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
     Your Choice

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you could choose between Evolutionisim or Creationisim(not your actuall stand point on them) which would you really rather be true?


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 11:12 PM on April 26, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

don't really care - either way we have a purpose, and that is to live
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:53 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 03:53 AM on April 27, 2005 :
don't really care - either way we have a purpose, and that is to live

By that reasoning it could be said our purpose is to die.
If we have no soul we have no purpose.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:53 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To be honest I would rather creationism is right, I would think that most people would rather have an after life than simpily ending.
Infact god guided evolution... but I wont go into that...
However no matter how people would prefer creationism to be true doesn't deny the fact that it isn't!
It is a method in which people can be made to conform to society in the belief that they will be rewarded after they die.
The way I see it, I don't know if you were like this or not but when I was younger I remember learning the ancient roman, greek and egyptian gods and religions and thinking how strange these religions and gods are (this is when I was still "christian") and how "stupid" these people were to belive this, for example the sun god ra pushing the sun across the sky each day... I think that in a few thousand years people will look back to modern day religions and see them the same way... "How silly these people were to think that the earth and the universe could be created in 6 days"


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 2:04 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can understand your points peter.... and its not like i dont respect your point of view. the "creation" side of things is really a bad name, because then people say things like "evolution doesn't deal with how life began, but what happened to it after it was there" but thats all that "creation" does refer too... and so many people believe that we were created and then evolved.. in any case it doesn't matter.. see, from a creationists point of view, the theory is that we didn't evolve (macro-evolve)... its sort of a default point of view.. the responsibility lies on the evolutionists to prove that we (and all living things) have macro-evolved, and all i'm saying is they haven't convinced me that we have. It's obvious that given the reasons many scientists give that you believe that we macro-evolved. I'm aware of what these evidences are, all i'm saying is that it really doesn't make sense to me... i mean, call it science, tell me it makes sense, but when you look at it simply, it just seems like a really far fetched idea... you think it takes no faith for evolution, i think it takes no faith for no-evolution. to think that all living things originated from the same living cell billions of years ago requires more faith IN MY OPINION than to beleive that all living things were designed and have not macro-evolved.

Besides... even if i'm wrong, there is not a single disadvantage to holding my belief.

now you on the other hand can't say that, for if i'm right and you're wrong (im saying IF) then you'll have some 'splainin to do... believe it or not, i think you're best bet is the safest one.

so what if evolution is true? describe to me how an evolutionist and his opinions made his life so much different that he needs to convince others to become an evolutionist

i dont see the attraction to believing this theory. besides the chance of being able to say "i told you so" one day. i dont care who was right, but given that i do believe in creation, i have no choice but to let people know that they better straighten their thinking before its too late.
what motivates you to be a propagator of evolution?



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:34 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My big question is that if evolution is true than why bother arguing the point. you only have a short time to live and after that your gone so why wast your preicous life arguing?


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 01:00 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Besides... even if i'm wrong, there is not a single disadvantage to holding my belief.

This is absolutely untrue!  The disadvantage to believing in myths instead of reality?  The result is another dark age of ignorance!  The theory of evolution is the the overriding concept of modern biology.  Animal breeding is conducted using the theory of evolution, farming heavily utilizes evolution, it is crucial to modern medicine.  Any time real science is sacrificed for primitive, dogmatic myth, we all suffer.
As to macro evolution, what most creationists don't understand is that macro evolution and micro evolution are essentially the same thing, the same mechanisms, the same processes, there is no difference.  Common descent for all life on earth is so well supported it's a virtual fact.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:27 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 07:53 AM on April 27, 2005 :
Quote from K8 at 03:53 AM on April 27, 2005 :
don't really care - either way we have a purpose, and that is to live

By that reasoning it could be said our purpose is to die.


If we have no soul we have no purpose.





I said our purpose is to live, not die. I also never even mentioned souls.

I just think that we're all here to live - life holds many experiences, and i believe we're here to experience them.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:43 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 2:04 PM on April 27, 2005 :
To be honest I would rather creationism is right, I would think that most people would rather have an after life than simpily ending.
Infact god guided evolution... but I wont go into that...

Why not? If God could create a single cell why would He be to ineffective to created complete organisms?

However no matter how people would prefer creationism to be true doesn't deny the fact that it isn't!
It is a method in which people can be made to conform to society in the belief that they will be rewarded after they die.

So what your saying you don't like the idea of a God that interfers with your morals? Therefore you create the god that suits your style?

The way I see it, I don't know if you were like this or not but when I was younger I remember learning the ancient roman, greek and egyptian gods and religions and thinking how strange these religions and gods are (this is when I was still "christian") and how "stupid" these people were to belive this, for example the sun god ra pushing the sun across the sky each day... I think that in a few thousand years people will look back to modern day religions and see them the same way... "How silly these people were to think that the earth and the universe could be created in 6 days"

It is only logical that if their are numerous religious belefs about the creation only one can be true. To discount Christianity because there are religions like the Sun god Ra is silly.

You cannot describe the process of trans-mutation of species only Natural Selection which was a Creationist idea anyway.
All you can do is say adding millions of years to observable changes makes unobservable changes.
You are worshipping thr Greek gods chaos and cronos , time and chance .
That is really silly because you don't even realise it.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:02 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:27 AM on April 28, 2005 :

This is absolutely untrue!  The disadvantage to believing in myths instead of reality?  The result is another dark age of ignorance!  The theory of evolution is the the overriding concept of modern biology.  Animal breeding is conducted using the theory of evolution, farming heavily utilizes evolution, it is crucial to modern medicine.  Any time real science is sacrificed for primitive, dogmatic myth, we all suffer.
As to macro evolution, what most creationists don't understand is that macro evolution and micro evolution are essentially the same thing, the same mechanisms, the same processes, there is no difference.  Common descent for all life on earth is so well supported it's a virtual fact.  

A virtual fact? That is like saying almost pregnant.
Taking an observable process and adding millions of years to it is a fairy tale , not science.
I know a lot of doctors, my brother is a neurologist-board certified and head of that dept at his hospital. I have had medical people in my family since the civil war.
Not only are all of them Creationist but my brother does not know a single doctor who is not.
Back up your claim, you cannot. You are telling stories again.
The father of biology was Pasteur.
I know a lot of farmers. I have always known a lot of Farmers. I live on a farm. I have never in my life known a Farmer who was not a Creationist or even heard of one.
Modern farming techniques are based on the work of Mendel and George Washington Carver not Darwin.
Another story you made up.
Animal breeding ? What on earth are you talking about? I know lots of ranchers , dog breeders , veteranarians etc. Not an evolutionist among them.
People have been breeding animals since the beginning of Creation. What on earth does evolution have to do with breeding animals?





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:16 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A virtual fact? That is like saying almost pregnant.

And you still don't understand science!  Every theory in science is a virtual fact, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the heliocentric theory, I guess they're all just fairytales too.

Taking an observable process and adding millions of years to it is a fairy tale , not science.

An observed fact, evolution, and adding millions of years to it bcause that's what the evidence shows us, as opposed to a book of impossible myths like the Bible...yeah, right, fairytales...

I know a lot of doctors, my brother is a neurologist-board certified and head of that dept at his hospital. I have had medical people in my family since the civil war.
Not only are all of them Creationist but my brother does not know a single doctor who is not.


Yeah, that's amazing since evolution plays such a huge role in modern medicine!  From here:
DarwinianMed
"But Darwinian medicine's critics don't deny the field's legitimacy; they point mostly to its lack of hard-and-fast answers, its lack of clear clinical guidelines. "I think this idea will eventually establish itself as a basic science for medicine," answers Nesse. "What did people say, for instance, to the biochemists back in 1900 as they were playing out the Krebs cycle? People would say, 'So what does biochemistry really have to do with medicine? What can you cure now that you couldn't before you knew about the Krebs cycle?' And the biochemists could only say, 'Well, gee, we're not sure, but we know what we're doing is answering important scientific questions, and eventually this will be useful.' And I think exactly the same applies here." "

From here:
EvoMed
" Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the central tenet of modern biology. Darwinian medicine offers a new perspective on human health. Application of Darwin's ideas to the evolution of pathogenic organisms, and consideration of their coevolution with their human hosts, has given modern medicine new insights into why we get sick and the ways in which we heal. Traditional medicine has focused on the proximate causes of diseases and treatment for their symptoms. By considering human health and disease from an evolutionary perspective, modern medicine is gaining new insights into why diseases occur, and how the human body is adapted to respond to them."

From here:
EvoMedII
"Some have theorized that RNA, the active component in genes, and not DNA, the genetic library, composed the first life forms. Based on that theory, Breaker supposed that RNA would have needed to act like a simple switch when it came into contact with another molecule, sending out signals in order to control metabolism. He and his team put that evolutionary theory to work in a test tube to “back-engineer” RNA-based molecular switches. As he reported in a paper published in Nature Biotechnology in April 2001, the switches worked. "

So yeah, the theory of evolution is central to modern medicine.  A modern doctor who doesn't accept the TOE is like a witch doctor and I would avoid going to them.  Let's see you publish something from your brother saying he doesn't believe in the TOE, you don't expect us to just take your word for it....

Back up your claim, you cannot. You are telling stories again.

In addition to the examples I listed above, from here:
EvoMedIII
"A clear understanding of selection is vital to modern medicine and agriculture. When a physician prescribes an antibiotic for an infection, it is dispensed with the instructions, "Take all of these. Do not stop the treatment when symptoms are relieved." These instructions are based upon an evolutionary concept of selection."

From here:
EvoMedIV
"Evolutionary thinking has underwritten the biological sciences since Darwin's time. More recently it has also had an impact on a range of other disciplines, including Medicine. The field of 'evolutionary medicine' which views illnesses as adaptive responses to disease challenge, is now established through a burgeoning literature. However, a more general relationship between the medicine and evolutionary sciences exist in which the outcomes of evolutionary thinking have had a direct bearing on health."

The father of biology was Pasteur.

So what?  Pasteur is 130 years behind the times.

I know a lot of farmers. I have always known a lot of Farmers. I live on a farm. I have never in my life known a Farmer who was not a Creationist or even heard of one.

Which is funny since so many aspects of farming use evolutionary techniques.

Modern farming techniques are based on the work of Mendel and George Washington Carver not Darwin.

From here:
FarmEvo
"Nowadays, engineers have a very different world view. Their philosophy is to plan ahead and design what is needed, using as much scientific theory as is necessary. Applied biology, from agriculture to medicine, has adopted this approach only in the last few years. By so doing it is at the beginning of an advance as spectacular as that of transport since the steam engine. The fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism has already made farming much more productive. The amount of food available per head, worldwi 'de, has gone up in the face of the greatest population explosion in human history. This success has already brought problems and, if one thing is certain about the new attempts to engineer nature, it is that nature will respond in unexpected and unwelcome ways."

Whether you know it or not, the theory of evolution is intragal to modern agriculture and animal husbandry.  And of course Mendel's work is part of the Modern Synthesis.

Animal breeding ? What on earth are you talking about? I know lots of ranchers , dog breeders , veteranarians etc. Not an evolutionist among them.

Once again, it doesn't matter that the breeders you know are ignorant of the concepts that they are using, it's a fact that animal husbandry is evolutionary.

People have been breeding animals since the beginning of Creation. What on earth does evolution have to do with breeding animals?


Evolution explains what is actually happening when animals are bred.  a better understanding of the actual process has increased the profficiency of that process.
From here:
Selection
"In the theory of Quick Facts about: evolution
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organismsevolution, artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. "

Whether your breeder friends knew it or not, they were using evolutionary practices whenever they bred animals.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:19 AM on June 8, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:19 AM on June 8, 2005 :

And you still don't understand science!  Every theory in science is a virtual fact, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the heliocentric theory, I guess they're all just fairytales too.

You keep referring to science when you are talking about evolution. You seem confused between the 2.

An observed fact, evolution, and adding millions of years to it bcause that's what the evidence shows us, as opposed to a book of impossible myths like the Bible...yeah, right, fairytales...
Evidence doesn't "show " us anything and if it did you would not have to add long ago and far far away to observable evidence to disprove the need for a creator God to explain our existence.


Yeah, that's amazing since evolution plays such a huge role in modern medicine!  From here:
DarwinianMed
"But Darwinian medicine's critics don't deny the field's legitimacy; they point mostly to its lack of hard-and-fast answers, its lack of clear clinical guidelines. "I think this idea will eventually establish itself as a basic science for medicine," answers Nesse. "What did people say, for instance, to the biochemists back in 1900 as they were playing out the Krebs cycle? People would say, 'So what does biochemistry really have to do with medicine? What can you cure now that you couldn't before you knew about the Krebs cycle?' And the biochemists could only say, 'Well, gee, we're not sure, but we know what we're doing is answering important scientific questions, and eventually this will be useful.' And I think exactly the same applies here." "
Your not sure of anything. Again my statement is true. The majority of doctors believe God created human beings not Chaos and Cronos , nurses to btw. Only fringe researchers believe in unscientific nonsense like vestigial organs . Darwinism is a yoke on science not it's basis. Pasteur made the breaktroughs that gave us medicine and biology as we know enjoy. Darwin new nothing of either.

From here:
EvoMedII
"Some have theorized that RNA, the active component in genes, and not DNA, the genetic library, composed the first life forms. Based on that theory, Breaker supposed that RNA would have needed to act like a simple switch when it came into contact with another molecule, sending out signals in order to control metabolism. He and his team put that evolutionary theory to work in a test tube to “back-engineer” RNA-based molecular switches. As he reported in a paper published in Nature Biotechnology in April 2001, the switches worked. "

Wow. You know how to find subjuctive phrases.

So yeah, the theory of evolution is central to modern medicine.  A modern doctor who doesn't accept the TOE is like a witch doctor and I would avoid going to them.  Let's see you publish something from your brother saying he doesn't believe in the TOE, you don't expect us to just take your word for it....
If I do will you convert?
Do you think Dr. Damadian is a witch doctor or are you as ignorant as I think you are and don't even know who he is?
If you ever are told you need an MRI tell them you don't believe in witchcraft and decline.
If you had a brain would you would take it out and play with it?
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/damadian.html


From here:
From here:
[url=http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/ar/artificial_selection.htm]Selection

"In the theory of Quick Facts about: evolution
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organismsevolution, artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. "

People have known how to breed in desired traits for thousands of years. this is mindless drivel.
Whether your breeder friends knew it or not, they were using evolutionary practices whenever they bred animals.




Whether you knew it or not they were breeding animals just fine before Darwin's Fairy Stories came out and really cannot find any usefull information in this drivel.



-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:25 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:25 PM on June 8, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 11:19 AM on June 8, 2005 :

And you still don't understand science!  Every theory in science is a virtual fact, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the heliocentric theory, I guess they're all just fairytales too.

You keep referring to science when you are talking about evolution. You seem confused between the 2.

An observed fact, evolution, and adding millions of years to it bcause that's what the evidence shows us, as opposed to a book of impossible myths like the Bible...yeah, right, fairytales...
Evidence doesn't "show " us anything and if it did you would not have to add long ago and far far away to observable evidence to disprove the need for a creator God to explain our existence.


Yeah, that's amazing since evolution plays such a huge role in modern medicine!  From here:
DarwinianMed
"But Darwinian medicine's critics don't deny the field's legitimacy; they point mostly to its lack of hard-and-fast answers, its lack of clear clinical guidelines. "I think this idea will eventually establish itself as a basic science for medicine," answers Nesse. "What did people say, for instance, to the biochemists back in 1900 as they were playing out the Krebs cycle? People would say, 'So what does biochemistry really have to do with medicine? What can you cure now that you couldn't before you knew about the Krebs cycle?' And the biochemists could only say, 'Well, gee, we're not sure, but we know what we're doing is answering important scientific questions, and eventually this will be useful.' And I think exactly the same applies here." "
Your not sure of anything. Again my statement is true. The majority of doctors believe God created human beings not Chaos and Cronos , nurses to btw. Only fringe researchers believe in unscientific nonsense like vestigial organs . Darwinism is a yoke on science not it's basis. Pasteur made the breaktroughs that gave us medicine and biology as we know enjoy. Darwin new nothing of either.

From here:
EvoMedII
"Some have theorized that RNA, the active component in genes, and not DNA, the genetic library, composed the first life forms. Based on that theory, Breaker supposed that RNA would have needed to act like a simple switch when it came into contact with another molecule, sending out signals in order to control metabolism. He and his team put that evolutionary theory to work in a test tube to “back-engineer” RNA-based molecular switches. As he reported in a paper published in Nature Biotechnology in April 2001, the switches worked. "

Wow. You know how to find subjuctive phrases.

So yeah, the theory of evolution is central to modern medicine.  A modern doctor who doesn't accept the TOE is like a witch doctor and I would avoid going to them.  Let's see you publish something from your brother saying he doesn't believe in the TOE, you don't expect us to just take your word for it....
If I do will you convert?
Do you think Dr. Damadian is a witch doctor or are you as ignorant as I think you are and don't even know who he is?
If you ever are told you need an MRI tell them you don't believe in witchcraft and decline.
If you had a brain would you would take it out and play with it?
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/damadian.html


From here:
From here:
[url=http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/ar/artificial_selection.htm]Selection

"In the theory of Quick Facts about: evolution
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organismsevolution, artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. "

People have known how to breed in desired traits for thousands of years. this is mindless drivel.

Whether your breeder friends knew it or not, they were using evolutionary practices whenever they bred animals.

Whether you knew it or not the science of animal husbandry was well developed before the fairy story of Darwinism began.
Mendels work was ignored for 60 years due to the anti-science of Darwin.




Whether you knew it or not they were breeding animals just fine before Darwin's Fairy Stories came out and really cannot find any usefull information in this drivel.







-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:54 PM on June 8, 2005 |
IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You keep referring to science when you are talking about evolution. You seem confused between the 2.

No confusion on my part, evolution is science.
But once again you ignore the point, why is the heliocentric theory (you know, the THEORY the earth orbits the sun) science and the theory of evolution is not?  Why is the theory of gravity science and the theory of evolution isn't, especially when the theory of evolution is so much better understood than the theory of gravity?  Why is the atomic theory science and evolution isn't?  Come on, you claim to understand science, explainit to us...

Evidence doesn't "show " us anything and if it did you would not have to add long ago and far far away to observable evidence to disprove the need for a creator God to explain our existence.

There still is no need for a God.  Evidence from long ago and far away is still observable evidence and has much to tell us.  An objective view of evidence is imperative to the scientific method, you being a religious fanatic are incapable of being objective.

Your not sure of anything. Again my statement is true. The majority of doctors believe God created human beings not Chaos and Cronos , nurses to btw.

Where the hell do you live?!?!  Backwoods, Arkansas?  What doctors do you go to, Dr. Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies?!?!  Don't be ridiculous, most doctors accept evolution, most nurses too.  There might be a few throwback hick doctors that refuse to accept the evidence, but they are the exception not the rule.  Remember, 99% of the biologists in the USA accept evolution.

Only fringe researchers believe in unscientific nonsense like vestigial organs . Darwinism is a yoke on science not it's basis. Pasteur made the breaktroughs that gave us medicine and biology as we know enjoy. Darwin new nothing of either.

Ha haahaaaa!  You're really serious?!?!  Evolution is the unifying concept of biology!
Evolution has done more to make the world a better place than Pasteur ever did.

Wow. You know how to find subjuctive phrases.

So you can't actually discuss it, let alone refute it, typical...

If you ever are told you need an MRI tell them you don't believe in witchcraft and decline.
If you had a brain would you would take it out and play with it?
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/damadian.html


Where in all this drivel does it explain how an MRI is anti evolution?  It has nothing to do with evolution!  Why mention it?!?!  The MRI has NOTHING to do with evolution.  This is your usual tactic, dodge the question and through in some meaningless nonsense to distract from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

People have known how to breed in desired traits for thousands of years. this is mindless drivel.

yes people bred animals for thousands of years, but they never knew the processes they were employing.  Once an evolutionary paradigm replaced the old methods, From here:
PracticalEVO
"Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). "

"Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. "

And from here:
MolecularBiologist
"I would assert that the whole reason for using the paradigm of evolution and natural selection is because it works for biologists, and because it has been largely responsible for the tremendous advances we've seen and the practical consequences that have accrued from developments in molecular biology. There may be molecular biologists who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, and it may be possible for them to function creatively. But I believe that they place themselves at a tremendous disadvantage by not using the concept of evolution in the formulation of their hypotheses."

Whether you knew it or not the science of animal husbandry was well developed before the fairy story of Darwinism began.

But now that we understand evolution, animal breeding has been much more productive.
From here:
Animalbreeding
"The science of animal breeding is concerned with the application of the principles of population genetics to the improvement of domestic animals. Population genetics deals with the forces that influence the genetic composition of biological populations and owes its existence to developments in evolution and population biology and to the global need for improvements in domestic crops and livestock."
So I stand by my point, the application of evolutionary techniques to animal breeding caused a quantum increase in quantity and quality.

Mendels work was ignored for 60 years due to the anti-science of Darwin.

Prove it!  Mendel's work is part of the Modern Synthesis, from here:ModernSynthesis
"The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the modern synthesis), neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism, brings together Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson and G. Ledyard Stebbins. Essentially, the modern synthesis (or neo-Darwinism) introduced the connection between two important discoveries; the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (selection)."

So Mendels work is a major part of the modern theory of evolution.  

Whether you knew it or not they were breeding animals just fine before Darwin's Fairy Stories came out and really cannot find any usefull information in this drivel.

And once again, you have nothing to back up any of your misinformation...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:13 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:13 AM on June 11, 2005 :
No confusion on my part, evolution is science.
But once again you ignore the point, why is the heliocentric theory (you know, the THEORY the earth orbits the sun) science and the theory of evolution is not?  Why is the theory of gravity science and the theory of evolution isn't, especially when the theory of evolution is so much better understood than the theory of gravity?  Why is the atomic theory science and evolution isn't?  Come on, you claim to understand science, explainit to us...

Who is us?
If you drop a rock it falls. That is evidence.
You have no real arguments so you keep talking about an idea that the CREATIONIST Galileo refuted. Why is that?

Saying we know that two features are homologous because they come from a common ancestor, and we know they come from a common ancestor because they're homologous is reasoning in a circle, not evidence.

There still is no need for a God.  Evidence from long ago and far away is still observable evidence and has much to tell us.  An objective view of evidence is imperative to the scientific method, you being a religious fanatic are incapable of being objective.

"There still is no need for a God."
You would not objectivity if it hit you in the head.
As you plainly stated here THE OBJECTIVE OF EVOLUTION IS TO SHOW THERE IS NO NEED FOR GOD!


Where the hell do you live?!?!  Backwoods, Arkansas?  What doctors do you go to, Dr. Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies?!?!  Don't be ridiculous, most doctors accept evolution, most nurses too.  There might be a few throwback hick doctors that refuse to accept the evidence, but they are the exception not the rule.  Remember, 99% of the biologists in the USA accept evolution.
I grew up in Houston home of one of the finest medical centers on earth. Your 99% figure is just your lips moving. Very few doctors believe we decended from apes.
Is Damadian backwoods? You are delusional.

Ha haahaaaa!  You're really serious?!?!  Evolution is the unifying concept of biology!
Evolution has done more to make the world a better place than Pasteur ever did.
No one with the 1/2 a brain would ever say that. It is facinating to watch you digress as get angry.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Louis_Pasteur.html
If one were to choose among the greatest benefactors of humanity, Louis Pasteur would certainly rank at the top. He solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines. He debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation, thereby setting the stage for modern biology and biochemistry. He described the scientific basis for fermentation, wine-making, and the brewing of beer. Pasteur's work gave birth to many branches of science, and he was singlehandedly responsible for some of the most important theoretical concepts and practical applications of modern science.

Louis Bounoure, president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, director of the Zoological Museum and director of research at the Natural Center of Scientific Research in France:

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has done nothing to the progress of science.  It is useless."

Evolution has nothing to do with science, it is an atheistic worldview.


Where in all this drivel does it explain how an MRI is anti evolution?  It has nothing to do with evolution!  Why mention it?!?!  The MRI has NOTHING to do with evolution.  This is your usual tactic, dodge the question and through in some meaningless nonsense to distract from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
No professor you said that Creationist Doctors were Witch Doctors and evolution was the basis of all science.
Damadian believes that evolution is the scourge of mankind.


yes people bred animals for thousands of years, but they never knew the processes they were employing.  Once an evolutionary paradigm replaced the old methods, From here:
PracticalEVO
"Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). "

"Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. "

Nothing to do with animal husbandry has anything to do with evolution. It has to do with biology not the monkey to man story.

Prove it!  Mendel's work is part of the Modern Synthesis, from here:ModernSynthesis
"So Mendels work is a major part of the modern theory of evolution.

Got nothing to do with evolution.
Mendel was ignored because he was a creationist. Darwin , Haeckel , Galton , Huxley and the lot were the reason. Evolution is anti-science.
Mendel is the Father of modern genetics, not evolution!
He was a Creationist! Please do your homework!

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/PeterMorton/vs6_notes.htm

 http://www.explore-biography.com/biologists/G/Gregor_Mendel.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-335999,00.html

And once again, you have nothing to back up any of your misinformation...
You are special, are you in special ed?





-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:12 AM on June 12, 2005 |
IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who is us?

The part of the population that accepts the evidence objectively gathered by science and who reject primitive myths that are 3000 years old.

If you drop a rock it falls. That is evidence.


Then tell us what this evidence tells us about gravity...What is it, how does it function.  The theory of evolution is a Much stronger theory than the theory of gravity, we don't even know what gravity is yet...
If you dig up a fossil it's evidence, if you find 100's of thousands of fossils, that's better evidence because you can compare and contrast them.  But get back to the point, how is the theory of evolution not science and the theory of gravity is?  How is the theory of evolution not science and the heliocentric theory is?  you avoid everything you can't dodge or obfusicate...answer the question!

Saying we know that two features are homologous because they come from a common ancestor, and we know they come from a common ancestor because they're homologous is reasoning in a circle, not evidence.

And luckily that's not how science works!  Relatedness is based on much more than 2 features being homologous.  And how do you explain the fact that after the tree of life was constructed based on similarities, it was independently verified by the genetic evidence.
Twin nested hierarchies!  The fact that all life shares a common ancestor is the reason we can conduct tests on other animals and apply the results to humans.

"There still is no need for a God."
You would not objectivity if it hit you in the head.
As you plainly stated here THE OBJECTIVE OF EVOLUTION IS TO SHOW THERE IS NO NEED FOR GOD!


All science is baded on this!  And of course there is a big difference in "there is no need for god" and "there is no god".  But again, you miss the point, how is evolution different from meteorology, which showed that ligthning wasn't punishment from god but a natural phenomenon?  Does this mean that the objective of meteorology is to show there is no need for God?  i mean, that's what it did, but that wasn't it's objective.  The germ theory of disease is in the same boat, disease was proposed to be caused by demons, as punishment from an angry god, does that meanthne objective of the Germ theory of disease is to show there is no need for god?  Again, that's what it did, but that wasn't it's objective...So answer the question, how is the theory of evolution different from the germ theory of disease?

I grew up in Houston home of one of the finest medical centers on earth. Your 99% figure is just your lips moving. Very few doctors believe we decended from apes.
Is Damadian backwoods? You are delusional.


No you are the one who is dellusional, can't accept the reality of the world.  From here:
Percentages
"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%"
And here's one:
America
"The majority of Americans (a slim margin) believe in evolution as fact but over 80% of those believe in theistic evolution, that is evolution is the work of God. Most of the complainers are gripping because their particular view of theology and the absurd claims of a literal "six day" creationism got rejected. That happens to be rejected by many churches as well."

other industrial countries have much higher percentages of people who accept evolution.

And from here:
TalkOrigin
" 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."

And from here:
BigNumbers
""If I were a parent whose children were entering high school," Inlay concludes, "and I kept reading in the news that many scientists thought evolution was a theory in crisis and that students were being prevented from hearing about this controversy by dogmatic Darwinists, I would want to know that in reality, 99 percent of scientists support evolution, and only an insignificant minority question it." "

Numbers don't lie, so what do you have to refute the evidence...I stand by my statement, over 99% of biologists in the USA accept evolution, creationism in the scientific world is the lunatic fringe.

No one with the 1/2 a brain would ever say that. It is facinating to watch you digress as get angry.

Wrong!  Evolution IS the unifying concept of biology, nothing makes sense unless it is viewed through evolution.  Evolution has made major contributins to the world and will continue to do so.  Glad you like to watch me get angry, because I'm really enjoying ripping your ludicrous claims to shreds!

Nothing to do with animal husbandry has anything to do with evolution. It has to do with biology not the monkey to man story.

Sorry, the experts have proven you wrong!  Didn't you read the statement I posted, that's what the exsperts say, just because you don't believe it doesn't change it's validity at all!

Got nothing to do with evolution.

Then explain why all biologists say Mendel's work is part of Modern Synthesis (the modern theory of evolution)?  so of course it is fundamental to evolution!
From here:
ModernSynthesis
"The modern synthesis or neo-Darwinian synthesis unites the theories of Charles Darwin with Gregor Mendel's genetics, producing our contemporary theory of evolution. The modern synthesis was set in motion in 1918 by Ronald Fisher and William Bateson, and by the end of the 1940s genetics and the gene had been fully accepted by evolutionary biology.

The modern synthesis established mutation and recombination as the main sources of variation within populations, and introduced genetic drift as an evolutionary process.

The modern synthesis was revised by the Williams revolution of the 1960s, which established gene selection as the leading theory of selection.

Principal architects of the modern synthesis were Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, and George Gaylord Simpson. "

So explain to us, Brainiac, why every biologist, every scientist in the world says Mendel's work is part of modern evolutionary theory, when it's not true?  What are your qualificatins to say the entirety of biology is wrong and you are right???  Geez, you are too stupid for words!

Mendel was ignored because he was a creationist

No he wasn't, from here:
Mendel
"Despite his occupation as a priest, Mendel was scientific in his approach to the question of evolution. It would be surprising for a "zealous defender of the faith" in 1866 to consider seriously ideas of evolution and in particular Darwinism (Bishop 1996), but Mendel's environment was uncommonly liberal (Voipio 1990). F. C. Napp, Mendel's predecessor as Abbott, was a member of many scientific societies and shared Mendel's interest in breeding (Orel 1996). Other members of the monastery included F. M. Klacel, who shared Mendel's interest in evolution. Klacel had been prevented from teaching by the time Mendel arrived as a result of his Czech nationalism and Hegelian philosophy (Orel 1996). Mendel himself had a scientific education at the University of Vienna, and wrote about geology and organic evolution on his 1850 teaching examination. Although Mendel was cautious, particularly in not reporting his hybrid experiments with white and grey mice (Iltis 1924), his surroundings were conducive to scientific inquiry."  
Mendel was a scientist that didn't accept the Bible as literal, that didn't believe the bible was inerrant...
From here:
MendelII
" During his time as abbot Mendel seems to have been more concerned with the financial running of the monastery rather than the religious side. It is suggested Mendel was seen as unreliable by the Emperor's Secret Police. It is likely the bishop and many in the monastery did not like what Mendel was doing, particularly his interest and enthusiasm for the work of such contemporaries as Charles Darwin."

Interest and enthusiasm for Darwin?!?!  Doesn't sound like a creationist to me!

From here:
MendelIII
"Mendel's attraction to research was based on his love of nature. He was not only interested in plants, but also in meteorology and theories of evolution."

So what evidence do you have that Mendel was a creationist????

And once again, you have nothing to back up any of your misinformation...

Talk about fairytales!  i've backed up everything I've said, you've backed up nothing!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:55 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.