80 replies to this topic

[CommunitarianKevin]

Myles, on 01 October 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

You guys let Hutton hi-jack another thread.  Shame on you.

I agree that the title should be "western" not "American". However if it is true as it reads, this is a good thing.

I think the evolution-creationism controversy supports my statement that America is the most ignorant. You guys could have left it at that...and the last time I posted in this thread was the 29th...Don't blame me for keeping it going...

[Myles]

HuttonEtAl, on 02 October 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

I think the evolution-creationism controversy supports my statement that America is the most ignorant. You guys could have left it at that...and the last time I posted in this thread was the 29th...Don't blame me for keeping it going...

Nice try.   You made a post that you used as bait.   You then responded 7 times in one day to keep an off topic subject going.

[Bama13]

HuttonEtAl, on 02 October 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

I think the evolution-creationism controversy supports my statement that America is the most ignorant. You guys could have left it at that...and the last time I posted in this thread was the 29th...Don't blame me for keeping it going...

So because some people belive one theory (evolution) while others believe a different theory (creationism) America is the most ignorant? Since neither are proven, hence the word "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Creationism", how do you know who is right. Only by the Theory you choose to believe.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant. Your hubris knows no bounds.

[Neognosis]

Quote

There are people whos inteligence far out weighs anyone on this MB, who dont believe in the entire theory of evolution.

Can you name some?


Intelligence without education isn't worth much in some cases.

Quote

Since neither are proven, hence the word "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Creationism",

There is no theory of creationism. "Theory" has specific meaning, it's not just another word for "unsupported fantasy."

Edited by Neognosis, 02 October 2012 - 06:29 PM.

[ninjadude]

Bama13, on 02 October 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

So because some people belive one theory (evolution) while others believe a different theory (creationism) America is the most ignorant?

You just proved it. "creationism" is not a scientific theory. It's a religious belief.

[Kazoo]

How does every single thread somehow end up about evolution?

Edited by Kazoo, 03 October 2012 - 03:10 AM.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Myles, on 02 October 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Nice try.   You made a post that you used as bait.   You then responded 7 times in one day to keep an off topic subject going.

Fine, believe what you will. Keep disliking me...I am here to stay...

Bama13, on 02 October 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

So because some people belive one theory (evolution) while others believe a different theory (creationism) America is the most ignorant? Since neither are proven, hence the word "Theory of Evolution" and "Theory of Creationism", how do you know who is right. Only by the Theory you choose to believe.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant. Your hubris knows no bounds.

This was exactly the point I am making...You believe that due to ignorance. A theory in science in a fact...creationism is not an accepted theory in the scientific world. This has been proven in court cases and is accepted by the scientific community. This is a matter of scientific fact, and evolution is a scientific fact, the same as heliocentrism, gravity, plate techtonics, big bang, ect. They are not ignorant because they do not agree with me, they are ignorant because they do not accept or understand 8th grade biology.

[preacherman76]

Neognosis, on 02 October 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Can you name some?


Intelligence without education isn't worth much in some cases.

Well thats really the saddest part about the whole thing. Guys, some who were top in thier field, instantly became garbage to the scientific community soon as they expressed doubt in parts evolution. You cant find much on these men. They have been black balled into completion. The smear attacks are relentless. Personaly I think there are probably alot more scientists who have doubt, but consider working more important then sharing those beliefs. There is no room to even debate the subject. These men were never even given a stage for 5 mins to express why they believe what they believe. They were instantly labled crazy and swept under the rug. I could give you names. Names with a long list of acomplishments. Then you in turn will dig up insane amounts of dirt of them from men who just cant conceive being questioned regarding thier beliefs.

[CommunitarianKevin]

preacherman76, on 03 October 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Well thats really the saddest part about the whole thing. Guys, some who were top in thier field, instantly became garbage to the scientific community soon as they expressed doubt in parts evolution. You cant find much on these men. They have been black balled into completion. The smear attacks are relentless. Personaly I think there are probably alot more scientists who have doubt, but consider working more important then sharing those beliefs. There is no room to even debate the subject. These men were never even given a stage for 5 mins to express why they believe what they believe. They were instantly labled crazy and swept under the rug. I could give you names. Names with a long list of acomplishments. Then you in turn will dig up insane amounts of dirt of them from men who just cant conceive being questioned regarding thier beliefs.

The reason for this is people that do not believe in evolution do not understand biology correctly. This is not always their fault. I have learned that biologists are not required to learn the history of science or even read Darwin's actual theory. Many screw it up...we call them bad scientists.

HOWEVER, there is never a problem with question a theory and putting forth evidence. Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity was a fair and valid question. I do not fault him for this idea, no one does. The problem is, it was proven incorrect time and time again but he, and others, still hold on to the idea. That is the same as one holding onto Lamarkian evolution, proven incorrect. No only is it incorrect, it is not science because it cannot be tested (an court cases support this.) The problem is not that they theory is questioned, it is that they hold on when their views are considered incorrect.

Has anyone ever heard of Albert Einstein? You know why you have heard of him? Because he disproved a scientific theory...if anyone could convincingly disprove Darwin's theory of evolution, a theory that has stood for over 150 years, they would be a house hold name. Yet I be most people could not name one person that objects to, let alone tries to disprove, his theory. There is a reason for that...

[preacherman76]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

The reason for this is people that do not believe in evolution do not understand biology correctly. This is not always their fault. I have learned that biologists are not required to learn the history of science or even read Darwin's actual theory. Many screw it up...we call them bad scientists.

Thats true with some people, but it certainly doesnt explain every case.  You have been pre programed to assume those who dont believe in every part of the evolution theory to be "bad scientists". That in and of itself is very telling.

Quote

HOWEVER, there is never a problem with question a theory and putting forth evidence. Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity was a fair and valid question. I do not fault him for this idea, no one does. The problem is, it was proven incorrect time and time again but he, and others, still hold on to the idea. That is the same as one holding onto Lamarkian evolution, proven incorrect. No only is it incorrect, it is not science because it cannot be tested (an court cases support this.) The problem is not that they theory is questioned, it is that they hold on when their views are considered incorrect.

I personaly find irreducable complexity to be very vailid. I have seen good arguments on both sides, but I havent seen anything that out right disproves it.

Quote

Has anyone ever heard of Albert Einstein? You know why you have heard of him? Because he disproved a scientific theory...if anyone could convincingly disprove Darwin's theory of evolution, a theory that has stood for over 150 years, they would be a house hold name. Yet I be most people could not name one person that objects to, let alone tries to disprove, his theory. There is a reason for that...

The only reason its stood for 150 years, is cause it doesnt look anything like the original theory. Problem with the theory is it started out assumed that its right, and what ever new information comes, its molded to the theory without even considering that the new information may change the situation.

Now Im not going to get into a long debate with you on whether or not the theory of evolution is right or not. Heck I believe in half of it myself. My only point is just cause someone doesnt believe in the entire theory, that in and of itself does not mean someone lacks intelligence.

[CommunitarianKevin]

preacherman76, on 03 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Thats true with some people, but it certainly doesnt explain every case.  You have been pre programed to assume those who dont believe in every part of the evolution theory to be "bad scientists". That in and of itself is very telling.



I personaly find irreducable complexity to be very vailid. I have seen good arguments on both sides, but I havent seen anything that out right disproves it.


The only reason its stood for 150 years, is cause it doesnt look anything like the original theory. Problem with the theory is it started out assumed that its right, and what ever new information comes, its molded to the theory without even considering that the new information may change the situation.

Now Im not going to get into a long debate with you on whether or not the theory of evolution is right or not. Heck I believe in half of it myself. My only point is just cause someone doesnt believe in the entire theory, that in and of itself does not mean someone lacks intelligence.

*smacks head* I will PM you when I finish my thread on the topic...

No, the people that do not believe in evolution do no understand it correctly. Many scientists that DO believe it do not understand it correctly. The reason for that is they are taught biology, or the theory, NOT the history of the theory and how it came about.

Many times the hypothesis of irreducible complexity has been disproven, mostly because it is not proper science. The theory basically says "this part cannot be reduced, therefore it is designed." One of my professors personally spent time with Behe and asked him "Well did you try to see if it could not be reduced any further?" His resonse was "It would be pointless." To say doing something is pointless is not science. Things that have been considered as irreducibly complex have been proven not to be manh times. The bacterial flegellum and the eye are a couple examples. Also if you look at the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which Behe testified, they mocked him by using a mouse trap as a tie clip. Irreducible complexity means that a system, such as a mouse trap, is designed for a single purpose, and if you remove one of those parts, it does not function, or serves no purpose. But actually when you take 3 of the 5 parts of a mouse trap away, it serves as a perfectly functional tie clip, which means it has a function and can serve a purpose. Saying something is irreducibly complex without trying to reduce it is the same as saying "God did it..." That is not science...

Actually Darwin's theory is the same now as it was before...here is Darwin's theory...

A. Observation: There is potential for rapid reproduction. (For a quick example look at bacteria or the cells in the human body, for a slower example look at the population growth of the world.)

B. Observation: There are relatively constant resources and population sizes over time. (As stated above, resources are limited and any given area only has so many resources. It is observed in nature that animal populations stay relatively constant over the course of time due to the limited resources.)

C. Conclusion based on A and B: There is competition for resources to survive and reproduce.

D. Observation: There is variability in structures and behaviors. (This is obvious because no 2 people are alike unless they are identical twins but even they differ. People and animals are different.)

E. Conclusion: Natural Selection-On average the “fittest” organisms (Fitness in Biology refers to the number of offspring or the amount of genes passed on to future generations,) or those with the most beneficial structures leave the most offspring.

F. Observation: Some variability is inherited. (This is obvious because we inherit traits from our parents. Genes had not been discovered at this point so Darwin did not know what they were. His theory of “genes” is the part of his theory that was wrong but when we discovered genes, they supported his theory.)

G. Conclusion: Evolution-The genetic makeup of the population changes over time, driven by Natural Selection.

It is the same...the one part he messed up on was he did not know the detail to inheritance...which he almost figured out...

[Bama13]

HuttonEtAl, on 02 October 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

I think the evolution-creationism controversy supports my statement that America is the most ignorant. You guys could have left it at that...and the last time I posted in this thread was the 29th...Don't blame me for keeping it going...

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries I wonder if the majority believe in evolution or creationism? If the majority believe in creationism wouldn't they be just as ignorant, according to your definition?

You know I looked at a lot of definitions of "ignorance" and not one had your critera of believing creationism over evolution as proof of ignorance.

So I will just say that my new definition of ignorance is anyone that uses "EtAl" in their screen name.

[preacherman76]

HuttonEtAl, on 03 October 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

*smacks head* I will PM you when I finish my thread on the topic...

No, the people that do not believe in evolution do no understand it correctly. Many scientists that DO believe it do not understand it correctly. The reason for that is they are taught biology, or the theory, NOT the history of the theory and how it came about.

Many times the hypothesis of irreducible complexity has been disproven, mostly because it is not proper science. The theory basically says "this part cannot be reduced, therefore it is designed." One of my professors personally spent time with Behe and asked him "Well did you try to see if it could not be reduced any further?" His resonse was "It would be pointless." To say doing something is pointless is not science. Things that have been considered as irreducibly complex have been proven not to be manh times. The bacterial flegellum and the eye are a couple examples. Also if you look at the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which Behe testified, they mocked him by using a mouse trap as a tie clip. Irreducible complexity means that a system, such as a mouse trap, is designed for a single purpose, and if you remove one of those parts, it does not function, or serves no purpose. But actually when you take 3 of the 5 parts of a mouse trap away, it serves as a perfectly functional tie clip, which means it has a function and can serve a purpose. Saying something is irreducibly complex without trying to reduce it is the same as saying "God did it..." That is not science...

Irreducable complexity goes into far more detail then what you have explained here. Bacterial flegellum is a great example. I watched a entire documentary on the subject that went into great detail on why it could have never been anything less then it is. Broke down each part, its function, and why it exists, and why it couldnt have been any less then what it is. If all you know regarding this is a conversation your professor had (which no offense, but I find very hard to believe, not saying you are lieing about it, but I think your proffessor did) its no wonder you dismiss it so easily.

You dont have to PM me. Ive had these conversations a hundred times. Neither of us is going to change the others mind. And being we are totaly off topic, and in the wrong section to even be having this conversation, Im going to save this for another time and place.

[Gromdor]

Bama13, on 03 October 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

So do most of the people in Italy or Spain believe in evolution? Since there are a majority of Catholics in those countries I wonder if the majority believe in evolution or creationism? If the majority believe in creationism wouldn't they be just as ignorant, according to your definition?

The Catholic Church from my understanding accepts the theory of evolution as fact and have now gone more towards the "clockwork universe" idea for the origins of man.

[questionmark]

Gromdor, on 03 October 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

The Catholic Church from my understanding accepts the theory of evolution as fact and have now gone more towards the "clockwork universe" idea for the origins of man.

correct and following this link you will see the evangelical reaction.