PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution in Schools
       Same as Forced Religion?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 07:37 AM on June 17, 2005 :


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"

This is a nobel prize winner making this statement. It is not a misquote, he really feels this way as do many.


No, to be a misquote, it has to be a quote first.  This appears to be totally fictional.

Frankly, your sources stink.

First, there is no Nobel Prize in Biology.

Second, there is no Nobel Prize winner named George Wall.

List of all Nobel Laureates

Third, if I search the Harvard Web site, this is the only hit for George Wall:

Deeds 868

Bargain and sale, 1640, February 3. 16 Charles I. 2 items : parchment

SUMMARY: Bargain and sale of land in Bircher in the parish of Yarpole (Herfs.) by George Wall of Bircher and Mary his wife to Richard Marston of Berringston (Worcs.). Indenture, with 2 seals, pendant on tags. Document bears an earlier cataloguing number: 2.

NAMES: I. Wall, George. II. Wall, Mary. III. Marston, Richard.

SUBJECTS: 1. Deeds--England-- Herefordshire. 2. Deeds--England-- Bircher. 3. Deeds--England--Yarpole. 4. Herefordshire (England)--Charters, grants, privileges. 5. Bircher (England)- -Charters, grants, privileges. 6. Yarpole (England)--Charters, grants, privileges. 7. Berrington (England).

HOLLIS number: -BHM1890


Do you think Harvard wouldn't acknowledge a Nobel Prize winner on their faculty?

Your sources are passing lies to you and you are gullibly buying them without even the slightest effort to check if they are accurate.

(Edited by Apoapsis 6/20/2005 at 4:02 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:26 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

His name is Dr. george WALD and he was the co-winner of the noble prize in medicine in 1967 for his work in the function of vitamin A involved in vision. Looked at some of his work a few years back when I was doing some biochemistry.

You are right Apoapsis the quote is almost entirely fictional.

The quote comes from an article in scientific american called "innovations in biology" september issue 1958 VOL 199 page 100. Its a pretty interesting article  and is run through of some aspects of scientific philosophy in biology focusing on origins of life and species.
I would recommend that you have a read.

I got the citation from here

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Apologetics/what_some_scientists_say_about_e.htm

But here is one thing he does say in the article.

Dr. George Wald,

"We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunety offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes."


(Edited by mabfynhad 6/20/2005 at 5:21 PM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 5:19 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 4:19 PM on June 20, 2005 :

The quote comes from an article in scientific american called "innovations in biology" september issue 1958 VOL 199 page 100. Its a pretty interesting article  and is run through of some aspects of scientific philosophy in biology focusing on origins of life and species.
I would recommend that you have a read.



Thank you



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:55 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Teaching "only" evolution is schools is very similar to teaching forced religion. Intelligent Design (scientific creationism) needs to be taught as an alternative. The students can make up their own minds ater that.

(Edited by Raelian1 6/23/2005 at 11:30 AM).


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:30 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Teaching "only" evolution is schools is very similar to teaching forced religion.

No it's not!  The theory of evolution is NOT a religion, it is the only scientifically valid explaination for the diversity of life on earth.  

Intelligent Design (scientific creationism) needs to be taught as an alternative.

No it shouldn't.  Intelligent design is not scientific.  There is no evidence supporting it.
There is no evidence supporting an intelligent designer.  The only thing supporting it is faith in the supernatural and therefore it should not be taught as science.

The students can make up their own minds ater that.

Do we let students make up their own mind about gravity?  About whether the earth orbits the sun?  About whether germs cause disease?  The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science and is the only thing that should be taught in science class when it comes to the diversity of life on earth.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:55 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Teaching "only" germ theory in schools is very similar to teaching forced religion. Demon possession  needs to be taught as an alternative. The students can make up their own minds after that.



(Edited by mabfynhad 7/9/2005 at 06:10 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:47 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems that most people feel that only evolution should be taught in schools. No, intelligent design must also be taught (actual, evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it's myth like demon possession). One day (5, 10, 20 or maybe 30 years from now) people will realize that life can only originate only if intelligent creators are involved. In our case, it's the Elohim.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 4:43 PM on June 25, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Raelian,
Can you post some evidence for intelligent design then please.  


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 6:29 PM on June 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It seems that most people feel that only evolution should be taught in schools.

Because evolution is the ONLY scientific explaination for the diversity of life that has not been falsified.  It is the most improtant concept of biology.  

No, intelligent design must also be taught (actual, evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it's myth like demon possession).

Evolution is no myth, it's a fact.  Intelligent design is not science, there is no evidence to support it, there are no tests or experiments one can conduct on it, it is only believed based on faith.  It has no place in a science classroom.

One day (5, 10, 20 or maybe 30 years from now) people will realize that life can only originate only if intelligent creators are involved. In our case, it's the Elohim.

Then what were the intelligent creatures that originated the Elohim?  According to your theory, life had to arise at least once without the aid of intelligent creatures.  Why could it happen once and not again?  You like to post nonsense and then make no attempt to support it.  This is a debate, at least make an attempt to support your crazy points...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:40 PM on June 25, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Raelian1 at 4:43 PM on June 25, 2005 :
It seems that most people feel that only evolution should be taught in schools. No, intelligent design must also be taught (actual, evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it's myth like demon possession). One day (5, 10, 20 or maybe 30 years from now) people will realize that life can only originate only if intelligent creators are involved. In our case, it's the Elohim.



Who created the "Elohim"?  And back and back and back?

If the concept of time is accurate, then we must believe that there is an absolute zero.  If all of matter originated from that absolute zero, what was the catalyst?  Is the Universe intentional?  Well, that seems almost impossible to know scientifically.

So why not label all things that lie beyond our power of reasoning, deduction or hypothesis?  

We do.

In almost all cultures it is called God(s).

What we do not know, do not understand, and cannot concieve of, will always greatly exceed the small pittance that we do.

Evolution is a small thing really.  In the Grand scope of things, it is just another vehicle that helps us to understand, on a human level, how to interpret the beauty of all creation.

Please do not ever make the mistake of giving an idea like math, or evolution, or physics a Greater title than it deserves.  A hammer is just a hammer,  a nail is just a nail, and a cross is just a cross.  They are all just tools.  Don't obsess over the tools.

We all know how a rainbow works.  But does that make it any less beautiful?  And does that change anything about the reason it is there?

Just because we are now starting to understand the methodology behind creation, does it negate it's beauty and wonder?

Never.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 3:17 PM on July 21, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If all of matter originated from that absolute zero, what was the catalyst?

Who said we need a catalyst?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:12 PM on July 23, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:12 PM on July 23, 2005 :
If all of matter originated from that absolute zero, what was the catalyst?

Who said we need a catalyst?


And who said it was an "absolute" zero?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:13 AM on July 25, 2005 | IP
ME THE GREAT

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my opinion your all slightly closed minded. However, I to am a evolution supporter. I, even as a 15 year old, recognize the science behind it. To disprove Christianity was not and never has been a goal of evolution. This is not taken into acount by many Christians. If people stop thinking about only what they learned growing up and begin to question and explore on their own they may discover that blindly discarding evolution is not the smartest idea. Personally, I belive that Christianity has nothing i can touch or feel or see and so has no evidence to support it. Further, I feel that since MINOR evolution has been proven that it is injust to say that evolution in general has never been proven. Specieization, what you are all confusing as evolution, has not been proven, but large amounts of evidence has been gathered. In conclusion I sincerly hope that you Christians, blinded by your own belifs, will sit back and examine other peoples ideas not just shut them out
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 2:06 PM on November 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Specieization, what you are all confusing as evolution, has not been proven, but large amounts of evidence has been gathered.

No, speciation is evolution and speciation has been observed.  And that is how evolution works, new species arise.  I think you still need to do more research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:03 PM on November 10, 2005 | IP
ME THE GREAT

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are correct, speciazation is evolution, however it has not and unless a human has the abaility to live for thousands and thousands of years it will be a very long time before it is proven or disproven. You are confusing the two and I have research to back up my statements, just check your nearest science book. Do not assume that because evolution is highly supported that it is always correct. Science does not prove, it disproves, if all the possible are removed and the impossible is left, then the impossible becomes the possible.  
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:19 PM on November 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Observed speciation events, from here:
NewSpecies

"Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. "

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. "

From here:
NewSpeciesII
"Ensatina eschscholtzi is a salamander that is in the process of forming two or more species. All the evidence supports this hypothesis; studies based on DNA, enzymes, geographic color variation and behavior give us evidence that this salamander has several points of incipient species formation. Two of the "subspecies" have differentiated to a point that they do not interbreed, which satisfies the definition of two species. And yet the populations that makeup this species are connected via interbreeding intermediate populations."

From here:
NewSpeciesIII
"1) Speciation occured in a strain of Drosophila paulistorum sometime
between 1958 and 1963 in Theodosius Dobzhansky's lab.  He wrote this
up in:
Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an
     Old Field.  Science 177:664-669"

"2) A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria
malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon.  The citing is:
Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric
     speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of
     Stephanomeria.  American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553"

"3) In the 1940's a fertile species was produced through chromosome
doubling (allopolyploidy) in a hybrid of two primrose species.  The
new species was Primula kewensis. The story is recounted in:
Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants.
     Columbia University Press.  New York"

From here:
NewSpeciesIV
"Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species.
Biologists Laura Reed and Prof Therese Markow made the discovery by observing breeding patterns of fruit flies that live on rotting cacti in deserts."

And instead of me doing ALL your research for you, look up Ring species and nylon eating bacteria.  
So I stand by my statement, speciation has been observed, evolution is a fact, you don't need millions of years to observe it.  I've backed all my statements up with evidence, where's yours?



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:14 PM on November 11, 2005 | IP
ME THE GREAT

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution-A change in gene frequency over time.

Ive decided to stop argueing with you Demon and conduct an experiment to show that micro evolution exsists. And I challenge you to show me an experiment to show me that macro evolution exsists. Also, I shall return to my original point that Creationism has no basis, if there are any of you left listeining to this I challenge you to prove that Creationism is plausable without using the words God or Bible (God because your arguement is trying to prove his exsistence and such cannot be part of your argument in the first place, and Bible because then there is recordable evidence that shows God exsists and you are using another persons ideas not your own.)
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:43 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
ME THE GREAT

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I meant to type "there is NO recordable evidence." LOL
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:45 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me get this straight.  Creationists, who (mostly) believe that the world was created by God, are supposed to prove that the world was created without using the word God (whom they believe to have created it) and can not use the book that contains the most succint description of the creation?  And, I suppose, you will prove macro-evolution without mentioning the word "evolved" or use any science books that describe the so-called evolution?  This ought to be interesting.  Let me know when your petri dish experiment comes up with a biped.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:48 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ME THE GREAT at 08:43 AM on November 14, 2005 :
Evolution-A change in gene frequency over time.

Ive decided to stop argueing with you Demon and conduct an experiment to show that micro evolution exsists. And I challenge you to show me an experiment to show me that macro evolution exsists. Also, I shall return to my original point that Creationism has no basis, if there are any of you left listeining to this I challenge you to prove that Creationism is plausable without using the words God or Bible (God because your arguement is trying to prove his exsistence and such cannot be part of your argument in the first place, and Bible because then there is recordable evidence that shows God exsists and you are using another persons ideas not your own.)


"macro" evolution is just the logical consequence of "micro" evolution.  the terms aren't official in any way, in fact, scientifically, there is no such thing as micro and/or macro evolution.  logically--since mutations occur in gene reproduction and since organisms with more advantageous genes have a greater chance of passing those same genes on--over the course of millions of years, there is going to be a large diversity of organisms that look quite different from one another.  this is what will happen if our current model is correct.  and since this current model agrees with data from many experiments on what you call "microevolution", it is the most correct model to date.

as to creationism, i dont particularly agree with the idea myself, but it only because it is impossible to prove.  so he has as much right to believe in it as you do to believe against it.  i do know that, theoretically, a universe created by god and a universe in which life evolves are not mutually exclusive.

at the same time, though i would say that the bible can be nothing more than a metaphor.  i know this because all language is a metaphor.  you cannot convey truth through a primitive language such as ours.  everything in the bible has a meaning that relates to life morals.  the bible teaches not through the words and their meanings, but rather the situations and imagined visuals one thinks of when reading it.  the lesson is learned as an experience and not association through symbolism.

the most possible explanation is one that we have not though of.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:25 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me get this straight.  Creationists, who (mostly) believe that the world was created by God, are supposed to prove that the world was created without using the word God (whom they believe to have created it) and can not use the book that contains the most succint description of the creation?  And, I suppose, you will prove macro-evolution without mentioning the word "evolved" or use any science books that describe the so-called evolution?


I'd like to note that I'm on the same platform as Roy: Religion is impossible to prove by definition anyway. I don't need anyone to try. But, anyway:

There's a very definite difference from proving Creationism without the Scripture and proving Macroevolution without using the word "evolve." A big difference.

Proving Evolution without using "evolve" is like proving Creationism without using the word "creationism"... That's all there is to it.

On the other hand, proving Creationism without the use of Scripture--the DESCRIPTION of Creationism; an ASSERTION--is more or less like proving Evolution without citing Darwin's books. It's easily done. Although Darwin does attempt--and on many occassions successfully--to back his arguments up, you could argue that his works are nothing more than standalone assertions... just like the Bible.


The Bible is not EVIDENCE of a creator. It's a statement SAYING there's a creator. You need more than the ASSERTION. We don't 'prove' Macroevolution by SAYING that it occurs. (Well, on this board, I suppose we sometimes do, but when we're pressed by you guys, it's not as if we always reject the challenge and just keep citing a broken record.)

___

Of course, like Roy and I are trying to say, that's not really relevant. You don't need proof to believe in a God, an entity of faith. If there's proof of a supernatural deity, then by definition, it's no longer faith.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/14/2005 at 8:27 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:26 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Roy and Entwicke,
   I've come to respect your positions on the topic even if I don't agree with them.  My post was not to argue with either of you (or even Don for that fact).  It was pointing out what both of you seemed to have noticed on your own.  MtG (who apparently watched too much of the XFL) seems to be coming from left field.  Rarely have I seen someone manage to get on the bad side of both arguments so quickly, but you guys have been hanging out around here longer than I have.  This board has done one very good thing for me personally.  While it has not changed my mind regarding creationism it has forced me to look more deeply into my beliefs.  It has also taught me a great deal about science (funny what people learn in the decade after you get out of high school ).  Some of my arguments have been shot down (and rightly so as some of them were based on "old information"), some have been ignored (can't please everybody ), and some have not been disproven (which is about as close as you can really get to anything on this board ).  In any case, I'm better for my time spent on here.  With any luck, MtG will learn something while he's here.  Like the old saying says (paraphrased) you have two ears and one mouth so you should listen twice as much as you talk .

Sinc,
  Me.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:58 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've come to respect you too. In the words of an AIM buddy of mine, who I've had numerous instant message debates with, "You're a terrible liberal."

Hm. I disagree. I'm very liberal. But one thing debating on AOL, these forums, and IM programs has come to teach me is that a lot of people nowadays chose their beliefs based on their political platform, which is completely wrong. My sophomorish attitude I had on the AOL politcal boards is gone, and I've come to acknowledge the points of another side.

(You should have seen me on AOL.... once, I spent five hours refuting an email. The response totaled to 8,000 words, about 1/20th of a Tom Clancy novel. As an amature novelist myself, that's unreal. My longest work was 175,000 words, and it took me five months, an amount that right now, would probably take me over a year.)

Now that "I HAVE to be right!!" passion is gone, and I spend a lot more time trying to correct the preconceptions opponents draw about my position than I do actually arguing.

[Edit:]

I also just noticed how funny my screen name is. Entwickeln means "evolving" in German. As I've stated above, my attitude in these debates has significantly 'evolved.'

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 11/14/2005 at 9:34 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:29 PM on November 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ive decided to stop argueing with you Demon and conduct an experiment to show that micro evolution exsists.

Wait a minute, you said in a previous post:
"You are correct, speciazation is evolution, however it has not and unless a human has the abaility to live for thousands and thousands of years it will be a very long time before it is proven or disproven"

Are you just going to ignore the examples of observed speciation I provided?  Speciation has been observed.  Speciation is what evolution is all about.  Evolution has been observed.  

As to "macro" evolution, RoyLennigan is correct, biologists don't use these terms, macro is a result of micro.  Enough micro changes in two isolated populations of the same organism occur will lead to macro changes.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:45 AM on November 15, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 3:58 PM on November 14, 2005 :
Dear Roy and Entwicke,
   I've come to respect your positions on the topic even if I don't agree with them.  My post was not to argue with either of you (or even Don for that fact).  It was pointing out what both of you seemed to have noticed on your own.  MtG (who apparently watched too much of the XFL) seems to be coming from left field.  Rarely have I seen someone manage to get on the bad side of both arguments so quickly, but you guys have been hanging out around here longer than I have.  This board has done one very good thing for me personally.  While it has not changed my mind regarding creationism it has forced me to look more deeply into my beliefs.  It has also taught me a great deal about science (funny what people learn in the decade after you get out of high school ).  Some of my arguments have been shot down (and rightly so as some of them were based on "old information"), some have been ignored (can't please everybody ), and some have not been disproven (which is about as close as you can really get to anything on this board ).  In any case, I'm better for my time spent on here.  With any luck, MtG will learn something while he's here.  Like the old saying says (paraphrased) you have two ears and one mouth so you should listen twice as much as you talk .

Sinc,
  Me.



thanks, the feeling is mutual over here.  i feel if i haven't learned something from someone, i am not understanding them completely.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 7:44 PM on November 15, 2005 | IP
paintballer926

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 02:18 AM on June 14, 2003 :
Evolution is "crammed" down your throats in science class because it is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.  Creationism was desively disproven over 200 years ago so it should not be taught as science.
I don't know why it bothers you that we evolved from more primitive ancestors, that's reality, learn to live with it.
Science by definition can say nothing about the supernatural, it neither confirms nor denies God.  The Theory of Evolution does not deny the existance of God, and since the majority of christians accept evolution, young earth creationism is rightly looked on as the lunatic fringe.
As to biblical prophecy, like any good fortune telling scam they are so vague and general they can prove anything while actually saying nothing.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the strongest theories in science.  The empirical evidence supporting it is overwhelming.  That all life evolved from a common ancestor is not even debated anymore, only the poor, hopelessly out of touch with reality fundamental creationists rail against it.
But hey, you're young, hopefully you'll learn that accepting the reality of evolution doesn't mean rejecting God.



when was creationism disproven, not to mention, evolution should be in a theology class, or philosophy,

you say it has many proven facts, more like tons of speculation, that should technically falsify it, but nope people keep on coming out with more and more speculation

Do you care for me to show why evolution is a pseudo science, and really should not even be a theory?



 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 5:36 PM on December 4, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aye go one then son, this should be good.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 9:27 PM on December 4, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Huxley, ssh! The kindergartner must not be interupted.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:07 PM on December 4, 2005 | IP
Linx_O

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh Entwickeln, that was just mean! Cold hearted! You should feel shame. Oh but that’s right... it's our genes fault! That’s right... you must have a more dominant "mean gene". So never mind, go and be as mean as your genes would like. ;)
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 09:12 AM on December 5, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aye, go ahead paintballer, but be sure of your facts.  Things can be quite viscious around here.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:39 AM on December 5, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh Entwickeln, that was just mean! Cold hearted! You should feel shame.


I'm not one to say that Character Evidence is at all valid, but are you seriously submitting that this guy has made it past elementary school?

[Edit]: But go on, Paintballer. Just try not to waste too much of your time on something that won't pass mustard.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/5/2005 at 6:15 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:13 PM on December 5, 2005 | IP
paintballer926

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:39 AM on December 5, 2005 :
Aye, go ahead paintballer, but be sure of your facts.  Things can be quite viscious around here.  



I am used to it, thx for the warning though, I am down

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:50 PM on December 5, 2005 | IP
paintballer926

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 6:13 PM on December 5, 2005 :
Oh Entwickeln, that was just mean! Cold hearted! You should feel shame.


I'm not one to say that Character Evidence is at all valid, but are you seriously submitting that this guy has made it past elementary school?

[Edit]: But go on, Paintballer. Just try not to waste too much of your time on something that won't pass mustard.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/5/2005 at 6:15 PM).


is this a call out, k I will when i feel like it, I got plans this evenening,



 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:52 PM on December 5, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

when was creationism disproven

Over 200 years ago when Christian geologists realized that the earth could not possibly be only 6000 years old.  There is a great amount of evidence supporting this, here's one of the best:
OldEarth
"Radioactive Decay -The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an old earth. Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that every nuclide with a half-life of over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. All nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels."

A young earth has been thoroughly disproven, all evidence falsifies it and all evidence supports an old earth.  Creationism has been proven wrong.

not to mention, evolution should be in a theology class, or philosophy

No, evolution is science, it is an observable, testable phenomenon.  The theory of evolution explains it.  It is not a philosophy or a religion.

you say it has many proven facts, more like tons of speculation

No, it is observed.  Evolution is a fact.  

that should technically falsify it, but nope people keep on coming out with more and more speculation

Once again, you are completely wrong.  In over 150 years, no one has been able to falsify evolution and evidence to support it just keeps mounting.  Show us what "technically" falsifies it or withdraw your claim...

Do you care for me to show why evolution is a pseudo science, and really should not even be a theory?

Hahahahaaa!!!  You're kidding, right?  Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science.  Pseudoscience?!?!  What are you talking about?!?!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:11 AM on December 9, 2005 | IP
MickG

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:12 PM on July 23, 2005 :
If all of matter originated from that absolute zero, what was the catalyst?

Who said we need a catalyst?


That's right. Billions upon billions of tons of matter appear from nowhere all the time, right? Five billion of tons of matter appeared this morning, making a right mess of my breakfast i must say, and not one catalyst in sight. Then it all exploded and expanded at the speed of light then all grouped itself into hydrogen cloud which condensed in a vacuum (I know gases expand in a vacuum but these ones didn't) and then the condensed cloud caught fire all without anything to make it happen. Before you pillory me for saying that, it is exactly what the big bang theory says as taught by universties. They, of course, appeared from nowhere, as did my computer. You will no doubt get angry at me saying this and will use insults on my intelligence like a lot of internet scientists do. I admit that I never went to university so I haven't been shown instance where billions upon billions of tons of matter have been observed to appeared from nowhere and explode without cause so please be patient with me. Yikes, got to go. Billions upon billions of tons of matter have appeared from nowhere and without a catalyst in sight in my neighbour's garage and he needs help shifting it. I told him that it will explode all by itself but he's worried about the new paint job on his car.

I really must enroll in that "How billions upon billions of tons of matter appear from nowhere and without catalyst" course at the university that appeared from nowhere all by itself in my fridge. Oh no, that would be impossible.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 05:04 AM on December 17, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's right. Billions upon billions of tons of matter appear from nowhere all the time, right?


No, you simply lack the patience to read related posts. Matter and energy cannot come from nothing. There never was nothing. There was always matter and energy. Think of it as a number line... There's an infinite of numbers below zero, as well as an infinite of numbers above. There was never a single one beginning.

I'm not sure if it's this thread, but I've shown in others that this is the leading explanation among the many of the world's greastest physicists, including Stephen Hawking.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:01 AM on December 17, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I copy-pasted this from the thread, "How does one falsify ID?"

Charles W. Johnson

I cite:

One way to circumvent the dilemma while preserving a definite beginning point for the Universe is to adopt the "oscillating" model of the Universe, which has at times received the support of Stephen Hawking, one of the foremost minds in modern cosmology. In this circular-time model there is an eternal cycle of bang/crunch events, where the "crunched" Universe "bangs" into another.

Hawking, Yulsman, and Turok

I cite:

The hunt for an answer grew more interesting in 1998, when Turok and his Cambridge colleague, Stephen Hawking, announced they had found a way to sidestep the singularity, if not eliminate it entirely. In the process, they said they had arrived at a compellingly simple and complete explanation for how the universe began.

Well, not precisely. In Turok and Hawking's mind-bending creation model, the universe has no discrete beginning. Instead, the Cambridge scientists propose a quantum theory of the origin of the universe in which there is no distinction between time and space, and no distinct point at which either can be said to begin.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:08 AM on December 17, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from MickG at 05:04 AM on December 17, 2005 :
I really must enroll in that "How billions upon billions of tons of matter appear from nowhere and without catalyst" course at the university that appeared from nowhere all by itself in my fridge.


I think that "Intro to Quantum Mechanics" is a prerequisite.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:55 AM on December 17, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from MickG at 05:04 AM on December 17, 2005 :
Before you pillory me for saying that, it is exactly what the big bang theory says as taught by universties.


no, it is not.  and you would know it wasn't if you researched anything about the topic.

Quote from MickG at 05:04 AM on December 17, 2005 :I admit that I never went to university so I haven't been shown instance where billions upon billions of tons of matter have been observed to appeared from nowhere and explode without cause so please be patient with me.


you admit that you know nothing about the topic and all you have said is based on your own opinion and nothing else.  you admit that you don't know what you are talking about and that your opinion has no ground to reality whatsoever.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:57 PM on December 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's right. Billions upon billions of tons of matter appear from nowhere all the time, right?

But according to the Big Bang theory, billions upon billions of tons of matter didn't appear from nowhere...the Big Bang didn't release any matter, just subatomic particles.  And according to quantum theory, particles do appear from nowhere all the time.

Five billion of tons of matter appeared this morning, making a right mess of my breakfast i must say, and not one catalyst in sight.

Hey, what do you expect, living in a quantum world like we do, anything is possible!

Then it all exploded and expanded at the speed of light then all grouped itself into hydrogen cloud which condensed in a vacuum (I know gases expand in a vacuum but these ones didn't) and then the condensed cloud caught fire all without anything to make it happen.

Let's see, the Big Bang wasn't really an explosion, it was a rapid expansion.  And of course there was something to cause hydrogen clouds to condense, it's called gravity, ever heard of it?  The condensed clouds caught fire?!?  Where the hell did you hear that?  No, they didn't catch fire, when the pressure (and heat) of the condensing clouds became great enough, nuclear fusion kicked in.
Simple facts of physics which you obviously don't understand...

Before you pillory me for saying that, it is exactly what the big bang theory says as taught by universties.

No, they don't.

So your whole claim is based on "if I don't understand it, it couldn't have happened..."?
What's your alternate theory and what evidence do you have to support it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:38 PM on December 17, 2005 | IP
sp3wk

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 7:53 PM on June 13, 2003 :
I've just completed my first year of High School (I'll be a sophomore this fall), and its been one of the most stressful years of my life. I'm like most other kids of my age--I'm uncertain. Let me tell you that it certainly doesn't help to have Science teachers cramming evolution down your throat. It bothers me to see the infamous posters of primitive apes evolving into modern-day man. However, the odd thing is that despite the Bible's accuracy in prophecies, it's dismissed as inconclusive evidence. Yet, when scientists uncover skulls that even remotely resemble the top portion of the modern-day man's skull, this is automatically assumed to be proven evidence. Still, we can't see the processes of evolution going to work. I believe that there's a missing link in the fine lines between being man and ape. Why are our Public Schools able to cram evolution down kids' throats, but why can't we have the right to study the Koran or Bible in our schools? We can't live on 'you evolved from an ape, the grave is the end.' I despise going to school because of all of the completely hopeless, directionless kids who think it's all right to carry guns into school, who think it's all right to pollute their bodies with drugs, and with kids who see nothing wrong with grotesquely disrespecting, even physically hurting their mentors and themselves. After all, what cost is it if they have nothing to gain or lose, in accordance to what our schools are teaching us? What about separation of Church and State? If we can't have Christianity, we shouldn't have 'humanism,' or rather, effective athiesm, in our schools either.



I have to agree with you Guest in all of what you have said if you would like to visit the forum Is Evolution a Religion? and post your thoughts please do.

Quote from Demon38 at 8:18 PM on June 13, 2003 :
Evolution is "crammed" down your throats in science class because it is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.  Creationism was desively disproven over 200 years ago so it should not be taught as science.
I don't know why it bothers you that we evolved from more primitive ancestors, that's reality, learn to live with it.
Science by definition can say nothing about the supernatural, it neither confirms nor denies God.  The Theory of Evolution does not deny the existance of God, and since the majority of christians accept evolution, young earth creationism is rightly looked on as the lunatic fringe.
As to biblical prophecy, like any good fortune telling scam they are so vague and general they can prove anything while actually saying nothing.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the strongest theories in science.  The empirical evidence supporting it is overwhelming.  That all life evolved from a common ancestor is not even debated anymore, only the poor, hopelessly out of touch with reality fundamental creationists rail against it.
But hey, you're young, hopefully you'll learn that accepting the reality of evolution doesn't mean rejecting God.


Well I have to disagree with you on many parts first of all would you rather bealive that you evolved form a rock or would you like to bealive that you are fearfully and wounderfully made like the bible says?

Second there is absolutly no compramise between Christianity and evolution these are both at war with each other.  Evolution directly conflicts with the Bible.  The Bible says that all things were created in seven days in Genesis 1 and 2 I will have a direct quote form the Bible.

"1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.






-------
Sheldon P. Wassenaar
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:16 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sp3wk, what's your point?

Well I have to disagree with you on many parts first of all would you rather bealive that you evolved form a rock or would you like to bealive that you are fearfully and wounderfully made like the bible says?


So basically you are saying that you would prefer to believe in creationism because its more beautiful? I'll admit that evolution isn't a beautiful concept, however, knowing the truth is more important to me. Evolution is backed up by empirical and direct evidence.

Creationism isn't. No one can consider creationism as fact-- you can only believe that it is true.

(Edited by Pallim 1/6/2006 at 8:18 PM).
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 8:17 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well I have to disagree with you on many parts first of all would you rather bealive that you evolved form a rock or would you like to bealive that you are fearfully and wounderfully made like the bible says?


Your ignorance to this subject is highlighted by your very own question. Whether or not you WANT to believe something has NOTHING to do with this debate. I wish my great-grandmother didn’t die from lung cancer last week, and that I wouldn’t have come down with a fever while at her funeral on last Friday, but… I DID. I suppose by your reasoning, if I BELIEVE she didn’t die, I’ll be able to call up her retirement home and request [successfully] to speak with her.

Second there is absolutly no compramise between Christianity and evolution these are both at war with each other.


This is the first time I’ve ever felt the need to say this on a debate board… Oh well.

Response: SHUT UP. Scientific Theories don’t declare war on anything. Science is science. No truth in science conflicts with anything. Do you realize how stupid it is to say that your religion is at war with a scientific theory? Not only is it just downright counter-intuitive, but you aren't solving anything this way. You're merely spreading a message of hate that has proven catastrophic on so many fronts in our world's history.

Second of all, you don’t speak for ANYONE but yourself. There are BILLIONS of Christians on this earth who DO accept Evolution. Whether or not you wish to interpret the first chapter of Genesis in a metaphoric manner is your problem, and not that of the scientific community.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/6/2006 at 8:25 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:23 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
pocket

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I for one still think evolution is a beautiful concept.
Sorry I am so late, but I just finished reading this entire thread.
I must say that I am noticing a disturbing trend amongst the first time posting creationists. They have no grounds for argument, no substantial evidence to support their belief, and they relentlessly retaliate with the same tired arguments. I would also like to compliment many of your posts. Contained within this forum is a healthy amount of well prepared, brilliantly structured and downright convincing ideas. I have already grown to respect many of your perspectives, and I hope to become an active part of this community.
And now to the point. My position is simple. If intelligent design is to be taught in a classroom, it should be in a college classroom. It will never see grade school as a standard science curriculum, because it is not factual and does not best describe objectively the nature of our existence. It does however, and I say this with hesitation, deserve some mention just because of the controversy. Maybe it would make a good American history discussion 50 years from now.
I also found it disturbing in this forum the excessive use of the analogy “crammed down our throats” when describing evolution. The primary objective of education is to cram factual information down students throats. I may have somewhat of a bias, because I was raised in a religious upbringing, and though I would not call it crammed, I was raised to believe the bible was factual. Good thing I learned to think for myself. I might still wait up for Santa. (that’s it for the sarcasm). Although I would say I am an agnostic, and an evolutionist, I would think it foolish to rule out the possibility of a creator. We cannot see the higher levels of order. Just as each cell has no idea that it is part of a tissue, that is part of an organ, that is part of an organism. We can only see the simpler levels of organization. I accept that it is possible that there may be a higher level of organization that we may be part of. Sorry if I’m all over the place, its getting late…

 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 11:29 PM on January 13, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry I am so late


No problemo.

It does however, and I say this with hesitation, deserve some mention just because of the controversy. Maybe it would make a good American history discussion 50 years from now.


Well, before the semester ended on Jan. 13, my Anatomy teacher held current events discussions every day after a body system test. In other words, every week, he got to laugh with us over the next big blunder the ID movement made in the headlines. I've noticed that this issue is concerning more biology teachers lately, and they're not about to back down. Hell, my teacher even took a day out of his schedule to introduce an article to the class that talked about the seriousness of the situation with ID. A not-so-particularly-liberal student demanded that we also be shown an article for idea, and once he stopped laughing, my teacher said, "You're kidding me, right?"

Although I would say I am an agnostic, and an evolutionist, I would think it foolish to rule out the possibility of a creator. We cannot see the higher levels of order. Just as each cell has no idea that it is part of a tissue, that is part of an organ, that is part of an organism.


I'm agnostic myself, but could not we attribute this analogy to the fact that cells don't even know they're cells? Not even our neurons hold any intelligent value without the collective consent of their fellow nerve cells.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:51 PM on January 14, 2006 | IP
pocket

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

could not we attribute this analogy to the fact that cells don't even know they're cells?


No.  I will not retract my analogy.  I think that there is a distinct parallel between the way in which a cell (the smallest unit of independent life) carries out its daily duties, oblivious to the fact that it is a small part of a much bigger whole, and our lives. We struggle to rationalize- what is our purpose? We can’t see if there is a larger purpose.
Since the very inception of science, its purpose was to use empirical evidence to support the most probable explanation of our questions. Out of pure necessity, it was invented to explain our most prevalent and menacing question, Why? With the advent of quantum mechanics, the questions became not relevant. This was the necessary opportunity cost of having accurate predictions that could merit measurable achievements. I still struggle with this. I still want to know why.


It is observable that a cell does not have an intelligence like ours. But I don’t think of intelligence as an on or off sort of thing. A cell is obviously not self-aware, but it is life. It must occupy a small space on the spectrum of consciousness. So do we.

Collin- in response to your classroom discussions on ID, it would appear that it has seeped in to science class inadvertently. heh. At least it isn't in the textbooks.

And can someone tell me how to quote someone properly?

(Edited by pocket 1/15/2006 at 1:13 PM).
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 1:01 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is observable that a cell does not have an intelligence like ours. But I don’t think of intelligence as an on or off sort of thing. A cell is obviously not self-aware, but it is life. It must occupy a small space on the spectrum of consciousness. So do we.


Eh, what are you talking about? Spectrum of consciousness? Cells aren't anymore conscious than the reflexive nerves in our spine. The doctor taps the triangular rubber hammer against your patella, and your spine automatically ensures a brief contraction within your posterior knee muscles--no consciousness involved at all.

Anyway, it's not that I'm trying to destroy your allegory, only that I think it's silly to say cells have any more cognitive abilities than that of a simple computer or rock. Everything happens as a result of what the genes program for. And even so, I don't agree that 'consciousness', at any level, is a necesity for life.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/15/2006 at 5:22 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:15 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And can someone tell me how to quote someone properly?


Sure. It's basic HTML, something you'll quickly get the hang of if you spend any time on internet forums. It works like this, without the _'s that I've made to prevent the forum from putting them into HTML format:

[_quote_]And can someone tell me how to quote someone properly?[_/quote_]


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:24 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
pocket

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the tip. The whole spectrum thing is me thinking out loud, (at least the part about single celled organisms) but it really is a concept that I was introduced to by “The idiot’s guide to understanding Einstein”. Don’t laugh yet, that really was one of my favorite books. The idea is that every type of intelligence occupies a different “color” or position of consciousness on the infinitely varying spectrum. How this applies to a paramecium, I don’t know. I must admit that I cannot back up with any fact that there is even a trace amount of consciousness to any organism, but I can’t even prove that I am conscious myself. Am I allowed to be this far off topic?
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 6:53 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I'm afraid the admins have already decided you to ban you.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:55 PM on January 15, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.