Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[dannybin1742]

That CBS poll is conclusive proof that the gene pool needs a heavy dose of Chlorine.

couldn't agree more

The claim "All science is just a theory!" is just the desperate cries of ignorant fops trying to put FAITH on the same standing as REASON.

could not agree more, my wife is a lutheran, and i've had discussions with her on this, her responses are generally somthing along the lines of "well you just have to have faith"

At the same time, I'm amazed that you can call it a fact that we all evolved from nothing. While there may be evidence that suggests that evolution occurs, there isn't much evidence that specifically says that we were evolved from nothing. Scientists, as they learn more of the complexity of cells, keep pushing back the date of the beginning of time, realizing that it requires much more time to create something so complex from nothing. Is it really so hard to believe that a supreme being created most of what is here today? I find it easier to believe than your alternative

not much evidence, do you know how to read? pushing back the date????? where do you get this fodder?

It's hard enough to create amino acids and the like from random muck, but to create cells out of that is highly improbable. I also believe that while evolution refines different creatures, such as long beaks, short feet, A multi-celled microorganism growing an eye seems absurd to me. How in the world did it become sensitive to light? Just randomly? Darwin may have been largely right in some aspects, but not totally right. There is no reason why they have to be mutually exclusive.

i think 4 billion+ years would have been enough time, go look at how cephalopods have evolved.

I think it really makes you look like a fool to call other people stupid and morons because they believe in creationism.

isn't it more foolish to throw reason out the window for blind faith?


what does this have to do with out discussion?

Too bad the scientists fvcked up by including a Coelacanth

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation

doubtful, you'd have to look at the field, look at anyone biology related of chemistry related

Some scientists have suggested that the majority of evolution happens not though natural selection but through --forget the name, gene-sharing or something (it's the same reason why GM plants are such a threat to natural species, genes from the genetically modified plants attach themselves to those of regular plants, so the regular plants become like the GM plants)--.

you are talking about two different theories here that both work together and are part of the same evolutionary theory, plants can gene share becuase the compatability required for repro is much lower than humans, plants with different chromosome numbers on occation can breed, but their ofspring are normally infertile, mammal and bird and reptilian systems have a much higer degree of requirements for breeding, one requirment is having the same number of chromosomes (the only exception i can think of off hand is the mule)


anyone still want to dispuse antibiotic resistance?

 

[0marTheZealot]

On a large enough timescale, anything is possible.

No matter how improbable life may have been, it had about 1 billion years to get started.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Leaf

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Leaf
Too bad the scientists fvcked up when a living Coelacanth was dicovered.

Why was discovering that coelacanths weren't extinct "fvcked up?"

Eh.. the fossil was part of the "evolutionary chain" let's not forget. Please don't ask me to think for you.

Why would I ask you to think for me when you're obviously having problems thinking for yourself? That a small colony of was found in no way destroys the progression of an evolutionary strain leading to more complex types. These living treasures being discovered is an oddity yes, but it doesn't come close to proving there's a "God" orchestrating things.

I think this fact works in favor of evolution rather than agaist it: Organism will evolve and ADAPT to the environment (part of Lamark's proposal). A living colony of those organisms means that they were living in a place where the conditions remained stable, so no need to change (Think Australia and New Zealand) . Evolution doesn't mean that you have to evolve or you die. In some cases, as in this one, without evolving they didn't die. Unless you kniow EXACTLY all the conditions involved you can't be sure of "this goes against evolution" That is the beauty of science.

Just what I was thinking, and without any help from Leaf either.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Deformity came into earthly life as we know it today through Adam's selfishness through submission to temptation.

Look through the second link of my signature; I don't yet subscribe to the idea, but it seems to give answers that more poplular versions of creationism can't address.

Uh....



BTW, the Bible is NOT meant to be a resource for scientific research. It's merely about the human condition and a guide to a spiritual and righteous life. Anyone who even begins to try and use the Bible to explain how the earth, the sun, the universe itself were formed is distorting the Bible to suit their belief.

If the Bible can't be trusted with telling the truth about natural things, how can it be trusted to tell the truth about spiritual things? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth... it is the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book. It seems like it might have some importance, and I personally wouldn't trust a book that opened with such a bold-faced lie, like many of you are claiming. If you believe that's a lie then how can you trust anything else in the Bible?

The study of evolution and science is quite the absurdity. The study of how life as we know it came to be is closer to history than science. It happened a certain way, one way, and we are here.

So, here's what science claims: Evolution is a fact, you should accept it. If you challenge it, even if you raise good points against the evidence we have, you are wrong. You are simply too dumb to understand, we are the intellectuals, you should trust us based on our authority.

Interestly enough, many skeptics of Christianity say thats exactly what Christians are doing, and yet they have no problem accepting evolution based on authority, when many of them have never studied it outside of a college bio2 class. You skim over the evidence, it points to a conclusion you like, so you accept and defend it...

All too often the debate shifts from the evidence (or lack thereof) for evolution to attacks on science or religion, attacks on God, people calling other people ignorant or stupid to elevate themselves and make their argument look more intelligent, rather than answer the issues posed.

It's sad, really...

 

[Trevelyan]

I think many of you who are attacking faith don't understand what faith is.

Faith is a committment to a belief in something. Christian faith is not faith in God and the Bible in spite of the evidence, it is faith IN LIGHT of the evidence.

Regardless of how readily you dismiss the evidence as mere "fact-less God talk", there is evidence against evolution to this day, and there is evidence for creationism. And yes, evidence that attacks the very fundamentals of evolution. If you actually study the facts, rather than the conclusions that many evolutionists reach, you will find a lot of holes in the logical process.

Science is not the altruistic search for truth that many of you claim it is. It is victim to the same human faults and logical-fallacies that are present in everything we do. The arguements of many evolutionists and the claims they make often reflect their own personal beliefs that there is nothing more than nature. Of course, if you are trying to find the truth about evolution of life and one of your presuppositions is that there is no God, then yes, you aren't going to accept evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer.

Michael Behe makes and interesting point:

"The.. most powerful reason for science's reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."

Many scientists simply have an allegiance to the natural that blinds them... "Science is a noble pursuit that can engender fierce loyalty.... some dedicated people put their discipline ahead of the goal it is supposed to serve... We must be careful not to allow our distaste for a theory to prejudice us against a fair reading of the data."

 

[chess9]

Uh, so, after getting your B.S. in Biology, you went on to get a Masters and then a PhD in Evolutionary Biology and that's why you understand the evidence and we don't?

Unless, I am mistaken, you have probably had one biology class in high school and POSSIBLY one biology class in college, if you went to college. In other words, you probably aren't qualified to have an informed opinion.

At some point in our lives, we must all defer to experts. Whether it be for medical care, legal advice, or, biology. I've read extensively in this area, though it is an avocation and hobby only. I'm not an expert, but I've read a good bit of the data supporting micro-evolution and am not pursuaded to toss it in the garbage can nor to embrace it uncritically. However, evolution, or a change in alleles over time, is the best explanation for the evidence in the fossil record and is suported by other means as well.

I would suggest that you get ten books on evolutionary biology and read them all. Then spend some time on Lenny's debunking creation science web site and read his debunking of the evolution debunkers.

Most of the people, with the notable exception of Behe, who is a born again Catholic with an admitted predilection for a belief in creation, are whackos, bible college graduates, mail order degree "graduates", frauds, and people who know NO biology. If you can name one Chairman of the Biology Department of a major research university in the United States who denies that evolution occurs, please name him or her.

-Robert

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: chess9
Uh, so, after getting your B.S. in Biology, you went on to get a Masters and then a PhD in Evolutionary Biology and that's why you understand the evidence and we don't?

Unless, I am mistaken, you have probably had one biology class in high school and POSSIBLY one biology class in college, if you went to college. In other words, you probably aren't qualified to have an informed opinion.

At some point in our lives, we must all defer to experts. Whether it be for medical care, legal advice, or, biology. I've read extensively in this area, though it is an avocation and hobby only. I'm not an expert, but I've read a good bit of the data supporting micro-evolution and am not pursuaded to toss it in the garbage can nor to embrace it uncritically. However, evolution, or a change in alleles over time, is the best explanation for the evidence in the fossil record and is suported by other means as well.

I would suggest that you get ten books on evolutionary biology and read them all. Then spend some time on Lenny's debunking creation science web site and read his debunking of the evolution debunkers.

Most of the people, with the notable exception of Behe, who is a born again Catholic with an admitted predilection for a belief in creation, are whackos, bible college graduates, mail order degree "graduates", frauds, and people who know NO biology. If you can name one Chairman of the Biology Department of a major research university in the United States who denies that evolution occurs, please name him or her.

-Robert

Well since you say I can't have an informed opinion merely because I've only taken a few biology classes in college, then I guess you can't have an informed opinion either, by your own standards.

I'm not saying I am an expert, but I am saying that I've studied the arguements on both sides, as a hobby that I am passionately interested in.

I disagree with your belief that evolution is the best explanation for life as we know it, and if you really want to debate me on this issue I will, but so far you've only proven me right by attacking me personally and referring to me as uneducated in order to make your opinions seem more valid.

If rather than attacking Behe, and saying that what he says holds no merit because he is a Catholic, perhaps you should read his book and counter his arguements, and not his character. And since haven't named any other "whackos" as you call them, I don't know where your complaints lie, other than in the bed of your own discontent that your theory of evolution may have some holes in it.

I am not claiming that basing some of your beliefs as to what is true on authority is unavoidable, but I am saying that you shouldn't limit yourself to what you research simply becuase someone says "Well, we are more educated than you and therefore can make no mistake... our opinions are fact and yours are simply misguided."

I prefer to analyze both sides, hedge out any unwanted predispositions, and make my own, informed opinion.

 

[HardWarrior]

That discussions like this quickly change to addressing the fundamental concepts behind both science and religion is in no way a surprise. It's human nature, Trev. Instead of deriding the tactics of the non-devout and then indulging in them yourself, why not attempt to lead this discourse back towards something more focused and fruitful?

Here, my 2-cents: Religion, in and of itself, is easy to understand. Ancient man looked about and saw nothing but questions. The sun, the moon, weather, geological events, reproduction, life\death, emotions, etc, were all huge mysteries to him. With a questing nature, driving curiosity and self-awareness (traits that are at the heart of what we are and what separates us from the rest the other living matter on this planet) but lacking any scientific methodology whatsoever, he attempted to explain these wonders in the only way he could.

Which meant fantasies tied together by myth and saturated with the human need to see ourselves as more important (God created man in his own image, as the bible says) than we are. Now, after 10's of thousands of years later, even though we've been able to crack some of the mysteries inherent to the natural world, some of us still want to see the human condition as controlled by one divine entity or another, who conveniently never speaks, never acts to create peace\harmony\plenty, or any of the other things most of us believe would make this planet a much more tolerable place to be.

Being that deities are usually viewed as being all-powerful, why do they never act in a demonstrable fashion, even to protect their worshippers?

There, my perspective on religion. Expressed, I hope, in a way that doesn't offend anyone. Now, would one of the devout here care to dissect this without insults and personal jibes?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I think many of you who are attacking faith don't understand what faith is.

Faith is a committment to a belief in something. Christian faith is not faith in God and the Bible in spite of the evidence, it is faith IN LIGHT of the evidence.

Regardless of how readily you dismiss the evidence as mere "fact-less God talk", there is evidence against evolution to this day, and there is evidence for creationism. And yes, evidence that attacks the very fundamentals of evolution. If you actually study the facts, rather than the conclusions that many evolutionists reach, you will find a lot of holes in the logical process.

Science is not the altruistic search for truth that many of you claim it is. It is victim to the same human faults and logical-fallacies that are present in everything we do. The arguements of many evolutionists and the claims they make often reflect their own personal beliefs that there is nothing more than nature. Of course, if you are trying to find the truth about evolution of life and one of your presuppositions is that there is no God, then yes, you aren't going to accept evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer.

Michael Behe makes and interesting point:

"The.. most powerful reason for science's reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."

Many scientists simply have an allegiance to the natural that blinds them... "Science is a noble pursuit that can engender fierce loyalty.... some dedicated people put their discipline ahead of the goal it is supposed to serve... We must be careful not to allow our distaste for a theory to prejudice us against a fair reading of the data."

Just to start off with Michael Behe has been thoroughly discredited in the very examples that he used to illustrate his point, for example the ida of the immune system as being overly complex. This is nicely debunked at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html

Secondly there is no such idea in science as "taking it on faith." There are underlying experiments that support what we call "science" and the knowledge of how to perform them is widely disseminated to anyone interested. Science is rigorously double checked and this is why we have confidence in what we know rather than relying on mere belief. Science is all about put up or shut up.

If you are genuinely interested in knowing about the experiments and observations that led to our modern understanding of evolution I will be glad to share them with you. I will never ask that you take anything on faith or merely believe. This comes with a certain caveat though - in order for a lot of this to even make sense you need to have had the right training - just like how an X-ray can only be properly read by an expert - but if you do then these will allow you to make your own informed decision.

The background generally consists of lots of math (at least calculus) for such things as understanding the Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium and features of it, logarithmic and expontential growth, probabilities, and data collection. This is generally 2 years of college work in mathematics.

Then you will need to know chemistry. A lot. Starting with the basics of periodicity and physical properties and ending in complicated organic and biochemistry reactions. Every single fact you encounter here can be confirmed by yourself and logically builds from one level to the next. For example you will learn about chirality in organic chem, them chiral reactions in biochem, and finally come to realize why all of life uses one chiral shape rather than the other one. This is generally at least 3 years of college chemistry but the more the better.

Then biology, generally 2 - 3 years of college level work. You will need to do developmental biology (sometimes called embryology), genetics, anatomy, a little botany, etc. You will need to have a thorough understanding of how biological organisms behave (to the extent that you should be able to predict future behavior) and also how the organism and its environment interract with one another (for example classic Voltera predator-prey relationships, which will require your knowledge of sine functions from the math part above).

Also you will need physics. At the very least Newtonian mechanics with calculus - energy, momentum, conservation laws, etc. Realistically you will need to cover E&M, thermodynamics, etc.

Lastly if you want to work with fossils you will need to study geology. I have never done this so I am not exactly sure but my friends tell me it is about 2 years of work at the minimum. You will need to know the physical properties of rocks and rock layers (boiling point, sheer qualities, Young's modulus), etc.

But if you feel you are competent in all of these I will gladly send you the experiments that you can perform so that you can come to your own informed opinion. What you should know is that anybody who has ever seriously contributed to our understanding of evolution has completed all of this and more - they were the ones who taught the courses I outlined above.

If you are interested there is an incredible DVD that covers our understanding of evolution and modern humans beginning with the big bang and continuing through World War II available from Rothman Media (http://www.rothmanmedia.com/edu-pack.html) called "The Biology of Being Human" by Paul Bingham.
It includes everything I have outlined above and is aimed at upper level science students who have completed what I outlined but is really understandable for the layman too. It is what I recommend to my friends who don't quite understand evolution - I tell them to watch it, become educated, and then we can debate.

I think my final conclusion is that this is why evolution is science but also why it is so hard for normal people to understand - it is complex and requires serious education and training to understand. Religion is aimed at people without any need for them to be educated.

But evolution, like all science, is never about mere belief but rather experimentation and observation and actual "facts."

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
That discussions like this quickly change to addressing the fundamental concepts behind both science and religion is in no way a surprise. It's human nature, Trev. Instead of deriding the tactics of the non-devout and then indulging in them yourself, why not attempt to lead this discourse back towards something more focused and fruitful?

Here, my 2-cents: Religion, in and of itself, is easy to understand. Ancient man looked about and saw nothing but questions. The sun, the moon, weather, geological events, reproduction, life\death, emotions, etc, were all huge mysteries to him. With a questing nature, driving curiosity and self-awareness (traits that are at the heart of what we are and what separates us from the rest the other living matter on this planet) but lacking any scientific methodology whatsoever, he attempted to explain these wonders in the only way he could.

Which meant fantasies tied together by myth and saturated with the human need to see ourselves as more important (God created man in his own image, as the bible says) than we are. Now, after 10's of thousands of years later, even though we've been able to crack some of the mysteries inherent to the natural world, some of us still want to see the human condition as controlled by one divine entity or another, who conveniently never speaks, never acts to create peace\harmony\plenty, or any of the other things most of us believe would make this planet a much more tolerable place to be.

Being that deities are usually viewed as being all-powerful, why do they never act in a demonstrable fashion, even to protect their worshippers?

There, my perspective on religion. Expressed, I hope, in a way that doesn't offend anyone. Now, would one of the devout here care to dissect this without insults and personal jibes?

Believe whatever you want to believe, nothing make sense anymore including evolution. We're all confused. 1+1=3, 2+2=5, 3+3=7, 4+4=9, 5+5=11 and on, and on... a never ending confusion.

 

[chess9]

Trev:

I'm sorry, but you didn't say you know any evolutionary biology. You claim to have taken "a few" biology classes in college. However, almost no major except biology and one or two other science based majors, requires ANY biology in college. What university did you attend? What was your major? Which courses in biology did you take? Which books have you read on evolution?

No one with any significant knowledge of evolution has made an appearance on this stage and denied that evolution has a factual basis. The people who oppose evolution are mostly unschooled in biology yet have formed an opinion which they are not entitled to have.

You object to being called stupid, but anyone who will not admit their limitations is not only unwise, they are stupid.

If you know so much about evolutionary biology, perhaps you can teach us something about the fossil record or the techniques used for dating fossils? Please, proceed. We have about 4 or 5 guys with extensive knowledge of evolutionary biology on this forum and I'm sure they would be happy to discuss these isues with you.

Furthermore, this is about the gazillionth thread on evolution here at anantech. It gets very tiresome listening to you sophomoric whiners complain about something you know nothing about.

I'm still waiting for that Chairman's name. Cough it up.


-Robert

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

what does this have to do with out discussion?

Too bad the scientists fvcked up by including a Coelacanth

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation

doubtful, you'd have to look at the field, look at anyone biology related of chemistry related

This is what I'm saying. The intelligent design people are not theologians -- they are biologists who are trying to deal with phenomena which has made itself apparent through their work.

Some scientists have suggested that the majority of evolution happens not though natural selection but through --forget the name, gene-sharing or something (it's the same reason why GM plants are such a threat to natural species, genes from the genetically modified plants attach themselves to those of regular plants, so the regular plants become like the GM plants)--.

you are talking about two different theories here that both work together and are part of the same evolutionary theory, plants can gene share becuase the compatability required for repro is much lower than humans, plants with different chromosome numbers on occation can breed, but their ofspring are normally infertile, mammal and bird and reptilian systems have a much higer degree of requirements for breeding, one requirment is having the same number of chromosomes (the only exception i can think of off hand is the mule)

I realize these two theories work together. If you read who I was responding to, you would realize that he said that anyone who didn't didn't believe the vast amount of proof that evolution happened purely "via natural selection" was closed minded and extremely stupid. I was saying he should tone down his rhetoric and stick to what he knows, because was calling many biologists stupid and closed-minded

anyone still want to dispuse antibiotic resistance?

Nope. I don't know how anyone can reject evolution when we can cause bacteria to adapt in such short periods of time in petrie dishes.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

I'm not saying that intelligent people can't or don't believe in a God, but as for Evolution, it is largely the uneducated, who don't understand how and why it works, who find it difficult to conceive of anything but creationism. In large part this is due to their lack of education, but in many cases it is also the fault of their CHURCH for misrepresenting, distorting and flat-out LYING about the facts of Evolution.

Anyone who's studied genetics to any extent sees quite plainly how and why evolution is FAR more likely than creationism. And I might point out, at least we have SOME evidence for evolution, whereas there is NO evidence for creation.

Jason

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

HOW this weaken the arguements? THEY, yes, they, the fenatic zealost claim that evolution is not fully proven, so this means it is not proven, which equals to false. Pick any newspaper, or pick a number of "Nature" and see the "reasons" the church gives..... They, yes, they have stated that the theory is not fully proven. Evidence abunds.

It weakens the arguements because those who you are argueing against don't exists. No one makes a progression from it's a theory ---> it's not fully proven yet ---> it is definately false because it isn't proven yet. People have stated evolution is not fully proven, I'm not argueing that, I'm argueing what you said in your original post. So making up a group allows you to make this imaginary group sound really stupid, and make your arguement artifically sound good by contrast. People commonly do this when they are not confident their arguement can hold against real people, and so it makes for a meaningless, weak arguement.

Originally posted by: stratman
You lecture us about science, then you spit out that nonsense? "Try to find a case where it doesn't apply"? What about the Law of Conservation of Mass? What's that, it doesn't hold for all cases? Nuclear fission what? But before research into nuclear physics we couldn't find a case where it didn't apply.

What nonsense? That the law applies always. someone said that all in science is still theory. I just wanted to make a point about laws in science. By the way, the law of conservation of mass AND energyapplies EVEN in the nuclear reactions. E=mc^2 becomes aterm in original law Ep = Ek + Et, and is still valid.

You were saying that laws are valid and hold everywhere. There used to be a "Law of conservation of mass" because people couldn't think of a circumstance where it was not true. That law was changed after new discoveries. We change the laws when we make new discoveries. Scientific laws are not infallible.

Originally posted by: stratman
So, our bible thumping friends, don't get excited. Evolution is partially proven, has an explanation and can even be reproduced in some conditions (mutations). Creationism is not even a hypothesis

Hold on, didn't you just define hypothesis as 'an explaination of something after you have observed the phenom', and as 'you are making a guess basically based on knowledge you have'? According to your definition creationism is a hypothesis!

You already gave yourself the answer. Thanks Anyone can claim that a suposition is a hypothesis, so you caught my omission.

Originally posted by: stratman
There are no 'fact' other than a 'bok' that claims to be sacred? So the 'bok' that claims to be sacred is a fact? I wouldn't say that anything claiming to be sacred should be taken as fact

My mistake, it should have said "BOOK". It still applies, as that is a FACT for millions of religious zealots. I just asked them to prove me that their "fact" is closer to truth than other "facts", understanding other facts as the sacred books of other religions..... No one brought the evidence.

Just because millions of religious zealots (there we go again citing the stupidity of some nebulous group) believe something doesn't make it a fact. It makes it a widespread belief. So you shouldn't refer to it as a fact, when it is not a fact, and you know it is not a fact.

I realize I am nitpicking. I am trying to show that it is not constructive to use condescending, coarse language against those who are not as intelligent as you. I am trying to show that assuming you know everything and others know very little leaves you open to criticism, especially when you are not even an expert in this field.

Originally posted by: stratman
I fully subscribe to the notion of evolution and am against the teaching of creationism in schools. However, you pretentiously touting 'scientific principals' with condescending language does not help the cause.

If you want to support evolution, do it through the plenthora of evidence that exists, not some weak rhetoric.

Forgive me if I convey a sense of anger, that is not my intent. I also don't mean to disrespect you, as I am sure you are good at what you do in life. It just kills me to see weak arguement, especially when the arguer assumes omniscience.

I have no defense against this one, an you have a totally valid point. I just think that AFTER all the evidence that exists supporting evolution, rational people would be convinced. Those who still refuse to accept the evidence have to be talked in a harsh coarse way, using even degrading rethorics. Radical problems demand radical solutions.

I am also bewildered at people denying evolution. I think that if they are shown reasonable arguements and evidence, rather than a "harsh coarse way", they might see the light

Edited for formatting.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'm not saying that intelligent people can't or don't believe in a God, but as for Evolution, it is largely the uneducated, who don't understand how and why it works, who find it difficult to conceive of anything but creationism. In large part this is due to their lack of education, but in many cases it is also the fault of their CHURCH for misrepresenting, distorting and flat-out LYING about the facts of Evolution.

Anyone who's studied genetics to any extent sees quite plainly how and why evolution is FAR more likely than creationism. And I might point out, at least we have SOME evidence for evolution, whereas there is NO evidence for creation.

Jason

Ok, in that case I agree with you. I have heard some propaganda from Christian sources trying to discredit evolution, now that you mention it. They guy I heard it from was a jack@ss too, he rationalized some minor racisms against asians, AND HE WAS CHINESE. Talk about brainwashed

IMO creationism is a theological issue: it shouldn't be taught as a science, but people can believe it and try to reconcile it with science if they want. Just they should make sure they aren't pimping it as science, but a religious belief. And they should certainly not teach it in schools.

 

[chess9]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996762

Here's an example of how genetics is being used to understand evolutionary biology. This is yet another tool, and a very good one, for biologists.

And, this demonstrates how the fine points of evolutionary biology are, themselves, evolving.

-Robert

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: wchou

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

so theres got to be someone more intelligent then we are where he/she cannot be seen, touch, smell or even hear?
It has nothing to do with well educated some are but rather any average person can be brainwashed to believe anything due to his or her low intelligent. he/she cannot be intelligent if the minds are being conditioned to act certain way and not to question the author who wrote it with the intention of having the reader agree with it.
Again believing in creation does not make a person more intelligent then those who do not, actually quite the opposite to the contrary.
You can say whatever you want but it does not change the fact that their are very few who are gifted in this world. Just because most think the world is flat does not make it a proven fact.
Believe whatever you want to believe, people are like herds of follower of popular opinions where their facts are often proven wrong.

Instead of going to the doctor when you're sick, why don't you pray to god instead? hmm maybe he/she can do more wonders then what science can?

:roll:

lol what are you saying? Who are you arguing against? "... brainwashed to believe anything due to his or her low intelligent"?

Are you kidding? Seriously, did you craft that sentence to be a joke?

This is a cheap shot, but people in glass houses...

 

[ForThePeople]

You were saying that laws are valid and hold everywhere. There used to be a "Law of conservation of mass" because people couldn't think of a circumstance where it was not true. That law was changed after new discoveries. We change the laws when we make new discoveries. Scientific laws are not infallible.

I have no idea whom I am quoting but I'd like to object to this statement. The law of the convervation of mass was never "changed" or modified. Scientific laws are not infallible doesn't in any way lead credence to any creationist viewpoint... scientific laws are very valid - I would even say infallible - as we understand them and have been since we first figured them out.

The law of conservation of mass merely says that you can't get more mass than you originally had - more simply that you can't create mass - and has been absolutely valid everywhere and at all time in the universe. The whole nuclear process "redefinition" as you argue wasn't a redifinition at all - the experiments ended up with mass that was not accounted for, like an equation that says 1 + 2 = 5, and they had to go and figure out what happened to the mass. It was in the form of energy and thus the law was valid.

Law of conservation of mass: M = M'
Conservation of Energy: E = E'
Conservation of Momentum: P = P'

It does not matter how many terms X or X' include but only that the two are equal. The new discovery merely added another term to M' - it did not change the law that M' must equal M.

The laws of conservation (momentum, mass, energy) are infallible.
The law of gravity is infallible.

Your objection was the result of ignorance on your part about the laws of conservation and not any actual defect in the laws themselves.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

You were saying that laws are valid and hold everywhere. There used to be a "Law of conservation of mass" because people couldn't think of a circumstance where it was not true. That law was changed after new discoveries. We change the laws when we make new discoveries. Scientific laws are not infallible.

I have no idea whom I am quoting but I'd like to object to this statement. The law of the convervation of mass was never "changed" or modified. Scientific laws are not infallible doesn't in any way lead credence to any creationist viewpoint... scientific laws are very valid - I would even say infallible - as we understand them and have been since we first figured them out.

I am not trying to give credence to the creationist viewpoint, merely taking issue with whoever-I-was-responding-to's suggestion that scientific laws hold in all circumstances

The law of conservation of mass merely says that you can't get more mass than you originally had - more simply that you can't create mass - and has been absolutely valid everywhere and at all time in the universe. The whole nuclear process "redefinition" as you argue wasn't a redifinition at all - the experiments ended up with mass that was not accounted for, like an equation that says 1 + 2 = 5, and they had to go and figure out what happened to the mass. It was in the form of energy and thus the law was valid.

I admit some ignorance on this topic. In engineering they don't teach us much about history. But aren't you saying that mass was converted in to energy, and therefore not conserved? Meaning mass is not conserved in every circumstance, but the mass+energy is instead, which is ground for the Law of conservation of mass and energy?
I admit I am not an expert with regards to the history of science. I'm curious though (genuinely, not to further my arguement) , what are your credentials?

Law of conservation of mass: M = M'
Conservation of Energy: E = E'
Conservation of Momentum: P = P'

It does not matter how many terms X or X' include but only that the two are equal. The new discovery merely added another term to M' - it did not change the law that M' must equal M.

The laws of conservation (momentum, mass, energy) are infallible.
The law of gravity is infallible.

Your objection was the result of ignorance on your part about the laws of conservation and not any actual defect in the laws themselves.

Googling for a definition of the law of conservation of mass, I found this from a recognized educational institution, the url being http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/resource/glossary/i-m.htm :

"The Law of Conservation of Mass states that mass is neither created nor destroyed, therefore, atoms are neither created nor destroyed."

Maybe you are just looking at the most recent version of the laws of conservation? Do your credentials with respect to science and (more importantly) the history of science trump the credentials of one of the largest educational institutions in my province?

 

[Miramonti]

God created Evolution. However he also created Intelligent Design.

And I'm just saddened that most of you are products of the former and have never experienced life as the latter.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: biostud
Who made the snake that lured Eve into eating the apple?

the snake was Satan

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: biostud
Who made the snake that lured Eve into eating the apple?

the snake was Satan

Did god create satan? If not where did satan origin?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: stratman

I admit some ignorance on this topic. In engineering they don't teach us much about history. But aren't you saying that mass was converted in to energy, and therefore not conserved? Meaning mass is not conserved in every circumstance, but the mass+energy is instead, which is ground for the Law of conservation of mass and energy?
I admit I am not an expert with regards to the history of science. I'm curious though (genuinely, not to further my arguement) , what are your credentials?

My credentials include my double major of chemistry and something else. I have more than 100 credits in hard science and am really good at science, with a science GPA of about 3.5.

Anyways, on to your point. Energy and mass are exactly the same thing, this is given by Einstein famous E=mc^2. Solving for mass we have m = E/c^2, or more simply mass is irrelevant at very low energies (because the c^2 term overpowers it to render it very small). So in classical conservation equations there is, in fact, an energy-mass term but is so small as to be irrevelant. For example we balance salt as a whole atom approach, ie 1 Na + 1 Cl -> 1 NaCl. We don't add the mass-energy term to make the full equation:

1 Na + 1 E(Na)/c^2 + 1 Cl + 1 E(Cl)/c^2 -> 1 NaCl + 1 E(NaCl)/c^2

because the other terms are so small as to be irrelevent. This is also why Newtonian mechanics still works: the extra terms do not matter until E or v is very, very large or (that is, E approaches the energy of the system or the velocity approach c).

In everyday life these corrections are too small to matter so we simply ignore them and accept the .0000000001 difference they make to our final result. I made that number up but the real number is very very very very small.

Googling for a definition of the law of conservation of mass, I found this from a recognized educational institution, the url being http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/resource/glossary/i-m.htm :

"The Law of Conservation of Mass states that mass is neither created nor destroyed, therefore, atoms are neither created nor destroyed."

The first thing that should jump out at you is that what you posted is written in plain, simple English. Nothing in science counts unless it is written in the language of science, namely math. That is a definition for normal people who want to understand, not a technical definition fit for our technical discussion.

And more to the point... the English definition you provided is entirely consisten with what I wrote. It is saying exactly the same thing I did, namely M = M', that is you can't have more mass than you started with (a little differently "mass cannot be created or destroyed").

The real law of the conservation of mass, written in the language of science, says basically what I wrote: M = M'. So when you add all your terms up they better equal each other or else you screwed up somewhere.

Maybe you are just looking at the most recent version of the laws of conservation?

Also, there is no such thing as "the most recent laws." Either mass is conserved or it isn't. The conservation of mass was discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in the 1700s after he discovered that the weights were always equal and gave us the idea of atoms, little blocks, and that every reaction must have the same amount of blocks at the end as it did in the beginning. Einstein didn't change the law - he didn't add more blocks or take some away - he merely showed that sometimes the blocks appear blue (mass) and sometimes red (energy) but in reality they are all purple and you better have a constant number of purple blocks.

Do your credentials with respect to science and (more importantly) the history of science trump the credentials of one of the largest educational institutions in my province?

It is about facts, not credentials, facts. And if your institution is worth anything I assure you it agrees with me and that you have obviously misunderstood something somewhere. But nonetheless the prestige of your institution has nothing to do with the facts about nature and the laws of nature. That is a wholly irrelevant point.

Lastly, what exactly are your credentials? My father is a mechanical engineer and my brother is a chemical engineer and I assure you they have a very thorough education in thermodynamics and conservation laws - are you sure you are getting your money's worth? 'Cause if you are an engineer and that ignorant of these laws you are at the bottom of engineering students.

 

[f95toli]

First of all, everything you have written is correct.
However, I have never even seen the concept of "conservation of mass" in a modern textbook (or paper), "conservation of energy" is more appropriate in this case.
AFAIK we stopped using "conservation of mass" about 100 years ago when we realized that matter is in fact not neccesarily conserved (if you by matter mean numbers of atoms).

That said I guess it is possible that it is still used in chemistry, as we all know chemists have a tendency to use some really weird conpects
(I am a physicist)

 

[IAteYourMother]

Wait, about the Big Bang, seeing as you are a physicist, was mass conserved?? Created out of nothing? Wat does the Big Bang exactly say?