasn't fundamentally changed, nor is it a simple theory; in fact, natural selection has been directly observed.  Here's a classic textbook example:  peppered moths live in forests in certain parts of England.  They come in two varieties:  light-colored and dark-colored.  Prior to the early 1800s, the light-colored moths, which blended in well with the color of the tree bark, were present in much higher numbers than the dark-colored moths, which showed up easily against the bark and were eaten by predators.  Then came the Industrial Revolution; factories were built and started putting out large quantities of smoke and soot.  As a result, the bark of the trees darkened.  The moth population started to shift; light-colored moths were now easily visible and frequently preyed upon, while the dark-colored moths blended in with the trees.  What had formerly been a hindrance for the dark moths was now an adaptation.  Over the last few decades, with the implementation of stricter pollution controls, the trees have become lighter, and the moth population has reversed once again.  Natural selection is as simple as that; the organisms best adapted to their environment survive more frequently and are able to pass their genes on to their offspring.
 


That is an example of MICRO-evolution. I have no beef with that proven theory. But to take that as a basis for macro-evolution and interspecies crossovers.... its quite a stretch.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Omniscaper
I'm not here to change minds. I'm just presenting my perspective and opinion on the matter. Am I essentially calling people stupid for not sharing my perspective, no. That is what I'm sensing from many of of the posts here.

My concern is with the sciences not putting all the cards on the table (problems and holes in their theories). My concern is the spin being put on theories that are NOT airtight.


Yet another assertion. This is getting ridiculous. Every scientific theory has holes. The fact we haven't found the graviton is an enormous f**king hole in the theory of gravity yet I don't hear any of this nonsense about people believing in gravity as a matter of faith.

The fact is you're giving a very good example of what Intelligent Design is. A series of easily disprovable assertions. You claim you have evidence but when challenged to provide it you post the equivalent of "Look behind you! A three headed monkey!" and simply move on to your next assertion.

I don't think you're stupid because you believe in God. You can believe in creationism all you like too.
 What I take exception to is the fact that you obviously don't understand what science is and yet dare to say that a whole branch of it is an article of faith and then fail to provide a single shread of evidence for why that is true.

There is no spin being put on evolution. Read my explaination of what science is again. Evolution is the best scientific theory that explains life on Earth. So it must be accepted by science (minor) holes and all.

To do anything else is the antithesis of science.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
I'm still waiting for an explaination of how the evedence behind evolution is non-scientific.
or better yet, how the evedence behind creationism is.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Omniscaper


That is an example of MICRO-evolution. I have no beef with that proven theory. But to take that as a basis for macro-evolution and interspecies crossovers.... its quite a stretch.


ok, so you can accept that a population can change to suit there envoronment, changes wich corispond to a genetic level alteration of the population. why is it then that you cannot accept that if a population is seperated into two or more groupes and placed in diferent environments for long enough that the cumulated diferences between the two populations would make them incapable of successfuly reproduceing when the two populations are once again occupying the same environment?
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Omniscaper
That is an example of MICRO-evolution. I have no beef with that proven theory. But to take that as a basis for macro-evolution and interspecies crossovers.... its quite a stretch.


Points at the ridiculous number of Galapogos finches who only differ in colour and shape of beak.

Are you honestly denying that the same forces that changed the colour of a species in under 100 years couldn't change the beaks and plumage of those animals in 10,000 times as much time?

Before you answer look at what has happened to the wolf since it's domestication in 1/100th of that time
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Thats all well and good Karajorma, but its still no evidence for trans-species evolution.



Once again, I'm not here change minds. I am not here to convert people into Christianity. Not once did I mention the Christian God nor did I suggest Creationism is absolute truth.

So many words are being put in my mouth, you're right Karajorma when u said that "... this IS rediculous".

I don't have the time and patience (yet) to convince people to see the universe in a particular light.  I do not have all the answers to questions posed on Intelligent Design concepts. I've done enough cross referencing and research on the matter and I know enough for myself to continue leaning on that concept.

All I want is that people should have an open mind and consider all possibilities. People should always question their faith in either the scienctific and/or spiritual truthes.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
the point of this conversation is that creationism is not science,
and that evolution is.

provide scientific evidence for creationism or forfit.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Quote
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I'm thinking that the best way of teaching religions' views on the issue in a science class would be to group them all according to general theory and list some supporting and unsupporting evidence.

Or just simply tell people 'this is the scientific community's explanation for life. This is not necessarily you or your parents' viewpoints. If you want to know more about religious theories, go check out a book from the school library or take a class on religion.'

However, I doubt that'd fly with many of the people against teaching evolution...


I don't see how evolution and creationism can be taught side-by-side in a public school when religions have different stories of creation. To do this, you'd have to address these, and I don't think anyone wants to take the time to explain a couple dozen religion's versions of creation. You can't just put a Christian-centric spin on it. There are other religions out there.

They will never put religion back into public school. It's separation of church and state. Hey, remember they removed "under God" from the pledge of allegiance here in the States? Although, that is a bit more trivial than this. Public education needs reform though.

 

Offline Grey Wolf

They actually failed. The guy who tried doing it didn't have legal custody of his daughter.
You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" -George Bernard Shaw

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
no no don't you give him a chance to dodge.
he has to provide scientific evedence suporting creationism.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
the point of this conversation is that creationism is not science,
and that evolution is.

provide scientific evidence for creationism or forfit.



The point of my MY posts does not fit into the parameters you ultimately deemed this thread.


Evolution (all life came from a single celled organism)... too many other considerations that are keeping me from accepting it as absolute truth:

1. The Big Bang... (problem for causality)

2. Law of Thermodynamics "entropy" linked with mathematical improbablity within a given timeframe since BigBang, and specific dynamic relationships between cosmic bodies and terrestrial environmentals to allow for the random convergance of the first protien.

3. The complexity of DNA structure does not allow for inter/trans species evolution and denotes that form follows function.

4. Human awareness of the patterns of all these universal systems.


Forfit...unlikely.  Dodge... why?  Sleep.... yes.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 08:41:16 pm by 1582 »

 

Offline Ford Prefect

  • 8D
  • 26
  • Intelligent Dasein
Quote
I'm sorry, "evidence" is not exclusive to scientific method. How do you do u suppose things were considered "evidence" before scientific method was even established.

The scientific method was never invented. It is the natural process by which we analyze cause/effect relationships to determine what we can consider true. Ug the Caveman practiced the scientific method, he just didn't have a name for it.
Quote
Before the "Enlightenment" period and Darwin, the sciences were open to both natural and un-natural possibilities. The universe and human existance go way beyond human logic and reason.

There is no such thing as "unnatural". If the universe's laws permit something to happen, it is natural. "Unnatural" and "supernatural" are operative terms we apply when we lack the knowledge to understand logically why something is occurring. We fill the gap with our imagination, a biological side-effect of our evolution. Sometimes our imagination conveniently interacts with our logical side, tempting us to the conclusion that real truth lies in intuition, but this is a fallacy that results from our total inability to see the universe beyond our own, inconsequential emotions.
"Mais est-ce qu'il ne vient jamais à l'idée de ces gens-là que je peux être 'artificiel' par nature?"  --Maurice Ravel

 

Offline Turambar

  • Determined to inflict his entire social circle on us
  • 210
  • You can't spell Manslaughter without laughter
creation or "intelligent design" is the laziest damn myth ive heard of.  it exists because people just can;t grasp the concept of how long a million years is, and they don't want to stretch their mind out enough to grasp it properly, or at least to acknowledge that it exists and they can't grasp it
10:55:48   TurambarBlade: i've been selecting my generals based on how much i like their hats
10:55:55   HerraTohtori: me too!
10:56:01   HerraTohtori: :D

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
1) irrelevent, were talking biology here, you want to say god made the universe, fine, I don't care at this point, we're talking biology and were stiking to it.

2) Law of Thermodynamics relates to the number of posable configurations of a closed system, it says nothing of 'order', therefore is irrelevent to weather something could or could not be formed. but even if it were earth is not a closed system a requierment of this theory.

3)what exactly do you mean by inter/trans species? genes from one animal do not move from it to another (with the obvius exeption of reproduction). or do you mean that there is something about DNA that would make it incapable of haveing one species become two, in wich case what exactly is it about the structure of DNA that allows for the exsistance of diferent species but does not allow one species to become  another.
elaborate.

4)how does us being aware of stuff effect anything?



sleep, on this we can agree.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 08:56:15 pm by 57 »
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
I think Intelligent Design is the zenith of human awareness. It acknowledges that we do not control the universe and are merely manipulating the pre-established laws of physics. To know how something works is one thing. To understand why it works is quite another.



Sleep...        zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 09:05:16 pm by 1582 »

 

Offline Ford Prefect

  • 8D
  • 26
  • Intelligent Dasein
But what makes you think there is a why? Why isn't it logical to assume that the universe just is, with no reason at all?
"Mais est-ce qu'il ne vient jamais à l'idée de ces gens-là que je peux être 'artificiel' par nature?"  --Maurice Ravel

 

Offline Grey Wolf

DNA copies incorrectly a certain percentage of the time, sometimes due to damage. This causes mutations. These mutations lead to new traits. At this point, one of three things.

A trait that proves to be favorable will often be passed along to offspring, where it may combine with other new traits. A sufficient number of new traits can cause the organism to no longer be fertile with the progenitor species. This is called differentiation.

A trait that has no value, either favorably or negatively, may be passed on. This may also contribute to differentiation.

A trait that has a negative value will likely cause the organism to die, preventing the trait from being passed on. This would be an evolutionary dead end.

That is the Theory of Evolution in a nutshell.
You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" -George Bernard Shaw

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But what makes you think there is a why? Why isn't it logical to assume that the universe just is, with no reason at all?


Same reason why can't science accept "it just IS" explanations?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2005, 09:04:16 pm by 1582 »