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
    

    
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a brief introduction to Taphonomy  (the study of the conditions and processes by which organisms become fossilized) that I have paraphrased and embellished (honestly) from various sources.

With so many variables needing to fall into place, the odds for the remains of any organism being fossilized are essentially slim to none with Slim about to leave town.  And even on that rare occasion that a specimen does get fossilized, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way.  Forces, such as erosion, or volcanic action may change the fossil to the point that it adds no scientific value to the fossil record.  Add to this, the fact that most fossils don’t get discovered, and one can begin to understand why there might be holes ior gaps in the fossil record.  

There are many factors or bias’ that one needs to understand when considering how rare an event fossilization actually is.  Here are a few that I remember:

Depositional Environment bias: Environmental conditions play a key role determining whether an organism will be fossilized. Land based organisms are less likely to be fossilized than water based organisms because under dry conditions the minerals needed for fossilization are less likely to be transported.  Both the aquatic and terrestrial environments have erosion, volcanic action, scavengers and decay that act to potentially prevent an organism from both fossilizing as well as remaining preserved once fossilized.  The chitinous hard parts of arthropods, for instance are easily broken down into consumable sugars by bacteria.

Hard Verses Soft bias:  As we learned with “chitin”, being hard does not guarantee that an organism’s remains will be preserved but it does increase the odds. With all else being equal, a specimen from a population of thick shelled clams is more likely to be preserved then a specimen from a much larger population of organisms that are soft like slugs.

Large Verses Small Bias:  With all else being equal, large items are more likely to be preserved than small items.  They are also more likely to be discovered.  This is why we have found quite a few skull bones and leg bones of ancient hominids but very few ear bones.

Population Bias:  The sheer numbers of an organism will effect the odds of whether a member specimen will be preserved in the fossil record. With all else being equal, a specimen from a population of 10 million bats is more likely to be preserved in the fossil record then a specimen from a population of 5 thousand bat/tree-shrew “transitionals”.

The bottom line is that no fossil, that has ever been discovered, falsifyes the theory of evolution.  Once open-minded and reasonable people gain a rudimentary understanding of the fossilization process, all the creationist arguments directed at the fossil record (including the tired old war-horse “holes in the fossil record/no transitionals”) fall to pieces.  Moreover with what we have learned from genetics in the last 20 – 30 years, the theory of evolution remains an established fact with or without the fossil record.




(Edited by fredguff 5/10/2006 at 4:12 PM).
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:18 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HOX genes do not prove evolution.  In
fact, HOX genes make any possible evolutionary mechanism even
HARDER to understand.

In essence, HOX genes help regulate the development of the
embryo.  The thought is that if a HOX gene is mutated, then
the development of the embryo will be altered to the point
that a LARGE evolutionary change can result from just one HOX
mutation.  The problem, of course, is that the HOX genes must
regulate information that is ALREADY THERE.  Thus, the
mutation in a HOX gene might alter the appearance of the
animal in a significant way, but they cannot add NEW organs
to the animal, which is what is necessary for evolution.


Uhm...You are refuting a point that I never brought up.  Here let me try again...If a frog and Human share the exact same Hox genes that initiate the development of a forearm or hind leg or eye in an embryo then this is evidence of common descent.   That being said your logic is flawed anyway...  

In fact, HOX genes make any possible evolutionary mechanism even HARDER to understand.

You never substantiate this point this is just your opinion and as such it adds no objective value to this discussion.

The thought is that if a HOX gene is mutated, then the development of the embryo will be altered to the point  that a LARGE evolutionary change can result from just one HOX mutation.

Hox genes regulate proteins that act at the tip of a complex developmental cascade.   If one Hox gene mutates even slightly a lot of simutaneous changes can happen.  In the vast majority of cases where this happens the embryo will die but  every so often...

The problem, of course, is that the HOX genes must regulate information that is ALREADY THERE.  Thus, the mutation in a HOX gene might alter the appearance of the animal in a significant way, but they cannot add NEW organs to the animal, which is what is necessary for evolution.

Huh?!!!  There are so many problems with this statement that I am going to break it down in a simple outline.

1.  You have failed to establish that Hox genes are regulating "information" that is already there.

2.  You neglect to define "information"?  What do you mean? DNA base pairs? Amino acids? What?  And how do you measure this "information"?  

3. And even if you are able to establish that Hox genes are regulating "information" that is already there, you fail to establish that this causes a "problem" for the theory of evolution.

4.  You fail to establish that mutated Hox genes can't add new organs.

5. You fail to establish that adding "new organs" is necessary for evolution.  If evolution is correct then Humans and Chimps evolved from a common ancestor.  Yet humans and chimps possess the exact same organs and blood type.  

Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes have the same blood type.

(Edited by fredguff 5/10/2006 at 4:44 PM).
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:04 PM on May 10, 2006 | IP
FreeThinker

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am new here this being my first post, however this is something I feel strongly about so I am just going to jump in.

I think that this discussion has gotten far off topic.  While I agree with the argument, I would like to switch the focus back on if it should be taught in schools or not.  

Presently I am a public high school student and have taken all of the classes from Biology to Anatomy and Physiology and I was close to taking offence by reading earlier comments on how evolution was “shoved down your mouths” (This is being directed to those who said that mainly).  If by being shoved down your mouth means learning a concept and regurgitating that concept then I am mistaken.  Schools do not tell you to believe something, or say you have to know it for the rest of your life, they say that you need to learn it to know it.  And knowing it, even if you don’t believe in it, is a good thing!  If you don’t believe in evolution it just makes your debate against it that much more educated.  Furthermore it is important for young christens to learn about it because it will solidify your own faith.  If you learn about evolution and you still believe in ID then your resolve was made that much stronger.  Should you protest so much that you don’t even want to learn it then just accept it for what it is, take the bad grade, and hope that you are strong enough in science that your other grades can pull it up.

If you are though one of those people who your faith is that threatened by a new concept then enroll in a private christen school where they can teach whatever they want.  However if this is not an option let’s review what public schools are for.  They teach general information to the masses.  If intelligent design was taught the schools would have to teach every religions view on it because you will get children from all walks of life and you don’t want someone saying “Well Christianity gets their views taught, I want mine!”  Furthermore the classes that it is being taught in are science classrooms, science by definition is “-a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study”.  God can not be tested in any modern labs, it is a hypothesis that has been proposed however it can not be tested in any sort of reliable ways.  God is not science, if you are looking for ID in public schools please turn to a theology class.  The school teaches simply what they can back up with scientific evidence.  God is not one of those things.  And as I recall it was always regarded as a theory, not “Solid Proof!” or “There is no other thing than this!”  Simply that as of now that is the best, scientifically supported, idea that we have.  Theology is the responsibility of the parent, not the school.

Now onto the topic of Evolution itself.  In reading comments I remember a line or two about “Where is the link?” between monkeys and man.  The link is in your blood.  The DNA in humans and the DNA in chimps is 98.7% identical.  If you want more then we are 85% identical to mice and 60% identical to fruit flies, if we did not all descend from a common ancestor then please explain why we have similar bone structures and identical blood.  Evolution is still a struggling concept that is relatively new within the world and religion is already trying to stamp it out like they have every other new scientific theory that has come along.  Religion is scared of science, it always has been.  Now I know that a new form of religion is evolving with the scientific and religious believers, however I’m talking about the purists.  If you say “Well that’s not true” look at Galileo, when he proposed that the sun was at the center of the universe the church did everything they could to shut him up.  It conflicted with their beliefs, and they only adapted it when they had no other choice.  When it comes to science religion has always put up a good fight.  Religion has good reason to all things considered.  It has always been used as a tool to explain the unexplained.  In the times of the Romans and Greeks the sun was a God moving a flaming chariot across the sky.  Once we knew about the planets and the workings of the universe there was no longer a need for such a God.  Over the years there has been a lack in remaining myths, and religion clings to the two that they have left evolution and the creation of the universe.  They are scared, for when these two things are explained well where is room for their God?  I do not claim that religion will end, I don’t think that is possible for humanity, we are too scared.  However I foresee a change on the horizon and people fear change, so why wouldn’t religion fight for the footing that they have left?

Well if you made it this far congrats you listened through my long-winded speel.  I suppose it was more opinion than fact, however I try to have a logical basis for all of my claims.  Well that’s my two cents for now…



-------
Those who do not question the world around them allow for the death of new ideas.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:52 PM on June 4, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FreeThinker,

Welcome.

Before I begin I would like to comment on your statement that "Religion is scared of science..." Religion is a system of beliefs and cannot in and of itself have a fear of science. Now if you're referring to people who believe in a religion I can safely say that to my knowledge I've never heard of one Buddhist, Hindu, New Ager, satanist, or Bahai that has ever been "scared" of science. You are probably making a sweeping stereotypical generalization and targeting Christians, specifically the catholic Church. I cannot speak for them, but I challenge you to ask any catholic if they are scared of science and see their response.

moving on...

You wrote:

""If intelligent design was taught the schools would have to teach every religions view on it because you will get children from all walks of life and you don’t want someone saying “Well Christianity gets their views taught, I want mine!”

You are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design.

     Creationism is the view that a creator brought the universe, its contents, and its inhabitants into being and into order from literally nothing. the Creator is none other than the Creator-God whose nature and purpose in creation and history is revealed in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (the Bible), including His initial acts of creation as indicated in a straightforward reading of the Creation Week account in Genesis and corroborated in the balance of the Bible.

     Intelligent Design is the view that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. To support this view one uses scientific empirical data and testing.

Creationism is specifically Christian (as well as Jewish), whereas Intelligent Design makes no mention of religion or theology whatsoever.

One might think that this is a moot point since Christians believe Intelligent Design is incorporated in the Scientific Biblical Creationism veiwpoint, but on the topic of being taught in schools there is a difference.

Intelligent Design can and should be taught in schools because it is a valid theory (I believe) in science that uses science to support it, and it gives no pressure whatsoever to believe in any religion. To me this makes it a perfectly acceptable theory to teach in school alongside whatever other scientific theory you'd like to teach.

If you believe it shouldn't be taught because it's "not" supported by evidence, then that's a separate issue. But if your gripe is that Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught because it's a "Christian" view, then you are mistaken.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 04:27 AM on June 9, 2006 | IP
slowdownandthink

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"However, the odd thing is that despite the Bible's accuracy in prophecies, it's dismissed as inconclusive evidence."

actually, u could find prophecies in any long book, theres something to do with the way the lettering is set and words diagonal, up, down, so on


-------
Think before you jump.

Equality is the only fair thing.

Question all your beliefs before you believe them, you might find you dont believe them.
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:18 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
slowdownandthink

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Darwin himself says at the end of his book that he could not find fossil records of what supposedly lies between the so called evolution"

but we can now, we hav these fossils to prove it. back then people didnt hav machinery that was necessary to prove evolution through fossils, carbon dating, much less the will to consider it in the first place. but again... we do NOW. and that is most important.


-------
Think before you jump.

Equality is the only fair thing.

Question all your beliefs before you believe them, you might find you dont believe them.
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:24 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
slowdownandthink

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I would like my children to learn FACTS not ideas"

im sorry but... creationism is an idea not a fact, plus there is little proof of it anyway, im afraid most of the proof comes from the bible which is flawed in the timeline.


-------
Think before you jump.

Equality is the only fair thing.

Question all your beliefs before you believe them, you might find you dont believe them.
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:26 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
slowdownandthink

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" I may be only 15, but I will see to it that one day my children will have the freedom to go to a public school and not have evolution drilled into their minds"

and those that believe in evolution do not want creationism drilled in our heads. its unfair to say creationism should be taught in school when you dont want evolution to be taught. it is reversing the situation and tacking on that its fair. and again creationism has no scientific standing where as evolution does. u should at least learn what you do not believe claims, so you can then make an informed choice on what you choose to believe. if you do that NO ONE has the right to say youve made a choice based on ignorance.


-------
Think before you jump.

Equality is the only fair thing.

Question all your beliefs before you believe them, you might find you dont believe them.
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:34 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
slowdownandthink

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Oh please, of all the major religions in america christianity is the least persecuted. Christianity has a large number of representatives in government positions, just look at judge ray moore for an example of this.
And for minority religions its even worse. Just look at the ridicule the raelians get whenever they are mentioned on tv."

thats right. and dont forget scientology(i say this out of the fact that i DO NOT believe nor even consider this religons ideas, but see constant ridicule from shows such as South Park)


-------
Think before you jump.

Equality is the only fair thing.

Question all your beliefs before you believe them, you might find you dont believe them.
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:37 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
slowdownandthink

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"although the evolutionists seem to have not qualms about brainwashing students."

if they are brainwashing them, then creationism is still trying, thats what was said.


-------
Think before you jump.

Equality is the only fair thing.

Question all your beliefs before you believe them, you might find you dont believe them.
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:53 PM on July 17, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from slowdownandthink at 9:26 PM on July 17, 2006 :
"I would like my children to learn FACTS not ideas"

im sorry but... creationism is an idea not a fact, plus there is little proof of it anyway, im afraid most of the proof comes from the bible which is flawed in the timeline.



So is Evolution. Evolution has never been proven. It has never been recreated in a laboratory. It has never been observed in the wild. So where you get the Idea that Evolution is a fact I do not know.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:41 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


So is Evolution. Evolution has never been proven. It has never been recreated in a laboratory.


Wrong:

E. coli:

E. coli evolution, table of contents

Computer model’s prediction of E. coli evolution, published journal article

More E. coli evolution, a paper from Austria

E. coli, published journal article

E. coli evolution, published journal article (Note: requires access to Nature)

Streptococcus:

Strep evolving resistance to antibiotics, published journal article from Canada

Pneumonia evolving while the patient was hospitalized, a French medical report with an abstract in English

More evolving Strep, published journal article

More cases of evolving Strep in Pneumonia patients, published medical journal article

Strep evolving resistance to antibiotics, published journal article from Oxford University

I can cite hundreds more if it means you'll agree to retract your claim, and the experiments are not restricted to micro-organisms.

It has never been observed in the wild. So where you get the Idea that Evolution is a fact I do not know.


This is also wrong. For a start:

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/9/2007 at 11:31 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: 11:26 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did the e. coli change species? Did the e. coli form into multicellular organisms, was the e. coli put to gether from scratch with only the rawest forms of the elements required?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:55 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did the e. coli change species? Did the e. coli form into multicellular organisms, was the e. coli put to gether from scratch with only the rawest forms of the elements required?


The instances of E. coli evolution indeed produced new species (not that they have to; genetic variation over more than one generation of a population is still evolution). Next time, read the papers in order to answer your questions ahead of time.


-------
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: 11:59 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However in evolution you are saying that one or a small group of cells created every thing to day, so if the cells can not change species and for multicellular organisms than we would still have only the first cells.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:02 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However in evolution you are saying that one or a small group of cells created every thing to day, so if the cells can not change species and for multicellular organisms than we would still have only the first cells.


Bacteria to Man took 2.5 billion years. For the study of that particular lineage, we have the evidence of DNA comparison and fossils.


-------
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: 07:32 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunately we do not have DNA from 2.5 billion years ago, and the fossils tell us very little. They are good for figuring out the basics, what did it eat, how big, and approximately how heavy.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:58 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunately we do not have DNA from 2.5 billion years ago, and the fossils tell us very little. They are good for figuring out the basics, what did it eat, how big, and approximately how heavy.


A lack of DNA from 2.5 billion years ago is largely irrelevant. We see the clear fossilized lineage of single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms. From there, it branched off into plants, fungi, and later, animals. No paleontologist would ever agree that fossils "tell us very little." Evolution was confirmed before the discovery of DNA. DNA simply put the final nail in the coffin.


-------
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: 4:48 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know that there is a relation between the cells and larger multicellular organisms. What processes would the cell go about to produce bone, mussels, and nerves?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:52 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know that there is a relation between the cells and larger multicellular organisms. What processes would the cell go about to produce bone, mussels, and nerves?


Bones, muscles [sic], and nerves are made of cells. As for how they evolved, I'd give www.google.com a flex with the topic: "evolution of muscles/bones/nerves". You'll find more than your life's fill of reading material.


-------
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: 5:05 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How ever no one has watch them evolve, so the only evidence, is a collection of rocks, and theories.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:10 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How ever no one has watch them evolve, so the only evidence, is a collection of rocks, and theories.


No one has watched electrons move around atoms. Using your logic, the entire field of Chemistry is therefore nothing more than "a collection of theories".


-------
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: 5:55 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Part of it. The parts about things that can not be directly observed by us is theory.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:21 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Part of it. The parts about things that can not be directly observed by us is theory.


No. Theories explain facts--such as the fact that atoms exist. We know atoms exist even though we haven't seen any because we can test the evidence in the same way we can test the evidence of evolution.


-------
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: 6:37 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know that the electrons orbit, and don't site in a stationary position?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:39 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know that the electrons orbit, and don't site in a stationary position?


If electrons sat still, a whole box of stability issues would arise with the atom. It would also mean a rejection of our current understanding of centripetal forces. Like all orbiting objects, electrons are held back from going on a tangent line from their position by the field (either gravitational or electromagnetic; in this case, electromagnetic), which pulls the electron towards the group of protons. But the electrons experience forces perpendicular to the protons, so they stay in orbit.

If you didn't understand that, I'm sorry, but you're probably going to have to wait until your high school course in chemistry or physics. Three months back, I wouldn't have followed that at all.


-------
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: 6:45 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I compute, I'm currently In a high school honors chemistry course. My point is that you don't know it for certain, just a theory, and no more. Now Gravity, I've personally had experiences with that law, some of them quite painful. I have not had any experience with evolution. I don't know maybe you only the second generation standing upright, and have personally witnessed the changes in a species.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:54 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The funny thing is we know much more about evolution than we do gravity!  We don't even know what gravity is or how it works, and we certainly can't observe it, only its effects.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:44 AM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, and while I do believe that through evolution you can get many different variations of a species, I believe that you can not make a new species.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:05 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, and while I do believe that through evolution you can get many different variations of a species, I believe that you can not make a new species.

But new species arising has been observed in the wild and in the lab.  So whatever you believe is falsified by reality.  Look up 'ring species'  to see how this happens.  From here:
RingSpecies
"Ring species provide a unique glimpse into how some species came to be.  
 A ring of populations encircles an area            of  unsuitable habitat.  
 At one location in the ring, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding.
 Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one species change gradually through intermediate populations into the second species' traits. "

The above site lists 2 examples of ring species.
Speciation has been observed.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:50 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The salamanders presented were still all salamanders. It didn't say any thing about the salamanders becoming some thing entirely new to science.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:08 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The salamanders presented were still all salamanders. It didn't say any thing about the salamanders becoming some thing entirely new to science.

You didn't say anything about salamanders becoming something new to science, you said:
"I believe that you can not make a new species."
Well, new species of salamanders were seen to evolve.  So your point is wrong.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:54 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In order for evolution to come about you must be able to create some thing radical, i.e bacteria to human for example. Since we are here, and since evolution states that we came from singled celled organisms.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:19 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In order for evolution to come about you must be able to create some thing radical, i.e bacteria to human for example. Since we are here, and since evolution states that we came from singled celled organisms.

Yeah, so what?  Where's your evidence that over billions of years single celled organisms CAN'T evolve into humans?  What parts are you having trouble accepting?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:53 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is none, There is also none that says it can.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:09 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is none, There is also none that says it can.

Well, no, there is a huge amount of evidence that supports exactly that happening, that single celled organisms over time evolved into all life on earth, including man.  That's why virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution (about 99.9%).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:23 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WHere did you get the figure "99.9%"?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:10 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where did you get the figure "99.9%"


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:12 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where did you get the figure "99.9%"

From a number of places, From here:
Wikipedia
"There is overwhelming support in the scientific community and academia for evolution.[9][10][11][12][13] One estimate in 1987 was that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 scientists with professional credentials in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science.[14] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution"[15] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[16][17]"

Then there are statements like these made by real scientific organisations:
National Science Teachers Association
"There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened during the history of the universe. Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Errors and false conclusions are confronted by experiment and observation, and evolution, as in any aspect of science, is continually open to and subject to experimentation and questioning."

There is no debate in biology over whether evolution takes place or not.

From here:
Talkorigins
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. "

Scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution, biologists that accept it are over 99%.  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:43 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which is it, 99.9% or 94.1%. The figures were also stated by people that support evolution, and not by one indifferent to evolution and creation.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:01 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which is it, 99.9% or 94.1%.

Let's see, for biologists, it's over 99.8%, for all scientists and engineers, it's 95%.  Have trouble with reading comprehension?

The figures were also stated by people that support evolution

The Gallup Poll supports evolution???

So what's your reaction to the fact that virtually all of biology accepts the theory of evolution and considers evolution a fact?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:56 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Humans make better lemmings than humans. The vast majority of the SS believed that murdering Jews was okay.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:41 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And this means what in relation to our discussion?  The experts all agree, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is valid.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:45 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just because every one agrees doesn't make it valid. Every one in the south believed that blacks were less than they were.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:52 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "experts" once all thought that the sun revolved around the earth... the "experts" once thought pus was a sign of healing... the "experts" used to poke holes in the heads of people with headaches... wonder what all the "experts" will agree on next decade...


-------
"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: 10:21 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe that radiation from nuclear reactors is good for you, or that rat poison makes good tooth paste.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:30 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "experts" once all thought that the sun revolved around the earth... the "experts" once thought pus was a sign of healing... the "experts" used to poke holes in the heads of people with headaches... wonder what all the "experts" will agree on next decade...

And these "experts" weren't scientists, they didn't use the modern scientific method.  
It seems very hypocritical to claim that some experts might be wrong, even though you can't back up the claim, yet blindly accept the word of other "experts", you do go to a doctor when your seriously injured, don't you.  
Biologists are experts because they study the evidence, they are in the best position to determine if evolution is valid and they all agree, evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it.  Because of the validity of evolution we can practically apply it in medicine, industry, farming, food production.  If evolution was wrong we couldn't use it.
Scientists have been trying to refute it for over 150 years, they have all been unsuccessful.  
creationism, on the other hand, was successfully disproven over 200 years ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:42 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Modern is a tentative term. Pluto is not a planet by modern standards, but it was the ninth planet for years.

One day experts will look back on debates of creationism and evolution, and use it as an example of how people were deluded, being glade that they "now" know that nothing exists at all, and that every thing is similar to a simulation. Hence my signature.

(Edited by SilverStar 1/13/2007 at 11:11 PM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:11 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Modern is a tentative term. Pluto is not a planet by modern standards, but it was the ninth planet for years.

I used modern to denote the use of the  scientific method.  Pluto was always out there, the only difference is in how we defined it.  As our technology got better, our definition of Pluto got better.  Science changes with new data, that's it's strength.

One day experts will look back on debates of creationism and evolution,

There is no debate in scientific circles, evolution is accepted as fact, creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:15 AM on January 14, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And these "experts" weren't scientists, they didn't use the modern scientific method.  

But the point is... these methods were modern at the time, just as today's methods are modern now, but won't be years from now.  Experts can (and often are) wrong.


-------
"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: 09:45 AM on January 14, 2007 | 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.