Creation vs. Evolution

[wfooshee]

Where did the universe come from?

[BUZZKILL] Not what the thread is about.... (But I know where you're going.)

 

[LeadFootLiam]

Where did the universe come from?

It evolved from monkeys.

 

[dylansan]

It evolved from monkeys.

No no no. Again, the universe and monkeys share a common ancestor.

Wait...

But seriously, we can take the poking fun, but since Famine was nice enough to give an insightful response to your questions, an actual response to the facts could bring your earlier discussion back on track. Your criticisms were refuted so I think that at least deserves some acknowledgement.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

No no no. Again, the universe and monkeys share a common ancestor.

Wait...

But seriously, we can take the poking fun, but since Famine was nice enough to give an insightful response to your questions, an actual response to the facts could bring your earlier discussion back on track. Your criticisms were refuted so I think that at least deserves some acknowledgement.

I did the same with him, THEN he started poking fun, not willing to even understand, so really I could care less.

And I did give insightful responses to his questions, right from our literature, but he seemed to stop giving a crap.

 

[Scaff]

I did the same with him, THEN he started poking fun, not willing to even understand, so really I could care less.

And I did give insightful responses to his questions, right from our literature, but he seemed to stop giving a crap.

You have not given insightful responses at all, you have simply repeated the (false) claim that we all evolved from monkeys.

Repeating something false is certainly not insightful or worth trying to understand.

I do however have a question for you. Who taught you about evolution?

 

[Famine]

not willing to even understand

Funny, that seems to be your approach to anything scientific...

And I did give insightful responses to his questions, right from our literature, but he seemed to stop giving a crap.

Interesting the juxtaposition of those two events.

In a scientific discussion, a scientist stops giving a crap about the opinions of someone who repeatedly rejects all objectively-acquired knowledge with the same banal and incorrect statements despite being corrected and then introduces scripture (more specifically an oligarchy-edited version of an English-language translation of an anthologised version of scripture).

Insightful? Not a bit of it.

For reference, this is my last post in this thread prior to this one. No fun was made, sufficient crap was given to correct you and give you a lengthy response and it has gone unanswered. So even your above claim about the discussion about your false claims about evolution is false. Neat!


Incidentally, is "crap" considered profanity by the Governing Body? Just checking.

 

[Touring Mars]

My sister discovered recently that a couple who live nearby, and whose children attend the same school as my nephew, run a ministry at the local church, and have various 'clubs', meetings and study sessions for kids and adults. They're originally from the USA and the man is a 'pastor'. It turns out, however, that they also arrange certain activities within the local primary school, the exact details of which are not clear, but I'm led to believe that they include assemblies where the whole school attends and are addressed by the pastor. This is not unusual per se - even at my primary school, we had monthly (or was it weekly???) assemblies where a church minister would give a reading from the Bible and everyone would say a prayer or two and sign a few hymns. But that minister (again, the father of a pupil) was a Church of Scotland minister whose views/actions didn't go beyond the basics. The difference here is that this Pastor is from a seemingly private/independent ministry, and a quick look at their website was enough to set alarm bells ringing pretty loud. The first thing I noticed was a page called 'Links', one of which is a link to my favourite website, Answers in Genesis - an unashamedly Young Earth creationist website, and is run/owned by the same people that brought us the absurd and disgraceful Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA (complete with life-size models of dinosaurs with saddles on their backs...). The main pages of the site, however, are disturbing enough, and set out the views of this particularly ministry in no uncertain terms - including stuff that my sister considers well beyond the pale (i.e. that it doesn't matter what you've done, so long as you repent and accept JC, everything's fine!). Needless to say, she is less than impressed at the idea that these people are seemingly being allowed to address children at a state primary school.

Granted, it depends on what they are actually doing and what they are actually saying, but if their website is anything to go by (as it ought to be), then I'm inclined to agree with my sister in being somewhat annoyed at the prospect of having someone like this talk at my nephew's school - not least because my sister doesn't want to have to tell my nephew that some adults cannot be trusted because what they are saying is wrong... given that someone like this is virtually indistinguishable from a teacher in the eyes of a young child, I expect that it may be very difficult to explain to someone like my nephew to obey/trust their teachers, but disregard what the minister/pastor is saying because it is not to be trusted.

Part of me thinks that it is probably best not to single out my nephew by insisting that he is not included in any assemblies where creationist or fundamentalist claptrap is being spouted, as any damage done can be repaired by home education/parenting - but I do think that it wouldn't do any harm to alert some of the other parents about exactly who these people are, and what they think...

 

[DK]

Is it just me, or is this not the first time creationists have infiltrated Scottish schools in recent months?

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, I believe there has been a few incidents recently, including a creationist sect attempting to get creationist textbooks taken up by a school.

While I don't know exactly what these people do at my nephew's school, there is no doubt that they are creationists and, further to having a link to AIG on their website, they also explicitly state on their website that "We do not believe in the theory of evolution, as it is not taught in the scriptures. We do not believe in the theory of evolution, as it cannot be proven by science."

 

[dr_slump]

We're all just bad looking ugly apes, aren't we?

 

[orimarc]

Speak for yourself, I don't consider myself ugly (except when I'm not shaven)

 

[Sick Lenny]

Considering your comprehension of Evolution is completely inaccurate, that's not surprising. It's like saying "I think Quantum Physics is completely false" simply because you think GPS satellites work by using wormholes.



One: We didn't evolve from monkeys.

And Two: We see people evolving all the time. Lactose tolerance, the mutation that allowed some of our adult ancestors to drink milk, was such a huge success that lactose intolerance is now the exception, rather than the norm.

Then there are mutations like red hair, green eyes. Stuff that would otherwise disappear if they didn't have a positive effect on sexual selection.

Evolution is slow. Really slow. Genetic changes that reflect in changes in physical appearance in for human populations takes dozens of generations. Few populations are small enough for accelerated change to take place (note: The "ostrich-footed" tribe), so don't expect anything dramatic within your lifetime.

Add to that there is some debate as to whether humans are still evolving as it would appear the majority of us are no longer subject to the selective pressures that faced our ancestors.

 

[Imari]

Add to that there is some debate as to whether humans are still evolving as it would appear the majority of us are no longer subject to the selective pressures that faced our ancestors.

I came across this concept a while ago and found it interesting. Do civilised species cease evolving because they're no longer under pressures from their environment? Or do the different pressures in a civilised society stimulate evolution in a different direction?

Basically, in a hundred thousand years are humans going to have traits that are specialised for dealing with human society?

I hope so. I like boobies.

 

[homeforsummer]

It depends on how you interpret "evolution".

There have been fairly measurable evolutionary traits in recent human history. Height, for instance - each generation is a little taller than the last, believed to be a result of better diet (and therefore, an genetic reaction to those lower selective pressures we now face). It's not as exciting as opposable thumbs, but it's still a byproduct of our environment.

Genetic immunity from certain diseases is another one - I'm led to believe that many people of European ancestry are immune to the plague, thanks to a rather bad instance of it in the 14th century wiping out everyone who wasn't immune. Those who were left passed on their genes and most are now pretty safe from it. It actually appears now and then but never spreads to pandemic status these days (of course, as bacteria the plague could also evolve and get around our immunity, but whatever...)

The other trouble is that we can't be sure of the route future evolutionary process will take because it takes so long and changes so slowly. Aside from height and disease resistance (through drugs) there's not actually much physically different about humans today than there was a thousand years ago. You need to go back hundreds of thousands of years to see any distinct difference and many millions (to someone like "Lucy") before you get back to the ape-like stage. And even then, the skeleton isn't dissimilar from our own. Complicated individual aspects we take for granted, like eyes and ears, have taken hundreds of millions of years.

There may still be evolution in humankind's future (even given the relative comfort in which we now live), but it's impossible to accurately predict the turn of events that may decide which direction we head.

 

[DQuaN]

Basically, in a hundred thousand years are humans going to have traits that are specialised for dealing with human society?

I hope so. I like boobies.

Sigged.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I came across this concept a while ago and found it interesting. Do civilised species cease evolving because they're no longer under pressures from their environment? Or do the different pressures in a civilised society stimulate evolution in a different direction?

Basically, in a hundred thousand years are humans going to have traits that are specialised for dealing with human society?

I hope so. I like boobies.

That's actually a really good question, almost worthy of it's own thread! Personally I think we'll evolve into a species or warriors.... Keyboard warriors that is

 

[Danoff]

not least because my sister doesn't want to have to tell my nephew that some adults cannot be trusted because what they are saying is wrong... given that someone like this is virtually indistinguishable from a teacher in the eyes of a young child, I expect that it may be very difficult to explain to someone like my nephew to obey/trust their teachers, but disregard what the minister/pastor is saying because it is not to be trusted.

Kids have to learn that some adults can't be trusted at a very early age. Their teachers aren't always right either. It's a fine lesson - I say go for that and make sure other parents are aware of the views of this particular person.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think that my sister has already had a word with the head teacher about these people, and it would appear that the head teacher was not fully aware of what these people stand for, other than they are evangelical Christians. But rather than taking action that would single out my nephew, I think it is a better plan to raise the issue at a parents meeting or with some of her friends who may not be aware that these people are creationists.

The pastor has since paid a visit to the primary school to address the children, and my sister gently quizzed my nephew/her son on what he had learned at school that day, specifically on what the pastor had said, and he told her that he had learned where food comes from.... and when my sister asked him where food does come from, he replied "The Lord". Needless to say, my sister was not impressed. She told my nephew that this was not what we believe, but my nephew reacted defensively and insisted that his teacher was right - precisely what we had predicted might happen, and exactly as one might expect.

Teaching very young children things that they cannot possibly know to treat with skepticism or caution is bad enough, but to do it in a public school without the knowledge/consent of their parents is another thing entirely, hence I reckon it is necessary to raise awareness of what these people are doing.

 

[Danoff]

Teaching very young children things that they cannot possibly know to treat with skepticism or caution is bad enough, but to do it in a public school without the knowledge/consent of their parents is another thing entirely, hence I reckon it is necessary to raise awareness of what these people are doing.

Yes, I agree.

She told my nephew that this was not what we believe, but my nephew reacted defensively and insisted that his teacher was right - precisely what we had predicted might happen, and exactly as one might expect.

Sounds like the right time to learn this lesson.

 

[Kent]

While I don't like the idea of cramming skepticism down a child's throat preventing any chance of ever believing in a higher power, I am far more opposed to teaching children food comes from the lord and that a pastor is an authority to be recognized when addressing questions about real world issues.

I'm not a crazy christian or an atheist but when I look at how some people approach the education of children other than their own I am often offended and feel like children are being exploited for political reasons.

 

[Villain]

It evolved from monkeys.

Then how come we're not bananas?

 

[PeterJB]

It depends on how you interpret "evolution".

There have been fairly measurable evolutionary traits in recent human history. Height, for instance - each generation is a little taller than the last, believed to be a result of better diet (and therefore, an genetic reaction to those lower selective pressures we now face). It's not as exciting as opposable thumbs, but it's still a byproduct of our environment.

Genetic immunity from certain diseases is another one - I'm led to believe that many people of European ancestry are immune to the plague, thanks to a rather bad instance of it in the 14th century wiping out everyone who wasn't immune. Those who were left passed on their genes and most are now pretty safe from it. It actually appears now and then but never spreads to pandemic status these days (of course, as bacteria the plague could also evolve and get around our immunity, but whatever...)

The other trouble is that we can't be sure of the route future evolutionary process will take because it takes so long and changes so slowly. Aside from height and disease resistance (through drugs) there's not actually much physically different about humans today than there was a thousand years ago. You need to go back hundreds of thousands of years to see any distinct difference and many millions (to someone like "Lucy") before you get back to the ape-like stage. And even then, the skeleton isn't dissimilar from our own. Complicated individual aspects we take for granted, like eyes and ears, have taken hundreds of millions of years.

There may still be evolution in humankind's future (even given the relative comfort in which we now live), but it's impossible to accurately predict the turn of events that may decide which direction we head.

This is how I would see evolution. The rate of evolutionary development comes and goes depending on how one's environment changes. This would explain why animals such as most Sharks and Horseshoe Crabs have barely changed at all in the 200 million years, since their environment, i.e. the Ocean, remains basically the same. Whereas hominids have evolved much faster because our environment has changed rapidly, which is largely due to our own influence. On that point, I found this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24564375 interesting as there is evidence which suggests that all hominid fossils are actually from the same species.

Natural selection is something I find very interesting as it makes me wonder what it is inside that "tells us" as such that we need to adapt to our environment. Why is it that we don't just remain unchanged and consequently die out? It's a shame I won't be able the form that humans have taken in say 100,000 years, or what new species have appeared.

 

[homeforsummer]

Natural selection is something I find very interesting as it makes me wonder what it is inside that "tells us" as such that we need to adapt to our environment.

Nothing. Random mutations just happen to be more effective than others at allowing a species to survive the threats it faces.

A white spot on the wings of a butterfly might look like an eye of a bigger creature to a potential predator, so that predator will eat the one without the genetic mutation which caused the spot. But over time, the ones with the spot are the ones that survive, so eventually all of that species of butterfly will have the spot. The ones with random markings that look even more like an eye are even more likely to survive, so the process continues.

Nothing inherent in the butterfly's environment caused that spot to develop, but the development of the spot certainly helped it survive its environment.

And as ever, if it all sounds too far-fetched it's worth remembering that such developments took millions of years to come about. A butterfly didn't just emerge from its cocoon one day with a bit eye-shaped spot on its wing.

 

[Touring Mars]

what... is inside that "tells us" as such that we need to adapt to our environment.

Nothing.

Why is it that we don't just remain unchanged and consequently die out?

Many species do die out, but it is possible to survive by adapting to changing environments because genetic change is not only possible, but is an inevitable consequence of the way genetic information manifests itself and passes from one generation to the next. Survival is the only game in town, but evolution makes it possible for life to remain far beyond what would otherwise be possible if species were unchanging and unchangable.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It depends on how you interpret "evolution".

There have been fairly measurable evolutionary traits in recent human history. Height, for instance - each generation is a little taller than the last, believed to be a result of better diet (and therefore, an genetic reaction to those lower selective pressures we now face). It's not as exciting as opposable thumbs, but it's still a byproduct of our environment.

Genetic immunity from certain diseases is another one - I'm led to believe that many people of European ancestry are immune to the plague, thanks to a rather bad instance of it in the 14th century wiping out everyone who wasn't immune. Those who were left passed on their genes and most are now pretty safe from it. It actually appears now and then but never spreads to pandemic status these days (of course, as bacteria the plague could also evolve and get around our immunity, but whatever...)

The other trouble is that we can't be sure of the route future evolutionary process will take because it takes so long and changes so slowly. Aside from height and disease resistance (through drugs) there's not actually much physically different about humans today than there was a thousand years ago. You need to go back hundreds of thousands of years to see any distinct difference and many millions (to someone like "Lucy") before you get back to the ape-like stage. And even then, the skeleton isn't dissimilar from our own. Complicated individual aspects we take for granted, like eyes and ears, have taken hundreds of millions of years.

There may still be evolution in humankind's future (even given the relative comfort in which we now live), but it's impossible to accurately predict the turn of events that may decide which direction we head.

Not to be weird, but what about body hair? Planet is warming up, we would obviously have less use for it. Hell I'm almost 30 and don't even have chest hair and I can shave my face every few days without looking bad.

 

[Danoff]

While I don't like the idea of cramming skepticism down a child's throat preventing any chance of ever believing in a higher power, I am far more opposed to teaching children food comes from the lord and that a pastor is an authority to be recognized when addressing questions about real world issues.

All kids need to learn to be skeptical and develop their own critical thinking skills. Skepticism won't prevent a child from ever believing in a higher power - but teachers, religious figures, and many other adults can take advantage of children who have been taught to trust them.

My favorite grade school teacher left our school in shame after divorcing her husband (also a teacher at that school) after he was discovered in a car in the woods with another student (who I was friends with). Not only is what he did awful, I hate what it did to his wife - she was an important teacher to me.

 

[Kent]

All kids need to learn to be skeptical and develop their own critical thinking skills. Skepticism won't prevent a child from ever believing in a higher power - but teachers, religious figures, and many other adults can take advantage of children who have been taught to trust them.

My favorite grade school teacher left our school in shame after divorcing her husband (also a teacher at that school) after he was discovered in a car in the woods with another student (who I was friends with). Not only is what he did awful, I hate what it did to his wife - she was an important teacher to me.

I didn't say kids shouldn't be raised to be skeptics, I said both sides of the politically motivated groups addressing this issue often exploit kids.

Moreover, I don't think it's quite appropriate to act like I don't understand child exploitation by citing such a personal and somewhat unrelated experience when my original post clearly stated that I was disgusted with religious people exploiting children while teaching them false information.
No offense, you have my sympathies regarding the experience but equating misinformation to sexual abuse of a minor is taking quite a jump.

 

[Villain]

I didn't say kids shouldn't be raised to be skeptics, I said both sides of the politically motivated groups addressing this issue often exploit kids.

Well, the Creationism "museum" and Creationist speakers are pretty horrifying examples in favor of your point. However, I haven't seen where the "pro-evolution" group has exploited kids. Will you share a few examples?

 

[Kent]

Well, the Creationism "museum" and Creationist speakers are pretty horrifying examples in favor of your point. However, I haven't seen where the "pro-evolution" group has exploited kids. Will you share a few examples?

Before I take the bait and start searching for atheist examples of adults force-feeding children opinions they are too young to understand I need to get one thing clear...

Am I to take it you genuinely will not believe that sort of behavior occurs unless I can provide an example?

 

[Touring Mars]

I didn't say kids shouldn't be raised to be skeptics, I said both sides of the politically motivated groups addressing this issue often exploit kids.

Politically motivated? Maybe I'm getting the wrong vibe here, but since when did sticking to the facts when teaching children become a political stance?

There's no two ways about it - that it is correct to teach evolution as a legitimate scientific theory is not an opinion, nor is it a political point of view - it's a fact. Teaching children otherwise is wrong. Period. The fact that opposition to teaching evolution is almost always motivated by religious bias is almost beside the point, but it is true to say that the only people that I know of who object to teaching evolution are religious fundamentalists.