Creation vs. Evolution

[ell470]

This thread has evolved into the 'what is required to be called scientific proof' thread.

Better that then people going:

1. God exists
2. No he doesn't
1. Yaha he does
2. Naha
1. You're stupid
2. No, You're stupid

- both cries and runs home to mom

I really find these discussions interesting & entertaining

 

[AndersonG22]

Think about this the human genome is 96% chimp!! I think I need to repeat myself, the human genome is 96% chimp!! In simple terms that means we are only 4% different then CHIMPS!!! - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

PROOF OF EVOLUTION IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS!!!!
OUR GENITIC MAKEUP IS 96% CHIMP!!!




Im sorry we cant find the remains of the in between ancestors. That does not mean evolution didnt happen, we have plenty of EVIDENCE!!! The lack of remains has something to do with decompasition and a little thing called "weathering and erosion". "Plate tectonics" also has something to do with it.

 

[AndersonG22]

All creationists watch this, a video explaining evolutation below.

WARNING, THIS VIDEO CONTAINS FACTUAL EVIDENCE EXPLAINING EVOLUTION.

 

[Encyclopedia]

All creationists watch this, a video explaining evolutation below.

WARNING, THIS VIDEO CONTAINS FACTUAL EVIDENCE EXPLAINING EVOLUTION.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

That video was very good I must say. Very clear and well done.
The problem is it probably won't change anything as some people have already decided what to believe and will never change it regardless of the amount of evidence. It saddens me deeply.

It just feels so stupid, because there is really no conflict in believing in god and evolution at the same time. People are being ignorant for no real reason.

 

[AndersonG22]

The problem is it probably won't change anything as some people have already decided what to believe and will never change it regardless of the amount of evidence. It saddens me deeply.

[/QUOTE ]

Just after I posted the video I read the last few pages and came to the same conclusion, people will cherry pick studies that support their beliefs regardless of the quality of the study. No amount of evidence will change their mind, however Im not suprised. Imagine growing up in a religious family going to sunday school as a child and church every week, having these beliefs drilled into your head growing up. To be told alot of what you learned growing up is a lie must be very difficult to accept or even agknowledge the presence of this new foreign information that contradicts most of what they learned growing up and continue to study. This information we present must seem radical, farfeched, and insane to them, it contradicts everything they know about the world. But people who didnt grow up learning about creationism its alot easier to accept and will make sense to them, we didnt grow up being tough these alternate set of beliefs about where we came from etc. I can understand why its very difficult to accept or even consider after reading a few pages of this thread.

 

[Touring Mars]

Just after I posted the video I read the last few pages and came to the same conclusion, people will cherry pick studies that support their beliefs regardless of the quality of the study. No amount of evidence will change their mind, however Im not suprised. Imagine growing up in a religious family going to sunday school as a child and church every week, having these beliefs drilled into your head growing up. To be told alot of what you learned growing up is a lie must be very difficult to accept or even agknowledge the presence of this new foreign information that contradicts most of what they learned growing up and continue to study. This information we present must seem radical, farfeched, and insane to them, it contradicts everything they know about the world. But people who didnt grow up learning about creationism its alot easier to accept and will make sense to them, we didnt grow up being tough these alternate set of beliefs about where we came from etc. I can understand why its very difficult to accept or even consider after reading a few pages of this thread.

I generally agree with you here, except for this bit:

"To be told alot of what you learned growing up is a lie must be very difficult to accept or even agknowledge"

I would not describe the biblical account of creation as a "lie"... a lie is a purposefully misleading untruth and implies that the person or people saying it know it to be wrong. Now, don't get me wrong, plenty of people who defend creationism and attack evolution theory seem quite happy to ignore the fact that what they are saying is demonstrably false, or has a stack of contradictory evidence facing it, but I also think that most people who accept the biblical account of creation do so in good faith and in the understanding that it is the truth.

My parents are not especially religious, but it would be fair to say that I was brought up in a family, society and even school where the basic tenets of biblical creation were pretty much unchallenged, as was the assumption that God exists, and that Jesus was a real person, and that the bible was generally (if not absolutely) true. We even used to laugh at the kid who's parents excused him from Friday prayers... believe it or not. But, fortunately for me, my parents didn't ram their personal beliefs down my throat, and my school was only moderately Christian... and I never went to Sunday School. So when it came to the point where I was starting to learn about science, I never had to worry about whether or not what I was learning would shatter my world view. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even realise I had a world view until the internet came along

 

[AndersonG22]

I lie may have been to strong, I think false is better.

 

[Denur]

All creationists watch this, a video explaining evolutation below.

WARNING, THIS VIDEO CONTAINS FACTUAL EVIDENCE EXPLAINING EVOLUTION.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Thank you for this video. 👍

I find it very enlightening as it addresses a few things I didn't know about genetics.

I would appreciate it that those who argue against evolution watch this video and comment on it.

 

[AndersonG22]

Thank you for this video. 👍

I find it very enlightening as it addresses a few things I didn't know about genetics.

I would appreciate it that those who argue against evolution watch this video and comment on it.

No problem, hopefully it will enlighten others as well.

 

[livemusic]

All creationists watch this, a video explaining evolutation below.

WARNING, THIS VIDEO CONTAINS FACTUAL EVIDENCE EXPLAINING EVOLUTION.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Great video, thanks for sharing.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No. What constitutes scientific proof is very specific and not subject to individual whim. In fact that's part of the definition of it... That's what's being pointed out to you.

OK, if you insist on this, what constitutes scientific proof.

You never know unless you try. You've made a claim and the claim needs evidence - without evidence anyone could claim anything. Part of the job of science is to evaluate the evidence for claims and if there is appropriate evidence for your claim it would be assessed, not rejected out of hand.

No, I've participated in this thread long enough to know.
However, I don't mean to say thats a legitimate excuse for not providing one.
I have already admitted my shortcoming here, and should have provided a reference.
Upon further review I believe my original claim would have been more accurate, worded as "evidence", not "proof".

 

[AndersonG22]

Great video, thanks for sharing.

No problem, Its important that people see it.






Ooh look, there it is again...

 

[Famine]

OK, if you insist on this, what constitutes scientific proof.

Anything that conforms to the scientific method, right through to peer review and remote reproducibility.

No, I've participated in this thread long enough to know.
However, I don't mean to say thats a legitimate excuse for not providing one.
I have already admitted my shortcoming here, and should have provided a reference.
Upon further review I believe my original claim would have been more accurate, worded as "evidence", not "proof".

If you'd provided evidence or a reference, it would have been judged on its merit. Like the dog torturer, whose results had no merit at all.

 

[AndersonG22]

Yo Famine, what do you think of this video?

 

[Jet Badger]

Oh, there's only 349 pages in this thread. The only thing I know is that science works. Religion doesn't seem to...

One thing that is bothering me - do dogs go to heaven? If yes, then good, but if no, then why? I havent read the bible, but it would be interesting to know.

 

[AndersonG22]

Oh, there's only 349 pages in this thread. The only thing I know is that science works. Religion doesn't seem to...

One thing that is bothering me - do dogs go to heaven? If yes, then good, but if no, then why? I havent read the bible, but it would be interesting to know.

"dogs did not have souls." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)


Sorry dude lassie and cujo went to hell.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yet we were not even given the opportunity to read a source, discuss it and come to our own conclusion.

Do you really think that would change anything?

With a sample size of four, two of which did not show the same loss, nor did it occur at the exact moment of death.

Given that the 21 grams could be accredited to just about anything, including error in the equipment used, in reading it. Simply put the testing process is too limited and on too small a scale to even be certain what if any weight was lost.

See what I mean.

No I pointed out that making a knowingly false statement is an AUP violation and that a claim regarding a subject that could not be considered commonly agreed knowledge would need a source.
This part of the AUP has been used by the staff on a regular basis, in similar circumstances, across the entire board.

Duly noted.

A reminder is not an accusation, all you were asked to do was provide a source for you material. You have still not provided details pf the source, which (as I have repeatedly said) could be considered to be misleading.

Duly noted.

I am just as picky in regard to the AUP, as if I could prove you made deliberately miss-lead members with your post this would not be a discussion in a thread, it would be a formal infraction.

Duly noted.

Parts of evolutionary theory can be tested in real-time and have (flys once again), does it prove the whole of evolutionary theory? No, but then again no one has claimed that.

"Parts of"?
"Which parts"?
Tell me how you can only claim parts of a Theory.

The things is those test have been repeated on a massive scale, and documented to standards that pass peer review and meet the agreed standard of what constitutes a valid test. That information has been linked to in this thread many, many times.

And what do they provide proof of?

Those experiments far exceed the level of 'proof' Dr. Duncan MacDougall provided. Yet it would seem his work is acceptable to you, enough so that you draw the conclusion that a soul weighs 12 grams, which strikes me as quite a big disconnect from the standards you require of tests to any part of evolutionary theory.

There is no test that I'm aware of that contains any proof of the claim Evolutionary Theory.
Quite frankly I don't see how you can believe part and parcel of it.

No it is not, agreed standards exist for what consistories a valid experiment and / or test.

Scaff

Probably so, but once conducted it is open to interpretation, and opinion of what the results mean. This may vary from one Scientist to another..

Anything that conforms to the scientific method, right through to peer review and remote reproducibility.

Can you give me an example of what conforms to the Scientific method.

If you'd provided evidence or a reference, it would have been judged on its merit. Like the dog torturer, whose results had no merit at all.

Yes and now we are back to my original statement of scientific evidence or proof. Whose standard of merit?

 

[Jet Badger]

So, no soul = no heaven? Hm... Plants don't have souls, rocks don't have souls, neither do clothes. Ground doesn't have a soul either - so heaven is an infinite black empty space (walls or light don't have souls) with tens of billions of dead naked people levitating around?

 

[AndersonG22]

Probably so, but once conducted it is open to interpretation, and opinion of what the results mean. This may vary from one Scientist to another..

"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," - http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

Most scientists agree, we evolved based on there interpretation of the evidance they have seen.


EDIT, have you seen this?

 

[ell470]

So, no soul = no heaven? Hm... Plants don't have souls, rocks don't have souls, neither do clothes. Ground doesn't have a soul either - so heaven is an infinite black empty space (walls or light don't have souls) with tens of billions of dead naked people levitating around?

We'll need scientific proof that plants, rocks, clothes & "ground" (I'll take that as dirt or tarmac) don't have a soul. Otherwise your claim is invalid....

(No I'm not serious)

 

[Touring Mars]

Tell me how you can only claim parts of a Theory.

Because evolution theory and evolutionary biology are immensely broad subjects.

Look at this for example:

http://evolution-textbook.org/content/free/contents/contents.html

All of these chapters will have other, more detailed books on these sub-topics, not to mention a vast and ever-expanding body of scientific literature and researchers specialising in these particular areas. Each area is a field of study in its own right, concerning any number of different theories, from atomic theory to the theory of evolution. That means that there are a plethora of sub-topics that are part of evolutionary theory that are being tested as we speak, and may or may not become generally accepted. It is quite possible that certain hypotheses currently being explored will turn out to be incorrect.

--

And AndersonG22, please stop posting that bloody video already, we've seen it. There's absolutely no need to post it three times in the space of 8 posts. Put it in your signature if you like it that much.

 

[AndersonG22]

And AndersonG22, please stop posting that bloody video already, we've seen it. There's absolutely no need to post it three times in the space of 8 posts. Put it in your signature if you like it that much.

Sorry for posting it so much, I think its a great video. If anyone is wondering what video we speak of you can find it in my sig, below the howard stern pranks recommendation.

 

[Jet Badger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

he was in fact poisoning dogs to conduct these experiments

I hope that Macdagagagal died in a very painful way. This is that type of science that I don't approve.

 

[AndersonG22]

Yo Jet Badger, please dont quote my posts out of context. What my post said is in red below, when it was originally posted I forgot to put the quote symbols around it. I took the red sentance from the link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

MacDougall's complaints about not being able to find dogs dying of the natural causes that would have been ideal have led at least one author to conjecture that he was in fact poisoning dogs to conduct these experiments

 

[dylansan]

SuperCobraJet, I suggest you watch this video if you want to understand what Famine is saying:

As it turns out, it's by the same guy that made that other video.

 

[arora]

Better that then people going:

1. God exists
2. No he doesn't
1. Yaha he does
2. Naha
1. You're stupid
2. No, You're stupid

 

[Famine]

Yes and now we are back to my original statement of scientific evidence or proof. Whose standard of merit?

You're going in circles. Scientific proof meets science's standards.

Can you give me an example of what conforms to the Scientific method.

Evolution.

Oh, snap!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Now, don't get me wrong, plenty of people who defend creationism and attack evolution theory seem quite happy to ignore the fact that what they are saying is demonstrably false, or has a stack of contradictory evidence facing it, but I also think that most people who accept the biblical account of creation do so in good faith and in the understanding that it is the truth.

I can't believe you would make such a patently foolish and completely false statement, TM.

By the rules of Scientific evidence, that you and others here insist upon,
Creation and it's, like or same kind reproduction, is comparitively, far and away more Scientifically substantiatable, than Evolution.

My parents are not especially religious, but it would be fair to say that I was brought up in a family, society and even school where the basic tenets of biblical creation were pretty much unchallenged, as was the assumption that God exists, and that Jesus was a real person, and that the bible was generally (if not absolutely) true. We even used to laugh at the kid who's parents excused him from Friday prayers... believe it or not. But, fortunately for me, my parents didn't ram their personal beliefs down my throat, and my school was only moderately Christian... and I never went to Sunday School. So when it came to the point where I was starting to learn about science, I never had to worry about whether or not what I was learning would shatter my world view. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even realise I had a world view until the internet came along

On the other hand your parents, like most people on earth, realized the importance of the spiritual, and your exposure to it.

You're going in circles. Scientific proof meets science's standards.

Yea, right.

Evolution.

Oh, snap!

I think we've been here too.

So much for Scientific method.

 

[DK]

I am yet to see SCJ produce any evidence for creationism. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to prove something, not disprove it. Ever heard of Russell's Teapot?

 

[Famine]

I can't believe you would make such a patently foolish and completely false statement, TM.

By the rules of Scientific evidence, that you and others here insist upon,
Creation and it's, like or same kind reproduction, is comparitively far and away the more Scientifically substantiatable, than Evolution.

The Creation myth has as much scientific validity as an episode of Battlestar Galactica.