Creation vs. Evolution

[Exorcet]

Of course, and a theory can be overturned(not the right word but close enough) by a substantial degree of peer reviewed evidence. My point does not change however, some will hold on to things proven wrong, or actually in the face of something proven more correct, or whatever twist you like.

Alright, but so what? Then they're just wrong. You can have faith in God or science, it's equally bad.

Also, religion encourages faith. At least science does not.

Now who is using semantics?

There is no faith "in mankind in general" or at least there should not be from any of its members. You've been interacting with people for your entire life, learning from them, noticing patterns, setting expectations, etc. You trust people because, through observation, you've found them to be trustworthy. This is how it goes from most people.

If you say you have no faith in anything I am not one to argue, as I said, I think you are being silly.

Having faith in nothing should be quite common, unless you're using the word faith in a way very different than most religions do.

 

[niky]

The stubborn-ness of the few doesn't change the validity of the practice. If you follow correct practice without preconceptions, you arrive at a consensus answer. If you have more people applying science to the question, the consensus becomes stronger.

-

That's far different from any religion, in which consensus gets more difficult the more people approach it. Subjectivity versus objectivity.

 

[Scaff]

Of course, and a theory can be overturned(not the right word but close enough) by a substantial degree of peer reviewed evidence. My point does not change however, some will hold on to things proven wrong, or actually in the face of something proven more correct, or whatever twist you like.

And what evidence has been provided of a peer review nature to contradict the theory of evolution?

Provide it and I (and the vast, vast majority of the scientific community) will be more than happy to re-evaluate it.

As such I don't put 'faith' in a scientific theory.

Nope, I wrote what I meant, and thanks for the high school science lesson but I do know the meaning of the words.

The tone and nature of your post suggested otherwise from my point of view.

Now who is using semantics?

No-one. I'm simply clarify a my view on the use of the word to avoid potential confusion.

Who said anything about religion?

I did, you know in my post, the one you quoted. You may be happy to not differentiate the use of the word 'faith' in terms of religious use and as an abstract term related to 'trust', I however prefer to keep the two separate.

If you say you have no faith in anything I am not one to argue, as I said, I think you are being silly.

In a religious sense I have no faith and don't see that as 'silly at all.

In an abstract use of the word in regard to 'trusting' something then feel free to use it (I prefer not to and find it odd that you seem to want to insist I should to the degree that you are attempting to provoke a response). However even in the case of trust, I'm not going to do it blindly.

 

[arora]

I think you guys are missing my point, not surprising as it could be my communication skills aren't so great. More likely it's the idea that sounding smart on the internet gets you somewhere it doesn't but whatever. I'll try another example for you to get angry at and shoot down. This is not deflection or throwing of crap on the wall to see what sticks either, this is explaining another one of many ways someone might have faith. Not trust, not religion.

I may have faith that my kid's cat will come home tonight after a day of warrior roaming the neighborhood. It has nothing to do with trust, she knows that I feed and shelter her, she knows the kid gives her all sorts of pets and hugs. Logic would dictate she comes home tonight. I guess she might trust me but I don't trust her, I've heard that cats will eat their owners and such lol. It has zero to do with religion of any sort, god or otherwise.

The faith has to do with the prospect of many unforeseen variables. I have faith that she will be crying on my doorstep in a few hours. I suppose I could crunch a bunch of statistics from the web and determine the probability of her return, but in the end I would still have faith that she will be here again.

Faith is a good thing imo, it can be a positive driving force that moves us forward. The human condition is not one of robotic nature.

ready, set, flame 👍

PRE POST NINJA EDIT: If there is some point you made or a question you demand I respond to Scaff, I'm sorry I didn't see it, let me know and I'll try to oblige.

 

[Exorcet]

I suppose I could crunch a bunch of statistics from the web and determine the probability of her return, but in the end I would still have faith that she will be here again.

Well, I'd go with the statistics. This is what I was saying before, you may have faith but it won't really bring you closer to an answer. Someone may have faith in God, it doesn't make God real. Someone may have faith in science, they don't understand science.

Of course there is the question of why you have faith. If there is actually a reason, it's not really faith. You said that logic would dictate that your cat will return. If so, you're not using faith. If you simply for no reason at all accept that your car is home, that is faith.

Faith is a good thing imo, it can be a positive driving force that moves us forward. The human condition is not one of robotic nature.

I think it's a waste of time. Why do we need something misleading to be driving us? It would be better to just use reasoning.

 

[Scaff]

I think you guys are missing my point, not surprising as it could be my communication skills aren't so great. More likely it's the idea that sounding smart on the internet gets you somewhere it doesn't but whatever. I'll try another example for you to get angry at and shoot down. This is not deflection or throwing of crap on the wall to see what sticks either, this is explaining another one of many ways someone might have faith. Not trust, not religion.

I may have faith that my kid's cat will come home tonight after a day of warrior roaming the neighborhood. It has nothing to do with trust, she knows that I feed and shelter her, she knows the kid gives her all sorts of pets and hugs. Logic would dictate she comes home tonight. I guess she might trust me but I don't trust her, I've heard that cats will eat their owners and such lol. It has zero to do with religion of any sort, god or otherwise.

The faith has to do with the prospect of many unforeseen variables. I have faith that she will be crying on my doorstep in a few hours. I suppose I could crunch a bunch of statistics from the web and determine the probability of her return, but in the end I would still have faith that she will be here again.


PRE POST NINJA EDIT: If there is some point you made or a question you demand I respond to Scaff, I'm sorry I didn't see it, let me know and I'll try to oblige.

I don't see that as being an example of faith at all.

Cat's are territorial animals, she knows the location of food, comfort and shelter and as such her return is highly probable and only should those circumstances change or misfortune befall her is she unlikely to return.

Faith has nothing at all to do with it outside of your use of it as an abstract concept. I do however have to ask what you think your 'faith' in her return actually does in this situation.

Faith is a good thing imo, it can be a positive driving force that moves us forward. The human condition is not one of robotic nature.

Given that faith is accepting that something has/will happen without any form of questioning involved I don't see how its a positive driving force at all.

Faith has done far more to hold mankind back than move it forward.

PRE POST NINJA EDIT: If there is some point you made or a question you demand I respond to Scaff, I'm sorry I didn't see it, let me know and I'll try to oblige.

Nothing in particular.

 

[arora]

Faith has nothing at all to do with it outside of your use of it as an abstract concept. I do however have to ask what you think your 'faith' in her return actually does in this situation.

My faith does not influence her return at all.

It's not abstract and you know I'm not trying to make it grey. It could be associated with success maybe(not voodoo), or considered undesirable, here is something I wrote and deleted out of a previous post.

I guess it's hard to say where it comes from, and I don't say everyone needs it. It seems to me you guys with the evolution and such would at least consider it as an irrational form of self preservation.

I'll always be down with faith, irrational or not. I'll also always respect those who claim to have none.

 

[Flaco13]

So I went and bought this magazine the other day

containing the "first 4 billion years: From the ???cell to the mammals"

First page I got to read this (sorry for bad translation by me)

it says: "Many of the things you will read on the next 150 pages, is based on speculations (see german "Spekulationen", you won't need another website-translator for that word I guess )
even though they (speculations) are highly reasonable..." Yeah highly reasonable... right... so is God's word to christians/creationists. That doesn't make either a fact.

And yes, I can confirm a great amount of could have's; should have's; would have's; if's and maybe's in these 150 pages.

And to tell you the truth, I doubt most "facts" as they been brought there aswell, as long as these coulda shoulda woulda's have turned into actual scientific proof... I'm patient But I doubt I will get them before I die!

I would like to ask you this:
The Tiktaalik

why is there only drawings of it? Where are the fossil's of that creature?

Acanthostega

Where are the fossil's, where is the proof?
Ichthyostega

It 'probably lived 365 million years ago' and 'it spent time on the ground, but most of the time in the water'... this magazine claims that because of found fossils they could tell the age...ok! Where are the fossils, and if you find it how do know where its favourite places were? And can you repeat this 'objective' observation?

I'm sorry, to me most of it is speculations and imaginations combined with a little lie here and there to fill the gap. And you need 'faith' to 'belive' in this farytale.

And I don't want the indoctrination of this to my children or any children. I agree with Mr. Hovind, keep these textbooks up to date, leave out any unproofed passages (or at least label them as not proofed) but don't lie to them, and teach creationism based on the bible aswell, so when those kids grow older they can decide for themselves.

@Scaff: About Darwins eyes. You say: "Darwin had no concerns regarding the eye at all."
But first he clearly mentioned them, and the he went on with what you quoted: "Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

That tells me he obsorved and concluted it should not be subversive of the theory, that's all.
If I have to drive a certain route I also say to myself, I should not go any other directions, as I might fail to reach the actual destination.

Abou Mr. Hovinds freetime, I don't care about his financial or physical situation, I care about the message. And don't make me talk about criminals on the other side in counter, a few bucks of unpaid taxes is a joke in comparision.

 

[niky]

So a textbook using artist's conceptions and a disclaimer noting that these are speculative means the organisms don't exist?

Come on. Just one minute on google:

Speculation or not, the easiest way to make it seem like someone's been sleeping in a bed is to actually... well... sleep in it. And the fossil bed is rich with rumpled sheets.

 

[Flaco13]

So a textbook using artist's conceptions and a disclaimer noting that these are speculative means the organisms don't exist?

Come on. Just one minute on google:

Speculation or not, the easiest way to make it seem like someone's been sleeping in a bed is to actually... well... sleep in it. And the fossil bed is rich with rumpled sheets.

Might aswell be a crocodile.

I didn't say I doubt it existed, I say I doubt the theory/fairytale that I evolved from it.

 

[Tesla]

What's your thought process exactly? How is something that is peer reviewed and backed with mountains of evidence... doubtable?

 

[Flaco13]

What's your thought process exactly? How is something that is peer reviewed and backed with mountains of evidence... doubtable?

What's so hard to understand if someone tells me: "It MIGHT have lived then, or it COULD have done this" that I doubt it is a fact?

 

[Tesla]

If someone told you that, they are misled. Science makes the best or most likely conclusion with the current evidence, and changes it according to any new evidence that comes to light. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such, it doesn't just come up with things that have no evidence behind them or can't be proven.

 

[niky]

And this might as well be a monkey:

Okay, so it's hardly close:

(Then, neither was the croc skeleton... which looks as much like a tiktaalik as a Neanderthal looks like a monkey...)

When they say possibly, it's because you can't be 100% sure unless you've been there, but you can make a very good guess based on physical evidence.

Like so.

Paleontology goes hand-in-hand with forensics and biology. The same techniques shown in exaggerated detail on CSI and "Bones" every week are used to gather information about fossil specimens.

 

[Flaco13]

If someone told you that, they are misled. Science makes the best or most likely conclusion with the current evidence, and changes it according to any new evidence that comes to light. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such, it doesn't just come up with things that have no evidence behind them or can't be proven.

Or in other words "Believe what we tell you for we are scientists."

Look I don't want to debunk any of those theories ok, I know you take it as real and thats ok if you do. You have the right to believe this and I have the right to believe that. My message was regarding the indoctrination of these theories in schools and it is not true that they teach speculation as speculation and fact as fact, they teach speculation as fact and therefore lied.

 

[Tesla]

You don't want to debunk them because you can't.

If you're saying evolution is just speculation then by the same standard the water cycle is speculation. There is enough evidence behind it to support it in any debate.

 

[Flaco13]

And this might as well be a monkey:

Okay, so it's hardly close:

(Then, neither was the croc skeleton... which looks as much like a tiktaalik as a Neanderthal looks like a monkey...)

When they say possibly, it's because you can't be 100% sure unless you've been there, but you can make a very good guess based on physical evidence.

Like so.

Paleontology goes hand-in-hand with forensics and biology. The same techniques shown in exaggerated detail on CSI and "Bones" every week are used to gather information about fossil specimens.

I feel sorry for you if you watch a TV series like that.

Then what's 'possibly'? Is it 85% is it 30% or 0.5%? What is it? And that is my concern thats all. You can't just believe everything they say, don't they teach to think critical? Do you take CSI as real? Or is it just a fairytale?

You don't want to debunk them because you can't.

If you're saying evolution is just speculation then by the same standard the water cycle is speculation. There is enough evidence behind it to support it in any debate.

You are putting words in my mouth, I didn't even say that it was ALL speculation

 

[Flaco13]

sorry doublepost

 

[CodeRedR51]

Okay, so it's hardly close:

Looks damn near the same to me. Except for the teeth & the overall size.

 

[Tesla]

You are putting words in my mouth, I didn't even say that it was ALL speculation

My apologies then. Care to elaborate on what part of the curriculum you think is speculation that is being taught as fact?

 

[wfooshee]

Someone whose entire "belief system" is based on conjectural stories passed down from generation to generation over thousands of years with no factual backing whatsoever is talking to us about "indoctrination."

It is to laugh.

Or it would be, if it weren't so sad that he doesn't see the "he said, she said" in the reasoning there.

 

[niky]

I feel sorry for you if you watch a TV series like that.

CSI plays around loosely with the truth, just as much as reality TV does, but forensics is real, and much of the work done in real-world forensics is applied to paleontology.

Then what's 'possibly'? Is it 85% is it 30% or 0.5%? What is it? And that is my concern thats all. You can't just believe everything they say, don't they teach to think critical? Do you take CSI as real? Or is it just a fairytale?

There's a difference between critical thinking and uninformed nitpicking.

I don't actively study paleontology, though I've read a lot of textbooks on the subject. The accepted reconstructions of various extinct organisms changes a lot over time, thanks to new evidence and new techniques. Much like Cosmology and Astrophysics. But I know enough of biology and anatomy (spent a year and a half cutting up cadavers in College) to be familiar with how the science behind the reconstructions work.

Also have enough units in Physiology to know most of the ins and outs of the human musculoskeletal system, muscle groups and attachment, vestigial structures such as the coccyx, reflexes... many of which are also vestigial, like the palmar and plantar (foot) grasp, which allow babies to cling to their mommies' non-existent fur with toes that are no longer suited to the task.

Evidence for evolution is everywhere if you know how to make the connections. Which is why the "Intelligent Design" crowd, laughingly, acknowledges "micro-evolution" but denies the possibility of "macro-evolution", despite both being the exact same thing.

Looks damn near the same to me. Except for the teeth & the overall size.

Superficially similar, except for the brow ridges, the shape of the nostrils, the shape of the brain case, the prominent canines on the monkey. If you were familiar with human skulls, you would never mistake the monkey skull for a human baby.

 

[Flaco13]

My apologies then. Care to elaborate on what part of the curriculum you think is speculation that is being taught as fact?

This would be the most significant one
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/stuck_firmly_back_in_the_19th026411.html
note they say 'most textbooks have torn it out a couple of years ago' yet by far not all.

Others would be the textbooks that simply fail to mention what is based on speculation, now I don't know about your area, but where I live those do not mention it. Unlike the magazine I posted of.

Now if it was clearly teached that 'many things in this book is based on speculation' and possibly even more specific parts bolded, I wouldn't be too concerned.

 

[Barra333]

I feel sorry for you if you watch a TV series like that.

...

Do you take CSI as real? Or is it just a fairytale?

I cant speak for Bones, but the makers of CSI have openly said that they try to stay as close to reality as possible with what they can do, but take liberties with how long it takes to get stuff done, which is more or less what I had figured out on my own.
[/microbiologist]

EDIT - Flaco, that link just goes to the home page of the website, and no amount of searching can find me the article you tried to link, but the 2nd article on the page at the moment - replicating DNA with extraordinary fidelity - seems on the surface to be a well researched article into how DNA replicates, then comes to the conclusion that the system is too good for evolution to have come up with. If that is the sort of argument we can expect, then

 

[Flaco13]

There's a difference between critical thinking and uninformed nitpicking.

I don't actively study paleontology, though I've read a lot of textbooks on the subject. The accepted reconstructions of various extinct organisms changes a lot over time, thanks to new evidence and new techniques. Much like Cosmology and Astrophysics. But I know enough of biology and anatomy (spent a year and a half cutting up cadavers in College) to be familiar with how the science behind the reconstructions work.

Also have enough units in Physiology to know most of the ins and outs of the human musculoskeletal system, muscle groups and attachment, vestigial structures such as the coccyx, reflexes... many of which are also vestigial, like the palmar and plantar (foot) grasp, which allow babies to cling to their mommies' non-existent fur with toes that are no longer suited to the task.

Evidence for evolution is everywhere if you know how to make the connections. Which is why the "Intelligent Design" crowd, laughingly, acknowledges "micro-evolution" but denies the possibility of "macro-evolution", despite both being the exact same thing.

Why is it laughable if macro-evolution is only a possibility? Shouldn't there be real proof like 2 different species evolve to or banaly said create a new species? And on top it would have to be a species that is fit enough to further evolve, right? Has that ever even closely happened in a laboratory I mean?

@barra I think the link works now

 

[niky]

It's laughable because there is no difference between macro- and micro-evolution.

If you would like to see proof of speciation in action, you only have to look as far as the equine family, which is only incompletely speciated, which is why we have various types of mules.

This isn't the only case of recent speciation available to us, though. There's also, most famously, the London Underground Mosquito, which managed to speciate completely within the past century thanks to quick turnover of generations.

 

[Flaco13]

It's laughable because there is no difference between macro- and micro-evolution.

If you would like to see proof of speciation in action, you only have to look as far as the equine family, which is only incompletely speciated, which is why we have various types of mules.

This isn't the only case of recent speciation available to us, though. There's also, most famously, the London Underground Mosquito, which managed to speciate completely within the past century thanks to quick turnover of generations.

niky, dude I'm just a 'dumb creationist' I don't know what you are getting at. To me a horse is a horse and if you tell me a mule turns into another mule then that is micro-evolution same with a mosquito turning into a mosquito. They are the same species to me so... care to elaborate?

What I was getting at was give me one species that evolves into something totally different. So you can clearly see it has become a new species

 

[niky]

A species is a distinct organism that produces more of itself.

Of course, us big, multicellular creatures can't do it solo. We need to use a messy little thing called "sex".

There's a catch. You can't conceive offspring with just anyone. You can only reproduce by mating successfully with other members of your own species.

Saying a "mosquito is just a mosquito" or a "horse is just a horse" is oversimplification. Going by this, we can say that a "primate is just a primate", but men can't mate with gorillas.

The London Underground Mosquito is a distinct species because it can no longer mate with the parent species. Horses can mate with other equines, like Zebras and donkeys, but only incompletely, and the offspring, called a "mule" is usually sterile (ergo: it can't reproduce, ergo: it's not a species).

Totally different? Species are classified according to their genes, not appearances. That's why a goldfish can mate with a carp, but two otherwise identical London mosquitoes cannot.

 

[Flaco13]

A species is a distinct organism that produces more of itself.

And who set this rule?

Of course, us big, multicellular creatures can't do it solo. We need to use a messy little thing called "sex".

There's a catch. You can't conceive offspring with just anyone. You can only reproduce by mating successfully with other members of your own species.

Uhhh I thought your an evolutionist, how did we get here then? According to this we shouldn't...?

Saying a "mosquito is just a mosquito" or a "horse is just a horse" is oversimplification. Going by this, we can say that a "primate is just a primate", but men can't mate with gorillas.

I thought us and gorillas were the same species, how come we suddently aren't?

The London Underground Mosquito is a distinct species because it can no longer mate with the parent species. Horses can mate with other equines, like Zebras and donkeys, but only incompletely, and the offspring, called a "mule" is usually sterile (ergo: it can't reproduce, ergo: it's not a species).

Totally different? Species are classified according to their genes, not appearances. That's why a goldfish can mate with a carp, but two otherwise identical London mosquitoes cannot.

Why can we not mate with a great ape? Do we not share 99% genes with them?
And why are there no other species that have a different appearence from us but managed to evolve to an intelligence and capabilities likely of ours?

 

[PzR Slim]

And who set this rule?

Uhhh I thought your an evolutionist, how did we get here then? According to this we shouldn't...?

I thought us and gorillas were the same species, how come we suddently aren't?

Why can we not mate with a great ape? Do we not share 99% genes with them?
And why are there no other species that have a different appearence from us but managed to evolve to an intelligence and capabilities likely of ours?

Seriously, educate yourself.