Evolution vs. Creation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
83

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lothario1132,

If you and all the other atheists think you know so much about how we came to be, why is it that a scientist cannot create one simple cell, just one simple cell?[/quote]

Yeah, and why can’t we just predict tomorrow lotto numbers ONCE, just ONCE!!

Um… small problem here. I don’t know much about you professionally, but I happen to look at human blood cells all night long, every night that I am on duty. I know a fuckload about cells.

One thing I happen to know is that cells aren’t just a few things whipped together in a pot. Especially Eukaryotic ones like the ones that make up you and me.

What is a LOT easier is making a virus:

Two weeks. They should get a ribbon or something. That’s right, buddy, they took non-living building blocks and CREATED a fully-functional lifeform. Two weeks. Back in 2003.

Even more horrifying is earlier than that, some dude took a grant from our government and fully created the polio virus:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/createdeadlypathogens.html

Fun, huh?

84

lothario1132,

I agree to some extent about the government giving money to religious organizations.

You have to ask yourself though:

Why does it say “In God we trust” on all our currency?

Why do we as Americans say “one nation, under God” in our pledge of alligence?

After all, atheists comprise a small 11 percent of the United States population. 80 percent of the population believes in God. Our we supposed to give all the money to a small amount of people that are searching for a conclusion to their hypothesis that they will never find?

85

you make no sense here vroom, as expected

86

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lothario1132,

I agree to some extent about the government giving money to religious organizations.

You have to ask yourself though:

Why does it say “In God we trust” on all our currency?

Why do we as Americans say “one nation, under God” in our pledge of alligence?

After all, atheists comprise a small 11 percent of the United States population. 80 percent of the population believes in God. Our we supposed to give all the money to a small amount of people that are searching for a conclusion to their hypothesis that they will never find?[/quote]

I am not asking for your money. This is different than a religious organization which does. If you want to help the search for truth, I will aid you however I can… because I like the idea of everyone knowing as much as possible. Knowledge tends to make us better people.

Do not make the mistake that just because the word “God” appears in some of our national rituals and on our currency that your belief system somehow has more importance than mine. It doesn’t say “Jesus” on the dollar bill, does it? Why not?

Don’t get me wrong now, I’m not about to complain when I see “under God” somewhere… it’s a tradition, and it’s harmless. Saying “under God” doesn’t bother me one bit. But when you tell me that I have to think a certain way, then we got problems.

Maybe I’m a little touchy on this subject because when religiously consumed folks band together, they burn books and people like me at the stake! :slight_smile:

87

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
You have to ask yourself though:

Why does it say “In God we trust” on all our currency?

Why do we as Americans say “one nation, under God” in our pledge of alligence?
[/quote]

Because during the height of the Cold War fearful Americans needed some way to distinguish themselves from the ‘godless’ communists over thar in the Soviet Union. Both of those were added in an effort to rally the ‘troops’ against the enemy.

Evolution makes no claims about why evolution happens, merely that it does happen. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive unless you’re blinded by dogma. Teaching creationism as part of philosophy class or as part of some other social science is perfectly appropriate, teaching it in a science class is foolishness.

88

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lothario1132,

I agree to some extent about the government giving money to religious organizations.

You have to ask yourself though:

Why does it say “In God we trust” on all our currency?

Why do we as Americans say “one nation, under God” in our pledge of alligence?

After all, atheists comprise a small 11 percent of the United States population. 80 percent of the population believes in God. Our we supposed to give all the money to a small amount of people that are searching for a conclusion to their hypothesis that they will never find?[/quote]

I know you’ve been conveniently avoiding the issue of religious people believing in evolution, but do you think you’d really find that only 11% of people in the US believe in evolution? I think you’d be in for a big surprise.

Also, if we had limited our knowledge to what was officially taught in christian religions, there would be an awful lot of changes around here. The earth would still be the center of the universe, and it would be flat. We wouldn’t understand the nature of gravity, even in the limited sense that we understand it now. The list goes on and on.

With regard to the pledge of allegiance: (from cnn.com)

In 1954

“worried that orations used by “godless communists” sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words “under God” into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’”

The last few years have shown that plenty of people don’t agree with having that “under god” in the pledge and/or forcing children to say the pledge in school because it infringes on the seperation of church and state.

89

[quote]Xvim wrote:
Teaching creationism as part of philosophy class or as part of some other social science is perfectly appropriate, teaching it in a science class is foolishness.
[/quote]

There ya go. Thanks Xvim, that pretty much summed it up nicely.

90

lothario1132,

What is a LOT easier is making a virus?

This is not what I asked. Not to mention that you are implying that a simple cell would be more difficult to create than a virus - a simple cell cannot be created at all by a human being.

They didn’t “create” anything with that virus, they tinkered an manipulated with components that already existed.

I’ll ask again more clearly:

Without using any parts from any pre-existing cell or DNA; why can’t a human being create one simple living cell from scratch? No cheating this time.

91

[quote]Xvim wrote:
Because during the height of the Cold War fearful Americans needed some way to distinguish themselves from the ‘godless’ communists over thar in the Soviet Union. Both of those were added in an effort to rally the ‘troops’ against the enemy.

Evolution makes no claims about why evolution happens, merely that it does happen. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive unless you’re blinded by dogma. Teaching creationism as part of philosophy class or as part of some other social science is perfectly appropriate, teaching it in a science class is foolishness.
[/quote]

So is this or is this not a country where “in God we trust” and a nation “under God”? 80 percent of Americans believe in God. I never said anything about teaching creation in science class. Just don’t teach the hypothesis of evolution in science class. Teach science FACTS in science class.

92

Logical fallacies:

Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.

Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)

Appeal to Ignorance: what is sounds like.

Make a real arguement and I’ll consider giving a real response.

93

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lothario1132,

What is a LOT easier is making a virus?

This is not what I asked. Not to mention that you are implying that a simple cell would be more difficult to create than a virus - a simple cell cannot be created at all by a human being.[/quote]

I will not imply then, I will clearly state: Making a cell is more difficult than making a virus.

Because it’s too hard right now. We can make viruses quite readily, and the bacterium (cell) is the next step. It will happen if there is grant money in it.

A cell is not a simple thing. You might have learned (I don’t know) that cells have organelles which function just like the organs in your body. One of these organelles, the mitochondrion, is like the power plant for the cell, and it has its own DNA. Fabricating a mitochondrion is going to be a pain in the ass.

Mother nature had several billion years to do it… give us a little more time.

94

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
So is this or is this not a country where “in God we trust” and a nation “under God”? 80 percent of Americans believe in God. I never said anything about teaching creation in science class. Just don’t teach the hypothesis of evolution in science class. Teach science FACTS in science class.
[/quote]

Ugh!! Times two!

The theory of evolution is a fact. Just like the theory of gravity. The theory of relativity. Pythagorean’s Theorem (math instead of science there), blah blah blah there are a bunch of theories. I suppose you’d want us to stop teaching the theory of gravitation because it’s not a fact, then?

95

I was goign to post the article but it was too long.

http://www.humanevol.com/doc/doc200303030401.html

96

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Xvim wrote:
Because during the height of the Cold War fearful Americans needed some way to distinguish themselves from the ‘godless’ communists over thar in the Soviet Union. Both of those were added in an effort to rally the ‘troops’ against the enemy.

Evolution makes no claims about why evolution happens, merely that it does happen. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive unless you’re blinded by dogma. Teaching creationism as part of philosophy class or as part of some other social science is perfectly appropriate, teaching it in a science class is foolishness.

So is this or is this not a country where “in God we trust” and a nation “under God”? 80 percent of Americans believe in God. I never said anything about teaching creation in science class. Just don’t teach the hypothesis of evolution in science class. Teach science FACTS in science class.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as irrefutable science. Aristotle was highly regarded in physics for a long time. Newton came along and “proved” him wrong. We still use Newtonian physics, because for many calculations they are “close enough”, however since Newton’s time many have shown that Newton’s physics aren’t completely accurate. One of these people was Einstein. Einstein came up with some great stuff, but there’s still holes in his theories too.

It’s impossible to teach FACTS in science class. We have to resort to teaching science instead. It’s the best we can do - and most scientists believe that evolution is the best explanation for why we are here. At some basic level absolutely NOTHING is fact… but then the discussion becomes philosophy.

Science is coming to conclusion based on reasonably solid principles.

97

Another good article. Teilhard De Chardin was a scientific philosopher and a priest. He believed that science and religion worked hand in hand. Evolution couldn’t exist with out God.

http://www.goethals.org/teilhard.htm

98

[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
It’s impossible to teach FACTS in science class. We have to resort to teaching science instead. It’s the best we can do - and most scientists believe that evolution is the best explanation for why we are here. At some basic level absolutely NOTHING is fact… but then the discussion becomes philosophy.[/quote]

I was avoiding saying this, but you had to go and open a can of worms, dint’ ya?

Of course I have to agree, but let’s dumb it down a little, okay? My German Shepard squats in my asshole neighbor’s yard, a turd hits the ground, gravity is a FACT. :slight_smile:

99

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
It’s impossible to teach FACTS in science class. We have to resort to teaching science instead. It’s the best we can do - and most scientists believe that evolution is the best explanation for why we are here. At some basic level absolutely NOTHING is fact… but then the discussion becomes philosophy.

I was avoiding saying this, but you had to go and open a can of worms, dint’ ya?

Of course I have to agree, but let’s dumb it down a little, okay? My German Shepard squats in my asshole neighbor’s yard, a turd hits the ground, gravity is a FACT. :)[/quote]

Ah, but is there really a turd, and really ground? Sure you can “see” it, but do you really know it’s there? :wink: I call for proof!

100

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
It’s impossible to teach FACTS in science class. We have to resort to teaching science instead. It’s the best we can do - and most scientists believe that evolution is the best explanation for why we are here. At some basic level absolutely NOTHING is fact… but then the discussion becomes philosophy.

I was avoiding saying this, but you had to go and open a can of worms, dint’ ya?

Of course I have to agree, but let’s dumb it down a little, okay? My German Shepard squats in my asshole neighbor’s yard, a turd hits the ground, gravity is a FACT. :)[/quote]

Alright!! You beat me to it! This is the one thing that we have agreed upon. I was going to say the same thing except the dog part.

Seriously graphicsMan, what in the world are you saying? Just because I realize God and the Bible are true, it doesn’t mean that I disregard true science. A turd hits the ground, gravity is a FACT and lothario1132 is correct.

101

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Ugh!! Times two!

The theory of evolution is a fact. Just like the theory of gravity. The theory of relativity. Pythagorean’s Theorem (math instead of science there), blah blah blah there are a bunch of theories. I suppose you’d want us to stop teaching the theory of gravitation because it’s not a fact, then?[/quote]

Now hold on there. You are comparing mathematical equations with the unproven idea of a series of events that are claimed to have happened over “billions” of years. Those are two completely different subjects. I do know that gravity is real. You can’t compare an equation with evolution and tell me that because the mathematical equation is real, then that means evolution is real. Come on!

102

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
It’s impossible to teach FACTS in science class. We have to resort to teaching science instead. It’s the best we can do - and most scientists believe that evolution is the best explanation for why we are here. At some basic level absolutely NOTHING is fact… but then the discussion becomes philosophy.

I was avoiding saying this, but you had to go and open a can of worms, dint’ ya?

Of course I have to agree, but let’s dumb it down a little, okay? My German Shepard squats in my asshole neighbor’s yard, a turd hits the ground, gravity is a FACT. :slight_smile:

Alright!! You beat me to it! This is the one thing that we have agreed upon. I was going to say the same thing except the dog part.

Seriously graphicsMan, what in the world are you saying? Just because I realize God and the Bible are true, it doesn’t mean that I disregard true science. A turd hits the ground, gravity is a FACT and lothario1132 is correct.

[/quote]

It seems that the term “true science” is subjective. What I’m saying is that even things that seem obvious can’t be truly proven without stating the assumptions.

All of the truths that we consider truths in mathematics are also just theories. All of these truths were proven. Pythagorian Theorem can be proven… so why is it a theorem and not a law? Because it’s based on certain principles called axioms. Axioms are the basic assumptions that are literally just statements. They can’t be proven true or false, but mathematicians know that these are the assumptions they’re working with. So you can say that given Peano’s axiom, plus a couple others, all of calculus is provable. This doesn’t mean it’s FACT, because we’re still relying on the axioms (such things as 2 is greater than 1 is greater than 0).

At the end of the day, there are assumptions that we can not prove.

We know gravity is there, but what is the universal “law” of gravitation? Can you prove that it’s followed? In fact, it’s been proven that it doesn’t always hold (in the fashion that Newton envisioned)! When interactions happen on small scale bases, on the order of atoms, for example, the laws are no longer so predictable.

Anyway, I’m rambling here. Long story short. No theory is infallible, but science is doing the best it can with what it’s got.