no one is aruging natural selection is a bad model, some just don’t believe it can viably lead to speciation.
Edit: I should add to this in complex organism, whose primary function is not plastic adaptability.
[quote]toolshed wrote:
If you believe that God in fact created every animal, and that evolution is not happening;
Why the hell does viruses/bacterias like AIDS, the bubonic plague, etc. exist? Why do many forms of parasitic organisms, who only leech of other living creatures and contribute nothing to a ecological system, exist? Why would God create these forms of life with intent?[/quote]
But they do contribute, they can just also cause other organisms illness and death.
Some could argue the same of humans, we are the only mammals that don’t live wihin our environment but destroy for our own purpose. We are no better than a parasite or a virus. and don’t give me the medicine argument that just helps us, similar to bacterial assimilation and recombination of local dead bacteria that may have been killed by some foreign material, now having resistance to that material. Even in death helping the colony survive.
What is the purpose of any organism other than plants, they are all consumers and destroy life.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Ah, well I do not think that a belief in a creator really changes the way he lives his life.
For 99% it is probably completely irrelevant and quite frankly I am a-ok with everybody who does not try to use force to make me live by his beliefs.
That depends on how you define force. When people try and say public schools should teach creationism (and now I’m moving into the general, not targeting him) then I have a problem.[/quote]
I think no school should be funded by tax payers money. I don’t believe you should pay to teach my children, they are my responsibility and my pride. My genetic progeny and I want the best for them not some mediocre gov’t run assimilation program. I want them to be able to learn and think for themselves, find their own way. If they chose some of the things I did good, if they don’t as long as there is good sound reason and judgement I don’t care.
A good point was brought up, I do believe natural selection is dead on and supportable with concrete evidence so teach it as truth or fact. I have a problem with someone teaching speciation through slow evolution as a truth because there isn’t even one specific model that is fully supported. If you can get the research to that point then yes teach it as a truth, but for now teach as model suitable for understanding interspecies phenomena.
And someone that believes in God doesn’t need to learn it in school, they have church their bible and family. school is to learn skills or factual history, family is to learn social and moral issues.
Is this a problem, am I one of the ones that pisses you off.
Are we sure it wasn’t his racial view that got it banned?
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Okay, I’ve been reading a bunch of the posts and I need to speak up. The Theory of Evolution is not about the existence of God. Period. Stop turning it into an arguement that cannot be resolved. Address the question that the Theory addresses. What mechanism causes organisms to change over time? The answer, as far as the brightest minds who study this question are concerned, is Natural Selection.
Is the Theory of Evolution 100% correct? Probably not. Does it make the Theory invalid? No. Unless someone can show that the Theory is invalid through evidence. This is how scientific knowledge progresses.
As much as some of you would like to say that accepting Darwinism = belief, that is about as far from the truth as possible. It’s not belief at all. It’s about accepting that the Theory fits the Observable and Testable Evidence. If you do not believe in the Theory, then you are not alone. I also do not believe in the Theory, but I accept it as THE BEST ANSWER WE HAVE TO DATE! Prove it wrong! We (scientist speaking here) would LOVE you to prove it wrong. If you can’t prove it wrong, and you don’t accept the theory based on your religious/philosophical stance, your arguments don’t count. Only scientific scrutiny can disprove a theory. Not idle speculation.[/quote]
I cannot disprove the theory as there are multiple models at this point, what I say it shouldn’t be taught as though absolute truth yet and in most instances it is.
I think the theory of speciation through slow evolution can be very strongly argued against and supported with evidence, but still the way the statement is phrased purports bad science.
Stealing someone elses’s argument, prove we are not prgeny of some spagetti monster in another constellation, used for entertainment. Go on prove it.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Okay, I’ve been reading a bunch of the posts and I need to speak up. The Theory of Evolution is not about the existence of God. Period. Stop turning it into an arguement that cannot be resolved. Address the question that the Theory addresses. What mechanism causes organisms to change over time? The answer, as far as the brightest minds who study this question are concerned, is Natural Selection.
Is the Theory of Evolution 100% correct? Probably not. Does it make the Theory invalid? No. Unless someone can show that the Theory is invalid through evidence. This is how scientific knowledge progresses.
As much as some of you would like to say that accepting Darwinism = belief, that is about as far from the truth as possible. It’s not belief at all. It’s about accepting that the Theory fits the Observable and Testable Evidence. If you do not believe in the Theory, then you are not alone. I also do not believe in the Theory, but I accept it as THE BEST ANSWER WE HAVE TO DATE! Prove it wrong! We (scientist speaking here) would LOVE you to prove it wrong. If you can’t prove it wrong, and you don’t accept the theory based on your religious/philosophical stance, your arguments don’t count. Only scientific scrutiny can disprove a theory. Not idle speculation.[/quote]
“How do you know that God didn’t speak to Charles Darwin?”
“An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral.”
[quote]toolshed wrote:
If you believe that God in fact created every animal, and that evolution is not happening;
Why the hell does viruses/bacterias like AIDS, the bubonic plague, etc. exist? Why do many forms of parasitic organisms, who only leech of other living creatures and contribute nothing to a ecological system, exist? Why would God create these forms of life with intent?[/quote]
Specifically to piss you off.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
horsepuss wrote:
I beleive in evolution and I beleive there could be life on any planet beyong ours with the right circumstances.But from what ive read on here no one has questioned self awareness.At what point did humans or our great ancestors become self aware and how did that come about.
I think it stands to reason that if you give an automaton that will hopefully extend your existence to the next generation, it makes sense to equip this automaton with a rough idea of its surroundings.
As these maps become more complex they sooner or later must include a rough idea of who or what develops the map.
You could say that a sophisticated enough map must also contain the mapmaker.
Voila, self awareness.
I am pretty sure that most relatively well evolved animals are self aware. You can’t really measure awareness. That is not a uniquely human characteristic. Reason, rationality, postulations, morality, etc. Those are more unique characteristics to humans.
I dont think so.
Morality is most certainly there, though the cooperation inducing aspect is more out in the open-
Plus, animals can learn from each other. That means that they not only have an idea if me and you but also the epistemological premise that when you can do it I might too.
Plus, I would not be too fond of our intelligence.
It might well be that a little bit of intelligence is great but to much of it kills you-
Happened to Sabre tooth tigers and the herbivores they had an arms race with. Several times actually.[/quote]
They never had arms, silly.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I cannot disprove the theory as there are multiple models at this point, what I say it shouldn’t be taught as though absolute truth yet and in most instances it is.[/quote]
If you cannot disprove the Theory than the Theory stands. Nothing in science is taught as absolute truth, just as an explanation for the observable and testable evidence. Until there is valid evidence that disputes the Theory. At this point the Theory must be revised or abandoned. Only religion teaches things as absolute truths.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I think the theory of speciation through slow evolution can be very strongly argued against and supported with evidence, but still the way the statement is phrased purports bad science.
[/quote]
What evidence are you to referring to? The scientific community would like to see this evidence. If it passes scrutiny then it would invariably be used to revise the Theory. What alternative Theory exists to explain the overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution? What you think does not matter. It’s what you can demonstrate with evidence. Bad science, really? Show us, oh wise one.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stealing someone elses’s argument, prove we are not prgeny of some spagetti monster in another constellation, used for entertainment. Go on prove it. [/quote]
Only Math deals in proofs. All other sciences work on determining and accounting for errors in a hypotheses. A Theory that fits the evidence is valid as long as it cannot be disproved or found to be in error. No where has any scientist indicated that the Theory of Evolution is the Truth, just a valid scientific Theory.
I think you’ve learned just enough about science to convince yourself that you’re arguments are valid, but not enough to demonstrate it. Oh, by the way, an valid explanation must not invoke any supernatural elements, for obvious reasons.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I cannot disprove the theory as there are multiple models at this point, what I say it shouldn’t be taught as though absolute truth yet and in most instances it is.
If you cannot disprove the Theory than the Theory stands. Nothing in science is taught as absolute truth, just as an explanation for the observable and testable evidence. Until there is valid evidence that disputes the Theory. At this point the Theory must be revised or abandoned. Only religion teaches things as absolute truths.
[quote]
really then open up a college or even highschool text book.
I see you work in academia I will stop the argument now. There is big difference between what will fly in academia and what will fly in the real world. Academia allows its proponents to lose touch with reality and the other sciences impacting it ideas.
[quote]
apbt55 wrote:
I think the theory of speciation through slow evolution can be very strongly argued against and supported with evidence, but still the way the statement is phrased purports bad science.
What evidence are you to referring to? The scientific community would like to see this evidence. If it passes scrutiny then it would invariably be used to revise the Theory. What alternative Theory exists to explain the overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution? What you think does not matter. It’s what you can demonstrate with evidence. Bad science, really? Show us, oh wise one.
[quote]
well for one complex irreducability. see just because a genotypic change may occur that can produce a phenotypic presentation, doesn’t mean the organisma will be viable or able to reproduce. One of the reasons I specified in the other response with complex organisms.
[quote]
apbt55 wrote:
Stealing someone elses’s argument, prove we are not prgeny of some spagetti monster in another constellation, used for entertainment. Go on prove it.
Only Math deals in proofs. All other sciences work on determining and accounting for errors in a hypotheses. A Theory that fits the evidence is valid as long as it cannot be disproved or found to be in error. No where has any scientist indicated that the Theory of Evolution is the Truth, just a valid scientific Theory.
I think you’ve learned just enough about science to convince yourself that you’re arguments are valid, but not enough to demonstrate it. Oh, by the way, an valid explanation must not invoke any supernatural elements, for obvious reasons.[/quote]
No my problem is I don’t focus on one specific area and forget there are other influences or effects to worry about, the problem in business and science I have found with most who have spent their whole time in academia is they have focused so long on one specific topic or field they forget the common sense along with the complex processes involved from other aspects.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
really then open up a college or even highschool text book.
I see you work in academia I will stop the argument now. There is big difference between what will fly in academia and what will fly in the real world. Academia allows its proponents to lose touch with reality and the other sciences impacting it ideas. [/quote]
I don’t work in academia. Even if I did work in academia that would not matter. The other sciences do not operate in a vacuum as your post would suggest. The theories and learnings from each branch of science contribute to Theories in others. Evidence of evolution are found in Geology, all branches of Biology, Genetics, Archeology, and anthropology, to name a few.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
well for one complex irreducability. see just because a genotypic change may occur that can produce a phenotypic presentation, doesn’t mean the organisma will be viable or able to reproduce. One of the reasons I specified in the other response with complex organisms.[/quote]
Irreducible complexity has yet to be demonstrated as valid argument. Every example of an irreducibly complex organ/feature that the ID proponents have come up with has been refuted by EVIDENCE. Bad science, indeed.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
No my problem is I don’t focus on one specific area and forget there are other influences or effects to worry about, the problem in business and science I have found with most who have spent their whole time in academia is they have focused so long on one specific topic or field they forget the common sense along with the complex processes involved from other aspects.[/quote]
You have yet to disprove the Theory or present a viable alternative using evidence. Your views on academia are irrelevant to the discussion and show that you are biased and your motivations are questionable at best. Do you work for the Discovery Institute by chance?
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Irreducible complexity has yet to be demonstrated as valid argument.[/quote]
Argument from lack of being able to imagine will never be a valid argument.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And someone that believes in God doesn’t need to learn it in school, they have church their bible and family. school is to learn skills or factual history, family is to learn social and moral issues.
Is this a problem, am I one of the ones that pisses you off.[/quote]
No, like I said I moved away from talking about you and went into generalizing.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Okay, I’ve been reading a bunch of the posts and I need to speak up. The Theory of Evolution is not about the existence of God. Period. Stop turning it into an arguement that cannot be resolved. Address the question that the Theory addresses. What mechanism causes organisms to change over time? The answer, as far as the brightest minds who study this question are concerned, is Natural Selection.
Is the Theory of Evolution 100% correct? Probably not. Does it make the Theory invalid? No. Unless someone can show that the Theory is invalid through evidence. This is how scientific knowledge progresses.
As much as some of you would like to say that accepting Darwinism = belief, that is about as far from the truth as possible. It’s not belief at all. It’s about accepting that the Theory fits the Observable and Testable Evidence. If you do not believe in the Theory, then you are not alone. I also do not believe in the Theory, but I accept it as THE BEST ANSWER WE HAVE TO DATE! Prove it wrong! We (scientist speaking here) would LOVE you to prove it wrong. If you can’t prove it wrong, and you don’t accept the theory based on your religious/philosophical stance, your arguments don’t count. Only scientific scrutiny can disprove a theory. Not idle speculation.
I cannot disprove the theory as there are multiple models at this point, what I say it shouldn’t be taught as though absolute truth yet and in most instances it is.
I think the theory of speciation through slow evolution can be very strongly argued against and supported with evidence, but still the way the statement is phrased purports bad science.
Stealing someone elses’s argument, prove we are not prgeny of some spagetti monster in another constellation, used for entertainment. Go on prove it. [/quote]
The reason for this is that a lot of school science teachers actually lack the education to explain it properly.
[quote]anonym wrote:
I’m going to once again suggest those “opposing” evolution watch the series I posted on the first page… it addresses most every argument made here so far extremely convincingly (be sure to open the script in the ‘More Info’ dropdown so you don’t get overwhelmed at times, but be aware there is a lot of supporting information presented visually).
Otherwise, you are just bolstering your argument with information and commentary that is downright incorrect, and cluttering this thread with drivel that really has no place in an honest discussion.[/quote]
Thanks for posting a link to that series. It was very interesting. 
[quote]pw34 wrote:
the real and true answers are in the holy bible. [/quote]
LMAO!!!
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proved on the basis of previously accepted or established statements such as axioms. There isn’t really a word for scientific ideas that covers this similar concept.
Saying evolution is “just a theory” is wildly misleading.
Now to delve wildly off topic, who here is going to see the movie if they can?