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
     Replace Evolution or go home

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

    
BVZ

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing I notice is that most people who are against evolution do not understand science.

There is nothing wrong with this. Many people don't understand science, just like many people don't understand knitting. I don't understand knitting, which is why I avoid having arguments with people who DO know a lot about knitting.

I will now attempt to educate people about the BASICS.

Here goes:

A scientific theory is a tool. You use it like any other tool. When you need it, you use it.

When you have to build a skyscraper you use the newest Scientific Theories. You use them because they make the most acurate predictions. How much steel will we need here? How should the foundations be formed? To answer these questions you use Scientific Theories.

(Keep in mind that in the skyscraper example, most Scientific Theories that will be used contradicts the Bible in some way!)

Now, where do these theories come from?

They are created by people. Some theories are good, some are aweful. The ones that make good predictions get stronger, and the ones that are aweful get weaker. A very strong theory that make very good predictions, gets to be called a Scientific Theory.

Evolution is a Scientific Theory. It is used as a tool in many industries. It is used to make medicine, cure diseases, create pesticides, breed flowers etc.

It is a very good tool. It is used as a tool. No tool is perfect. Evolution does have holes. This is not surprising. However, these holes are opertunities for scientists to increase the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution.

Here comes the important part. There is only one way to damage evolution: Replace it with something better. Anything less than completely replacing it with something better will only MAKE IT STRONGER.



-------
Evil always contain the seed of its own downfall.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 05:23 AM on January 19, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, the usual assumptions and superiority complex on show. You give no scientific data for backing up what you say, which is, again, typical. Science is defined in dictionaries as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." What observations and experiments have shown how life started from a handful of chemicals? None.

You assume that only evolutionists understand science, well I've found myself having to explain the theory to evolutionists who haven't clue what it says but believe it without question. Here's an example "We used to live in caves but now we live in houses." When I explained that evolution actually was, he became abusive.

Medicine is not built on evolutionary theory. small pox has been all but wiped out thanks to a vaccine. This was developed because Edward Jenner saw that milk-maids never got small-pox and reasoned that it was because they were exposed to the milder cow-pox which gave them an immunity to small-pox. This happened many years before Darwin was even born and has nothing to do with evolution. Maybe you know some treatments that were based on the theory, if so what are they?

Your use of architecture is original, I'll give you that. I rang a friend of mine who is an architect and bible believer. He was puzzled as to which bits of the bible are contradicted by scientific theories that are used in skyscraper design. Skyscraper design is done by tried and tested theory. Click here for an example of what can happen when architects use the latest theories.

You already know of an alternative to evolution, you just don't want to accept it.

Click here for a non-evolutionist site web site that knows about science.


 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 2:59 PM on January 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, the usual assumptions and superiority complex on show. You give no scientific data for backing up what you say, which is, again, typical.


Even more typical is your failure to understand the argument. Proving Evolution was not BVZ’s goal in this post. On the other hand, there are countless other topics on this board in which plenty of evidence is provided. Stick to the relevant topic at hand, please

What observations and experiments have shown how life started from a handful of chemicals? None.


Let’s make this clear right away:

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

Or, if you’d prefer:

The beginning of life is not Evolution.

Let’s move on to the actual subject of this thread now. In the definition of Science that you quoted, you seem to have forgotten one key element:

“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

I’d like you to answer the following question:

How can any mention of a supernatural deity that transcends the very laws we conduct science through have any part in science to begin with?

You assume that only evolutionists understand science, well I've found myself having to explain the theory to evolutionists who haven't clue what it says but believe it without question. Here's an example "We used to live in caves but now we live in houses." When I explained that evolution actually was, he became abusive.


I—and for that matter, the rest of us—don’t really care. You’ve already demonstrated a profound (dare I say typical) lack of understanding for the ToE… the very same lack of understanding BVZ is getting at. Whether or not you’ve happened to argue someone less educated, passionate, or mature as yourself doesn’t concern us.

Medicine is not built on evolutionary theory. small pox has been all but wiped out thanks to a vaccine. This was developed because Edward Jenner saw that milk-maids never got small-pox and reasoned that it was because they were exposed to the milder cow-pox which gave them an immunity to small-pox. This happened many years before Darwin was even born and has nothing to do with evolution. Maybe you know some treatments that were based on the theory, if so what are they?


Here’s one for you: Vaccines.

But Collin… an example was just used that proved vaccines to be around before the ToE! How can this be so?!

Well, first of all, Nuno, you have a crummy example. The Smallpox Virus is a DNA virus. It evolves as all organisms—and particularly in the same fashion as other viruses—do, but the Smallpox Virus isn’t nearly as elusive as some well-known bacteria or retro (RNA) viruses. Retro viruses evolve so fast that our vaccines can’t even keep up with them.

Want an example in which knowledge of Evolution will save our lives?

Bird Flu.

Nuno, since you’re clearly lettered on this subject, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about, but for any others, here’s why:

Influenza is an RNA virus. This means that in the shell of protein that surrounds viruses, there is a single strand of unzipped RNA, the stage of DNA replication that allows the molecule to copy itself. Free from the “spell-checking” mechanism that usually removes most free mutations from DNA replication and other DNA viruses, RNA viruses can mutate all the time, remaining out of the grasp of enzymes that fix any problems. Basically, a flu virus can evolve into an entirely different flu virus within weeks. (You think that’s fast, you should see E. Coli bacteria.)

What’s the problem with the flu virus today? Any hands? Nuno, did you ever wonder why they have to make a different flu virus every single winter? I’ll give you a hint. Evolution’s somewhere in the explanation. You see, the flu virus evolves so rapidly that it can become a completely different virus from the kinds used in vaccine injections, which means people who are (or rather, were) immune to the majority of flu viruses from 2004-2005, are not immune to newly-evolved flu viruses that emerged this fall.

And then there’s the Bird Flu. This monster strain has the capacity to kill a good chunk of our population. Recall that in the 1918 Avian Flu epidemic, 4% of the entire world’s population was killed off in months, while some corners of the earth suffered up to 80%. Evolution, thankfully, has taught us that we can’t survive by injecting into ourselves the vaccine from the 1918 epidemic.

Nuno, the reason we make new flu vaccines is because the flu evolves, just like all other bacterial and viral pathogens do.


You already know of an alternative to evolution, you just don't want to accept it.


Among any other problem in our society, Intelligent Design won’t help us against that Bird Flu. Sorry, Nuno.


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


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:19 PM on January 19, 2006 | IP
314

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin, you got there just before me. This post is now a bit redundant, but it's cool that we both used flu vaccines as an example.



Science is defined in dictionaries as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."


I appreciate your attempt to clarify this discussion by offering a concrete definition of science to ensure that we are talking about the same thing. However, I think it's important to note that "science" is just a word -- a useful label created by humans that allows use to more easily communicate. Whether or not evolution is "science" is not necessarily important. The most ardent evolutionist may decide that it is most useful for them to define "science" so that it excludes evolution. A steadfast creationist might include evolution in his or her definition of what is science. I've noticed that many people argue against evolution by declaring that it is not science based on various stringent definitions. My point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not evolution is science. What matters is whether or not evolution is a useful tool (courtesy of BVZ) and whether or not evolution approaches truth. To clarify: from Nuno's apparent perspective, science must be verifiable through physical observation and experiment. Taking this concept in its strictest sense, one could argue that math is not science: There are no physical demonstrations of certain mathematical descriptions and theorems. Does this make abstract math invalid?


What observations and experiments have shown how life started from a handful of chemicals? None.


This is not true. Many observations and experiments have indicated how life could have started from a handful of chemicals. Of course, as with any practical experiment, we cannot know for sure if life really originated in this way, and no single experiment shows the exact historical progression from atoms to amoebas -- such an experiment would take millions of years. But there is lots of observable evidence that simple chemicals can spontaneously form organic compounds, which in turn can spontaneously form amino acids and other complex structures, and so on. The classic study along these lines is the Miller-Urey experiment (Click here for more info). This experiment showed how simple molecules thought to be present in Earth's atmosphere when life originated can and will spontaneously form the building blocks of life when stimulated by electric currents (i.e. lightning). That experiment was conducted in 1953. Since then the theory has been greatly expanded. The theory is far from complete, but it is certainly not unsubstantiated.


You assume that only evolutionists understand science, well I've found myself having to explain the theory to evolutionists who haven't clue what it says but believe it without question


I think this is very true. Both evolutionists and non-evolutionist can be ignorant of science. However, the scientists who study evolution are almost always very knowledgeable about the subject.


Maybe you know some treatments that were based on the theory, if so what are they?


First of all, evolutionary theory has advanced science in so many ways that its indirect effects on medicine are surely widespread. Many scientific fields have subsets based around evolutionary theory. For example, evolutionary computing, evolutionary psychology, paleontology, anthropology, genetics, virology, and just about all other biological and related fields are active areas of study based largely on the theories of biological evolution. More specifically, to answer Nuno's question, evolutionary medicine is an important field of medical research (find more information  here). Much of evolutionary medicine deals with finding ways to combat viruses. Even if you don't think that humans evolved from apes, I hope you will agree that viruses are evolving all the time. That's part of why people often get a new flu shot every year and why viruses thought immunized sometimes become dangerous again. Viruses evolve to evade our immune responses. Evolutionary medicine provides insights into how to fight these viruses -- scientist attempt to predict how viruses will change and where the next outbreaks will occur. You can find examples in the link mentioned above. HIV comes to mind as an especially pressing problem that evolutionary medicine is helping us understand. Another specific example of how evolution helps medicine is the flu vaccine. Each year, the flu vaccine is formulated to include vaccines against known flu strains along with vaccines against predicted strains that will probably evolve. This is part of why one often hears in the news that the current flu vaccine targets the wrong virus strains -- we can't predict exactly how the flu will change from one year to the next. Better understanding of evolutionary forces will help us make better flu vaccines.

(Edited by 314 1/19/2006 at 9:37 PM).
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 9:33 PM on January 19, 2006 | IP
BVZ

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 2:59 PM on January 19, 2006 :
Ok, the usual assumptions and superiority complex on show. You give no scientific data for backing up what you say, which is, again, typical. Science is defined in dictionaries as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." What observations and experiments have shown how life started from a handful of chemicals? None.


You are referring to abiogenesis. Evolution does not rely on abiogenisis. If you throw a paper plane, you can explain how it manages to fly. You can observe it flying, and I see no reason why you cannot measure minute air currents to prove that it was flying a while ago. How this paper plane was launched has no effect on it’s current flying mechanism. Furthermore, saying that there is no known mechanism for launching the paper plane does not change the fact that it is in fact flying.

In the same way, Evolution is currently occurring. Its mechanisms are understood. How did this cascade of life start? Scientists are still trying to figure this out. Saying that there is no known mechanism for life to start does not change evolution taking place at the moment.

You assume that only evolutionists understand science, well I've found myself having to explain the theory to evolutionists who haven't clue what it says but believe it without question. Here's an example "We used to live in caves but now we live in houses." When I explained that evolution actually was, he became abusive.


I agree that it looks that way from my post. My mistake. I apologize. I appreciate the fact that you try to educate people on how evolution works.  Only hope that you understand it correctly in order to do so.

Medicine is not built on evolutionary theory. small pox has been all but wiped out thanks to a vaccine. This was developed because Edward Jenner saw that milk-maids never got small-pox and reasoned that it was because they were exposed to the milder cow-pox which gave them an immunity to small-pox. This happened many years before Darwin was even born and has nothing to do with evolution. Maybe you know some treatments that were based on the theory, if so what are they?


Thank you EntwickelnCollin an 314 for providing examples.

BTW, by point was that evolution was a tool with many uses:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v23/n3/abs/nbt1066.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Your use of architecture is original, I'll give you that. I rang a friend of mine who is an architect and bible believer. He was puzzled as to which bits of the bible are contradicted by scientific theories that are used in skyscraper design.


Building a skyscraper after first assuming that pi equals 3.00 will not work. Does this mean that all engineers are atheist because they use and support Scientific Theories that are against the Bible? No. Because the engineers realize that these theories are only tools to be used and discarded as they become outdated.

Skyscraper design is done by tried and tested theory. Click here for an example of what can happen when architects use the latest theories.


You make a very good point. It is a principle in engineering to use tried and tested Scientific Theories rather than new and untested ones. I made a mistake. However, I did say that the reason you use them are because they give the most accurate predictions, which should at least bring my point across.

To clarify, my point is: We use the Scientific Theories which provide us with the best predictions.

You already know of an alternative to evolution, you just don't want to accept it.


I know that another theory exists that attempts to do what evolution is doing already. (Intelligent Design.) I also know that this theory provides no predictions. This makes it useless as a tool. I don’t see it as an alternative, because an alternative should perform just as well (or comparable) in it’s place. It does not.

Click here for a non-evolutionist site web site that knows about science.


I have read this website, and the author does not understand evolution. The website attempts to disprove evolution.

Which brings me to my point: You cannot defeat evolution without replacing it without something better. You can list weaknesses in the Thoery of Evolution until you are blue in the face. Some of these weaknesses you list might even be valid. This changes nothing. Does listing weaknesses in evolution replace it with something better? No.

Another thing. You may not realize this Nuno, but I am on your side. I am providing you with the only strategy that could possibly destroy evolution.



-------
Evil always contain the seed of its own downfall.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:29 AM on January 20, 2006 | 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.