Welcome to Gaia! :: Posts By User Unknown User | Forum

The problem is that there are Creationists that actually use the exact same arguments.

I'll argue that it is indeed science that is being undermined. But what is science but stringent criteria on what constitutes good evidence? That's what it's really trying to destroy. It directly confronts science, but in doing so, it must attack what science is based on: Rational thought.

I think about the only thing it got right was that it used the word "mutation".

Everything else was distorted beyond the point of even being a strawman.

There's a cute bit of circular reasoning.

To creationists, evolution includes abiogenesis and the big bang. And possibly geology and any other science that contradicts their beliefs.

I hear this canard all the time. But when was the last time you actually looked at a Biology textbook. I have a feeling it hasn't been recently and even if you did, you probably just looked at the pictures.

The most widely used textbook in the US (written by Miller & Levine) has an entire chapter on evolution. Want to guess what the title is?

"The Theory of Evolution"

So please explain to me how it's being taught as "fact".

The reality is, that in science, "theory" is as close to "fact" as you can possibly get. It's not 100% absolutely and forever written in stone solid, but it is something you could reliably stake your life on. And you do. I don't see people jumping off bridges because they don't "believe" in the theory gravity after all. I don't see people refusing to wash their hands because they don't believe in the theory that germs cause disease. They (and evolution) are backed by so much evidence, that we can stake our lives on them.

That is a fact and is completely independent of how "easy" it is to show.

Not every Christian is a Creationist. It doesn't matter that "Christians who do believe...." whatever. We're only talking about Creationists here. And I recognize that not all of them are Young-Earth Creationists. However, even the Young-Earth variety and the "Intelligent Design" Creationists all reject evolution at some level and in doing so, must reject the evidence associated with whatever part they're cherry-picking to reject.

But as I've pointed out, your understanding of the "how" is so wrong, your entire point crumbles. Evolution is taught as a theory, but for all intents and purposes, that can be used as a fact for the layperson. You don't object to this for gravity and in reality, there's no difference. Not accepting this is hypocritical.

So too can you demonstrate evolution. Fruit fly experiments are done in numerous high school classes. It's easy to show the process of evolution through the fossil record.

Again, you're making up differences that aren't really there.

I wasn't alive when our species diverged from its most recent common ancestor with the monkeys. But I'm making the claim that that did in fact happen and I bear the burden of proof for it. And I've already supported it citing numerous threads of evidence.

You wish to claim that God created, so you need to bear the burden of proof for that. To hide behind the cloak of "faith" is a cop out and only shows that your position is intellectually hollow. I'm more than happy to listen if you'd like to back it up, but as it stands now, everything you've posted here is either incorrect, or a bunch of hot air.

Here's the deal: Evolution is not controversial. It is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and accepted by the scientific community. The only people that reject it are the ones that are either (a) ignorant of it or (b) intentionally lying about it to further a religious agenda. Furthermore, denial of evolution is largely limited to the US. Almost all other industrialized nations accept it.

The "How" it is taught is perfectly fine too. Unless you like double standards of course. Evolution is just as "proven" as gravity is. In fact even more so. But by your reasoning, we should reject it and yank it from public classrooms if a sufficiently large subset of religious nutjobs decide to believe in the inane idea that things fall because angels push it down.

There's no way to put that besides just stupid. But that's exactly the kind of thing Creationists like you are pushing for.

Given that you don't know the difference between a "fact" and a "theory" in science I wouldn't trust you to have enough of educated or informed opinion to know whether or not "it isn't true."

I suggest you pick up "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins.

That's entirely your choice, but you didn't just stop there. You're actively saying that other people shouldn't be properly educated on it because you wish to sit in willful ignorance.

What he's saying is that to believe in Creationism (no matter what kind) means you have to actually reject the evidence. All the fossils we have, all the similarities in our genes, all the instances we've seen new species arise, all the ways the predictions of time necessary for evolution to happen fits perfectly with geology and astronomy.....

You have to somehow reject all of that if you wish to deny evolution happened.

Oh look. Another intellectual coward who wants to spew baseless beliefs and have them respected.

BTW: I am a scientist and I have numerous threads on the evidence for evolution.

Sure:

1. Cosmic evolution - "origins" are never included in evolution, but I will show the development of the aforementioned: Time - you measure it on a watch every second. Space - observed via the expansion of the universe derived from redshift of galaxies. Matter - recreated in particle accelerators around the world.

2. Chemical - The process by which higher atomic species arise I covered here

3. Stellar and planetary - I have an entire series of posts on stellar evolution in my blog. Planetary evolution is observed in proplyds around forming stars and well modeled theoretically.

4. Organic evolution - The miller-urey reaction covers this. Additionally, many organic compounds required for this are found throughout the universe. Most recently the formation of yet another was demonstrated in the lab

5. Macro-evolution - Well documented through the fossil record, but also through homology and genetics.

6. Micro-evolution - You already admit you accept this.

In which case, gravity should not be taught as fact because it is not. It's a theory.

The truth is, it's taught as a theory and so is evolution. But we don't specifically state that, because if you understand how science works, you should already know that.

I love how you accused me of trolling, Noora. And then you turn around and pull this. You're a hypocrite on top of everything else.

But you already know I wouldn't say that.

I require evidence for this statement that can be independently verified. In other words, saying the "bible says so" or "I was told so and believe it" is not evidence. It's an excuse for not having any evidence.

Hello again Noora. Looks like you're infesting another thread by taking someone's argument, ignoring all the content and then dismissing them without actually addressing any of it. In other words, you're trolling. How vile and predictable of you.

It's not my beliefs I care if it contradicts. I have a problem that it contradicts reality and the facts.

Nor do I. But by the same token, I don't believe all the Christians in the GOP are out to push off their religion as law. But they're not the ones that matter. It's the ones taking all the action that matter. It's the politicians in congress. It's the Creationists at the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research. They are the ones that worry me. The rest are just followers.

I don't disagree here either. The difference is that science always make sure it fits with reality. Creationism defines its position in spite of the facts.

You should know better than this. Science never proves 100%. The entire concept is ridiculous. However, science is still infinitely better than any other position given they offer no evidence. That's not arrogance. That's being honest. But too many people just can't handle that.

In which case, you're begging the question of what other "theories" we teach. Why do we teach Creationism but not alchemy? Why it and not astrology? Why it and not flat-earth-theory?

The point is, If you're going to teach another "point of view" or "theory" it should be a legit one. Creationism is not and it is only getting the attention it does because of religious backing.