Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
57 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 881,652 Year: 13,400/23,288 Month: 330/795 Week: 31/95 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 18 of 135 (319422)
06-09-2006 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 7:53 PM


Would the world around us still function as we know it, if Creationists had their way, and would we stop advancing in the field of science? How dependant is science on evolution? What is it, that we are trying to achieve, that we cannot achieve without evolution?

of course it would work, but our understanding of it would be unexplained scientificly, i have a feeling some sort of evolution theory would grow again.
as for how dependent on evolution is science? well i think you mean the ToE rather than evolution itself, since evolution exists undependent on humans. science i hope you really mean biology - biology is heavily structured around the fact of evolution and around the theories that make up the ToE.
you can study biology without the ToE i supose but it really wouldn't make much sense if you want to look at how things function, the theory really brings everything inline with everything else.
i guess you could think of a painting the lines and structures are there processable, but like facts are just facts it isn't until you look at the picture and not the lines and pigment that makes the picture up that you see the image

just to add to this i realized that i should take about your numbered items

1.It doesn't matter wether or not I believe in evolution. I can go along my everyday life, and you're fine with it. When I die, I'm no worse of than you, other than I didn't believe the "truth".

science has nothing to do with the spiritual, whether you accept evolution has no bearing on anything unless you use your beliefs to enforce a non-science view in schools

2.It is important to promote (teaching or defending could be ways of promoting) evolution, even though it doesn't matter if we believe it or not, because you want the public to be informed of something that really doesn't effect them greatly.

the fact that evolution happened makes it a moot point, but people knowing that it happened means that people are less ignorent of the world
3.It's important to show people how wrong Creationists are, even though if they want to be a Creationist, then you're fine with it.

if they want to be a creationist thats fine, its when they lie about science being wrong when its not and turn people from a positive view of science that we will defend it
4.If creationists had their way, then much intellegence in the feild of science would be lost, so we have to close them out of it, in order to advance as humans.

we shouldn't close them out, but if they do become scientists they need to come with a mind-set that science is science if it follows the method even if it conflicts with thier beliefs
the problem with creationists as i see it, is the fact that most of them do not feel that there is any point to studying the world around us, other than in light of god - or to limit the studies to basic things and not try to dicect the mechanics ie: not play god

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 7:53 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 130 of 135 (342836)
08-23-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jaywill
08-23-2006 3:29 PM


The ever popular diagram of evolutionary progress, which has probably been seen by millions of students, shows ape like animals walking in a row and finally arriving at something we recognize as a human.

popular? maybe with people trying to present a distorted version of evolution still, science considers it more like a "tree" or "bush", the row thing is just wrong and old! like 50-100 years at least. if people are still presenting that in textbooks its not scientists

The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.

yes humans did come from apes, they STILL come from apes jay, humans ARE apes, so its kind of irrelevent to argue this ad nausum, what scientists have come up with is common ancesters between the current apes and monkeys - which includes the split between humans and other apes

The net effect of it is that humans came from apes, or something that the evolutionists have told the artists to make look like an ape. I don't think that that stretching the process over millions of mutations over millions of years dulls the essential impact of the concept. At some point you have apes and at another point you had humans. They are related by descent and reproduction.

but you keep recycling the same junk arguements that have been refuted a million times!, "in evolution they think an ape gave birth to a human!"
you make that arguement and we tell you, you are wrong but you claim you know what evolution is? come on man that just won't fly.

But it does seem perculiar to me that humans seem so much to be one of a kind. We seem to occupy a class alone. The dolphins and the chimps are wonderful. But there are still tremendous differences between them and humans.

no this is specisism, you think that humans are tremendously different because you are told we are, not that we really are. there are differences,but there are more things that are the same than not, pain ,love,sex,eatting,sleeping,friendship,etc - the only real things that seem to make us different are the things we force ourselves into, denying we are animals for instance, looking at being an animal as being a bad thing - i mean the very word is looked on as being bad and evil.
we look at all the technology science and such as something great, but really have we altered all that much? maybe a bit, less sickness, but the basic stuff other animals do we still do

Somehow Annafan, this doesn't do much for my sense of the "incredible coincidence" of life arising in the first place. I know that a mighty chorus will say "Evolution is not about origins". It use to be. I think they backed off from that. And Darwin did call his book "Origin" of Species.

i love this, evidence that he meant the book to be about the begining of life please?
you are mostly just playing sematics with the words, it says origin of speciecs not origins of life! he's writing about how species came about, not how life did. read the title ORIGIN of SPECIES

But aside from that I can't get much from rationals that reason that it is not all that much of a coincidence that energy organized itself and brought bacterias to one day transmutate into human beings. Arguments that its not that big of a deal probabalistically aren't too impressive to me.

well to most people, the probabilty is rather irrelevent to the ToE, why is the probability of life being 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 or more matter to a theory that doesn't cover it? i think you need to look elsewere for this answer because it doesn't have anything to do with ToE

Some of these arguments I call Pseudo Buddhist kinds of arguments. That is that there is an illusionary appearance of staggering coicindence. If you just look at it the right way it all seems pretty much what we'd expect. But we have nine or so other planets yelling that it didn't happen there.

what arguements? other than being that, abiogenesis isn't really fleshed out, what does this have to do with the ToE

We have no way of making a statistical comparison about probability until we find one more world where life is. Having found only one so far, what can dull the sense of great coincidence?

you need to realize that the probibity of life's existance is irrelevent to evolution, as far as biological evolution anyway, this has to do with chemestry or physics not biology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2006 3:29 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020