Where evolution is taught

[Valkhorn]

I should also note Project Steve. When Creationists were trying to get just 500 signatures of any scientist (including those who didn't know a thing about biology) to endorse Creationism or ID or to even go against Evolution (they were pretty loose about criteria) real scientists started project Steve.

Project Steve is a list of all legitimate peer-reviewed scientists who are named Steve or Steven who accept the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

They are already at 796 signatures.

From the NCSE Website:

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

So there goes your point there Doc.

[Augustus McRae]

Does "Steve" have track lighting in his home or apartment....?



I should also note Project Steve. When Creationists were trying to get just 500 signatures of any scientist (including those who didn't know a thing about biology) to endorse Creationism or ID or to even go against Evolution (they were pretty loose about criteria) real scientists started project Steve.

Project Steve is a list of all legitimate peer-reviewed scientists who are named Steve or Steven who accept the following statement:



They are already at 796 signatures.

From the NCSE Website:



So there goes your point there Doc.

[Valkhorn]

Does "Steve" have track lighting in his home or apartment....?

I don't know which ones do or don't, but if the NCSE can find 796 people named Steve who agree with Evolution, then it stands to reason that the claim that a majority of people who study Evolution don't agree with it is pretty much bogus.

[Augustus McRae]

That makes absolutely no empirical sense at all. I've tried to follow your posts on this subject and learn something. I think I'll "..inhale, exhale, and move on..."


I don't know which ones do or don't, but if the NCSE can find 796 people named Steve who agree with Evolution, then it stands to reason that the claim that a majority of people who study Evolution don't agree with it is pretty much bogus.

[Valkhorn]

That makes absolutely no empirical sense at all. I've tried to follow your posts on this subject and learn something. I think I'll "..inhale, exhale, and move on..."

Evolution is a complicated subject and is not for the faint of heart. That is why I don't appreciate those who criticize it without even knowing anything about it :)

And, my statement does make sense because there are tens of thousands of scientists out there who agree with the NCSE's stance that Evolution is a fact and a theory, and is very well supported.

Evolution requires lots of critical thinking and questioning and research in order to understand it - just like any real science.

Like I said, it is not for the faint of heart - but learning about it can be very rewarding.

[Valkhorn]

Gould, S. J. (1975). Darwin's "Big Book." Science, 188, 824-824.

Gould, S. J. (1977). Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gould, S.J. (1989). Wonderful life. New York: Norton.

Gould, S.J. (1996). Full house. New York: Harmony Books.

But what context? Also two of them are from the mid 70s and the two others appear to not even be peer-reviewed scientific papers.

If you are going to call me out and name drop, please use the names properly.

I did. I researched them under those names and found plenty of peer-reviewed papers using those terms which I used. No matter, the spellings do not matter as much as the meanings - which you are not clear on.


Also, one major red herring in the entire field is the fact that the fossil record is incomplete. How many times do we see revisions in what was considered "fact?" For example, just this week researchers claim that the T-Rex was probably much more closely "related" to the modern day chicken than any reptile. Yet 25 years ago, my grade school teacher present reptile ancestory of the dinosaurs as scientific fact.

That is not a red herring. The fossil record will never be complete as fossils are hard to come by. However you can have sufficient evidence to know whether or not something happened - if not forensics would be nonexistent.
If you have enough evidence to point to a specific conclusion - namely the evolution of organisms - it is logical enough to conclude that it is far more likely to be so than it would be to be unlikely. In fact, it reaches a realm of probability with current evidence that it is very very very likely. The evidence which is uncovered every day keeps making it more likely.

And the work of Dawkins really doesn't strengthen the claim that evolution consistutes scientific fact.

Actually it does. He is a very good evolutionary biologist. I recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" as a good read.

Most of Dawkins' work was inteded to better interpret and describe human genetic material.

Genetics is a measurable foundation of Evolution. Of course he'll spend a lot of time on that, that is where Evolution has the strongest support.

He used the analogies "blueprints" and "recipes" to describe development.

Because Evolution keeps things that work, it keeps 'blueprints' and 'designs' that aren't naturally selected out. And, these 'designs' happen through evolution and natural selection - and do not require divine intervention to occur in a natural process.

Now while this lead to a neat discussion about which genetic material can be said to contain information

Oh boy, the 'information' argument. Do you not realize that no creationist has ever been able to define what information is and what it isn't? Just like no ID can tell you what is design and what isn't?

I see a pattern there... *cough* If you don't know, therefore God...

That is not science.

, this type of work sheds little light on the veracity of evolution as a theory from a historical standpoint.

Keep going.

Why? Because genetic materials do not include the genetic materials of all those other organisms that did not survive.

They do to a point. They share genetics with all those who were a common ancestry. Animals that don't survive had parents who shared a majority of genes with those that didn't survive. Genes aren't completely rewritten from generation to generation. You don't give birth to a pineapple. Genes are slightly altered from generation from generation.

They also provide limited information about the eventual structure of an organism because they're recipes for the production of proteins rather than blueprints for body parts.

Body parts are the end result of proteins. Proteins build tissue. Tissue builds organs. Organs and organ systems (in an indirect way) build body parts. Why do you think we share arms and legs with so many other organisms? Why do you think Pandas have thumbs? Why do you think Whales have finger bones?

Neat and definately fodder for discussion at swank college faculty parties, but not very solid when trying to employ as a defense for the credibility of evolution.

Ah, the Ivory Tower defense. That doesn't even refute my arguments showing that Evolution is a fact.

Time for actual citations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I suggest all of those as a primer to Evolution. Those are written by scientists in the field, not people with an agenda (read: creationists).

[Valkhorn]

This explains much. I often get into these types of circular arguments with people who do not consult primary sources.

But you weren't consulting primary sources.

And I love the implication throughout many of your posts that believers are ignorant backwoods rednecks who could never possibly understand the deep interworkings of science as someone such as yourself does.

I never said that. I mentioned in several posts that there are believers who accept Evolution. Did you gloss over that?

Thanks, but my South Beach pizza is getting cold. Have a wonderful day. I'm going to give my simple Bible thumping mind a rest.

So in other words you had no scientific debate - only a religious one.

[Valkhorn]

Augustus McRae disagrees: pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

So tell us why you disagree. Simply saying 'please' is not a valid argument there.

[Augustus McRae]

I do NOT disagree with all the points you purported - although it is, admittedly, quite difficult to "wade through" all of it. I fully believe that evolution within the species is an indisputable fact of science. One of my degrees is in Biology, and I taught it for many years. For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY scientists, good religious people, or anyone else for that matter HAS this debate (?) about creationism and evolution. I do NOT think they are in conflict. I do NOT think evolution - in it's pure or it's narrow form or framework - refutes the existence of God or refutes God role in "creating." I see little need, thus, for the "debate."

My "...pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease..." was, quite honestly in reference to your comments which I took as implying a debate and topic of such depth was limited to "thinkers" of some gravitas. I found that "off-putting" - just to be honest.



So tell us why you disagree. Simply saying 'please' is not a valid argument there.

[Valkhorn]

I do NOT disagree with all the points you purported - although it is, admittedly, quite difficult to "wade through" all of it. I fully believe that evolution within the species is an indisputable fact of science. One of my degrees is in Biology, and I taught it for many years. For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY scientists, good religious people, or anyone else for that matters HAS this debate (?) about creationism and evolution. I do NOT think they are in conflict. I do NOT think evolution - in it's pure or it's narrow form or framework - refutes the existence of God or refutes God role in "creating." I see little need, thus, for the "debate."

Evolution has got nothing to do with god though - all science has nothing to do with god, all science is naturalistic. That is why many people of different faiths (and none) accept evolution.

The reason why we have this debate about creationism and evolution is because creationism is not science. It is a 500 year old idea that is not supported by any evidence. And, it doesn't belong in a science class.

That is why the debate is important.

There are even places where they try to change the very definition of science just to wedge creationism in (like Kansas). Science standards are in jeopardy because of this, and I think

Plus if we let science standards fall behind other countries will take our place and will be more than happy to. I'm sure India and China aren't very upset over us lowering our science standards so they can take over. And, not only that, but the lower our standards are the worse our economy will be in the future.

My "...pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease..." was, quite honestly in reference to your comments which I took as implying a debate and topic of such depth was limited to "thinkers" of some gravitas. I found that "off-putting" - just to be honest.

I think it does require serious thought - because without serious thought and when we're asleep at the wheel we let things like this happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Augustus McRae]

You know, the truth is there is no such thing as "open debate." That is a contradiction in terms. So there actually is no debate. There is no real "research" on this matter. There are "schools of thoughts" or "camps" engaged in touting their own positions. That's fine, I respect it.

I respectfully disagree with much of this post. To say that "...all science has nothing to do with God...." implies that science "refutes" the existence or involvement of God. That is not empirical and " not supported by evidence." It is supposition.

I don't think there is a debate, and I do not think it requires - nor merits - serious thought. If I did, I can assure you I would "think seriously" about it.

You don't own any handguns, do you?



Evolution has got nothing to do with god though - all science has nothing to do with god, all science is naturalistic. That is why many people of different faiths (and none) accept evolution.

The reason why we have this debate about creationism and evolution is because creationism is not science. It is a 500 year old idea that is not supported by any evidence. And, it doesn't belong in a science class.

That is why the debate is important.

There are even places where they try to change the very definition of science just to wedge creationism in (like Kansas). Science standards are in jeopardy because of this, and I think

Plus if we let science standards fall behind other countries will take our place and will be more than happy to. I'm sure India and China aren't very upset over us lowering our science standards so they can take over. And, not only that, but the lower our standards are the worse our economy will be in the future.



I think it does require serious thought - because without serious thought and when we're asleep at the wheel we let things like this happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[aaron]

I'm just going to quote Dilbert here:


Sometimes a scientific fact is falsified by newer and better science. That’s how science works. So while we assume it is rare, a scientific fact can be false in reality, especially in the short run.


Thinkers through the centuries have pointed out that human brains are not suited for interpreting reality. Our five senses can detect only a few forms of energy fluctuations in our general vicinity, and every person interprets the same inputs differently. If ten people witness a crime, you can end up with ten different descriptions of what happened.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Truth is unavailable. Hallucinations fill the void.

[Augustus McRae]

I'm just going to quote Dilbert here:

I miss the Dilbert cartoons. Are they still in some newspapers? Where can I find them?

[aaron]

http://www.dilbert.com/

I got the above from dilbertblog.typepad.com

[Valkhorn]

You know, the truth is there is no such thing as "open debate."

I disagree entirely. If both sides are open to change then there is one. Open debates happen all the time in science, if they didn't nothing would ever get done.

There is no real "research" on this matter. There are "schools of thoughts" or "camps" engaged in touting their own positions. That's fine, I respect it.

This is simply not true. There is PLENTY of research into Evolution and Evolutionary biology. Have you ever read Nature?

I respectfully disagree with much of this post. To say that "...all science has nothing to do with God...." implies that science "refutes" the existence or involvement of God. That is not empirical and " not supported by evidence." It is supposition.

No. It is because science has to be explained naturalistically. As Steven Gould put it, its 'Not Our Magisteria'. If you insert a miracle this is what you get:

http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Heroes/miracle.jpg


I don't think there is a debate, and I do not think it requires - nor merits - serious thought. If I did, I can assure you I would "think seriously" about it.

Then you aren't well aware of what's going on here. If you simply read and understand the wedge document, the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, seen the lectures put forward by Ken Miller, or even read or heard what the NCSE has to say about this then you don't know what is at stake.

You don't own any handguns, do you?

What has that got to do with anything? No I do not - can you try to debate on the issues?

[SoMissTV]

If you insert a miracle you get an editorial cartoon?

[Valkhorn]

Sometimes a scientific fact is falsified by newer and better science. That’s how science works. So while we assume it is rare, a scientific fact can be false in reality, especially in the short run.

Thinkers through the centuries have pointed out that human brains are not suited for interpreting reality. Our five senses can detect only a few forms of energy fluctuations in our general vicinity, and every person interprets the same inputs differently. If ten people witness a crime, you can end up with ten different descriptions of what happened.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Truth is unavailable. Hallucinations fill the void.A Dilbert quote isn't exactly a scientific argument there, Aaron.

Let's try something actually on target:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory" (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html); Discover, May 1981

[Valkhorn]

If you insert a miracle you get an editorial cartoon?

If you insert a miracle you explain everything and explain nothing at the same time.

[SoMissTV]

If you insert a miracle you explain everything and explain nothing at the same time.

Ah, much like this thread.

[aaron]

A Dilbert quote isn't exactly a scientific argument there, Aaron.


Ohh, I see, we're debating a "scientific fact" based on the same scientific rules that created it. Yeah, it will always be true.

[Augustus McRae]

Now why would I want to "debate" on an issue which I don't see as requiring or meriting "debate?" I have been trying to nicely get you to see that you - obviously a bright person - are coming across as a condescending, pseudo-intellectual jackass in some of these posts. Debaters, even fierce competitors on the honorable field of exchange, approach each other with respect and due homage. You are approaching this discussion from a position of intellectual superiority. That is part of the "learning curve" here at MyH. Quite honestly, I had to "learn better" as have many of us here to some degree. Others have not. You grossly understatement these people here, my friend, and, in so doing, lose your credibility as a genuine "open debater" and rather appear to be an "ax-grinding zealot."

I wish you well in your pursuit here - whatever that may be. These are good people. It takes a while to glean persona in a medium like this one. I encourage you to "be you" but be the best you in presenting your ideas and thoughts as "yours" and not as truth - we are all still in search of that, you know!

Inhale, exhale, move on....



I disagree entirely. If both sides are open to change then there is one. Open debates happen all the time in science, if they didn't nothing would ever get done.



This is simply not true. There is PLENTY of research into Evolution and Evolutionary biology. Have you ever read Nature?



No. It is because science has to be explained naturalistically. As Steven Gould put it, its 'Not Our Magisteria'. If you insert a miracle this is what you get:

http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Heroes/miracle.jpg




Then you aren't well aware of what's going on here. If you simply read and understand the wedge document, the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, seen the lectures put forward by Ken Miller, or even read or heard what the NCSE has to say about this then you don't know what is at stake.



What has that got to do with anything? No I do not - can you try to debate on the issues?

[Valkhorn]

Ah, much like this thread.

Well I have provided plenty of sources to read up on the subject. Like I said, it encompasses a lot of stuff and it's worth a read. Not only is there Darwin's book, but any book by Gould or Dawkins is a good start - or by Ernst Mayr. I saw one of his books in BAM the other day.

The thing I don't get is the religious objection to it. I'm not religious now but I once was - and even when I was a hardcore bible thumping Christian I still accepted evolution because the facts were so obvious.

[SoMissTV]

I have been trying to nicely get you to see that you - obviously a bright person - are coming across as a condescending, pseudo-intellectual jackass in some of these posts.

I disagree, Gus. I have not found one post by Valkhorn to be offensive. He has asked for evidence which cannot necessarily be provided, due to the nature of the positions taken.

This is how debate should occur.

[SoMissTV]

Well I have provided plenty of sources to read up on the subject. Like I said, it encompasses a lot of stuff and it's worth a read. Not only is there Darwin's book, but any book by Gould or Dawkins is a good start - or by Ernst Mayr. I saw one of his books in BAM the other day.

The thing I don't get is the religious objection to it. I'm not religious now but I once was - and even when I was a hardcore bible thumping Christian I still accepted evolution because the facts were so obvious.

Don't mistake a snide comment as a debate position. :)

[Valkhorn]

Ohh, I see, we're debating a "scientific fact" based on the same scientific rules that created it. Yeah, it will always be true.

Science has done a lot for us. It's put us on the freaking moon. It's given us the lightbulb. It's given us Tang. Heck, check out this poster:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/R-ScienceDiscov.jpg

If you know of a better process that gives us a longer list, by all means say so. But I'm sure Dilbert isn't the process.

[Augustus McRae]

I can always count on you to straighten me out. Gee, I'm thankful!


I disagree, Gus. I have not found one post by Valkhorn to be offensive. He has asked for evidence which cannot necessarily be provided, due to the nature of the positions taken.

This is how debate should occur.

[Valkhorn]

Don't mistake a snide comment as a debate position.

Gotcha :)

[Valkhorn]

I disagree, Gus. I have not found one post by Valkhorn to be offensive. He has asked for evidence which cannot necessarily be provided, due to the nature of the positions taken.

Thank you.

[SoMissTV]

I can always count on you to straighten me out. Gee, I'm thankful!

Thank you for the kind words. It's nice to know that I can help you out, although I would hope that at your age, you wouldn't need it as much.

[SoMissTV]

Thank you.

You're welcome, but in the future you can use the "Thanks" button on the post to thank a person without having to write a post to that effect.

It's the small features like that which make myhattiesburg a great place!

[SoMissTV]

Science has done a lot for us. It's put us on the freaking moon. It's given us the lightbulb. It's given us Tang.

However, these are all occurrences that you have come to believe without having the firsthand experience of them. How can you be certain that this is, in fact, the case?

After all, you hold the position that you have no faith, and that you cannot trust things that people tell you.

[Valkhorn]

However, these are all occurrences that you have come to believe without having the firsthand experience of them. How can you be certain that this is, in fact, the case?Ah, now we're getting into existentialist philosophy - which isn't science. Some people would argue that nothing is real, some people argue that everything is a figment of your imagination. But philosophy isn't really science so I don't debate in that realm.

Philosophy to me is like a rocking chair - something to do but doesn't get you anywhere.

After all, you hold the position that you have no faith, and that you cannot trust things that people tell you.Well I don't accept what people tell me without something to back it up. Just like Evolution - I didn't accept it until I saw the facts and researched it. Well in practice anyways - some riff raff does tend to get through here and there but I try to keep that to a minimum :P

[Valkhorn]

You're welcome, but in the future you can use the "Thanks" button on the post to thank a person without having to write a post to that effect.

It's the small features like that which make myhattiesburg a great place!

DOH

[Valkhorn]

However, these are all occurrences that you have come to believe without having the firsthand experience of them.

Forgot to comment on that - because there is a mirror on the moon that we can use to determine the distance from the surface of the Earth to the moon at any given time that was put by us. (That's just one small fact). Because I can see Tang in the store. Because I use lightbulbs. (And those energy saving flourescents are neat)

[SoMissTV]

because there is a mirror on the moon that we can use to determine the distance from the surface of the Earth to the moon at any given time that was put by us. (That's just one small fact).

I take it that you have not, in fact, seen this mirror. This is just something that someone has told you.

Whether you admit it or not, you already take certain assertions as fact without researching them or seeking out firsthand proof of their existence or occurrence. This is a form of faith.

For you to say you have no faith is inaccurate by this measure.

[SoMissTV]

Ah, now we're getting into existentialist philosophy - which isn't science.

And you're the one who originally opened this can by stating that you have no faith and only trust facts that you can verify. My point is that even science has to use faith; faith that your research partner is following a scientific method, faith that the gravitational constant hasn't changed, faith that previous scientific theories are credible.

[Valkhorn]

I take it that you have not, in fact, seen this mirror. This is just something that someone has told you.

I have also not seen Earth 400 million years ago. But I have seen the fossils and rock layers of life that existed that long ago. I know that the radiometric dating which is used is based off of the same laws that hold the atoms in my body together. I also know Evolution is true by the body of evidence which supports it.

Whether you admit it or not, you already take certain assertions as fact without researching them or seeking out firsthand proof of their existence or occurrence. This is a form of faith.

No. I do not blindly accept what someone says to be true. Now if they are an expert in their field and with a proven track record I may agree but I still want to look at their evidence or what they have to support their claim. Just like with Geology, if someone has dug in the ground for 30 years and published peer-reviewed works it is reasonable to conclude that they know what they are talking about. And that doesn't mean I dont try to read what they publish or talk to them about it - I love doing that.

But to put that in the column of faith is quite absurd because if you do that, you could paint everything with that brush. Nothing is 100% certain, but with enough facts you can certainly be 99%. And, that is a good enough number to live by.

I mean really you could put the faith argument on yourself. How do you know your eyes work? How do you know that without touching it it isn't real? How do you know unless you smell it it isn't real? How do you know without fornicating with it it isn't real? (OK I threw that one in there as a joke but you get the idea).

The thing is, you can easily be 99% sure if it works. If it makes predictions which verify or if it produces results.

You could argue that the entire universe is some sort of protoplasm imagined in the mind of a policeman in Denver and no one may be able to ever refute you - because it might be irrefutable. However either way its trivial because we know enough about the laws of the universe to send rovers to Mars and to slingshot space probes around several planets with an alarming degree of accuracy.

I know where you're going with this argument ("How can we know anything?") but arguing ad asertium or ad infinitum is rather silly and gets us nowhere.

For you to say you have no faith is inaccurate by this measure.

Not entirely no. I have no faith in anything supernatural or which isn't real. I'm not sure where I have said "I have faith in nothing!" so if you can point it out I'd be more than happy to address it.

[SoMissTV]

I'm not sure where I have said "I have faith in nothing!" so if you can point it out I'd be more than happy to address it.

Well, you said it here:

I do not have faith :)

My point is that this is an inaccurate statement. You must have faith in order to exist in this life of chaos. You may not have faith in the same things as many others on this forum, but you DO have faith.

[Valkhorn]

My point is that this is an inaccurate statement. You must have faith in order to exist in this life of chaos. You may not have faith in the same things as many others on this forum, but you DO have faith.

Thanks for finding that for me. I hope you realized what I meant. I have zero faith in anything supernatural - and as far as faith in people its based on whatever facts they reason from.

I try to steer clear of superstition as much as I can, you know.

By the way, for all you lurkers out there in mh land, I debate this stuff all the time at this massive Christian forum section:

http://www.christianforums.com/f70

Plenty of well qualified people there if anyone wishes to debate there.

[amanda]

My head is spinning......

:exit2:

[aaron]

You're welcome, but in the future you can use the "Thanks" button on the post to thank a person without having to write a post to that effect.

It's the small features like that which make myhattiesburg a great place!

By the way, I as the creator, added this feature. Of course, if you ask that pompous forum software, it'll say it evolved to this after thousands of people replying to threads with just a thanks.

[wilebill]

We have food in our refrigerator that regularly evolves into algae and other lower fungal forms of life. I guess, then, that it actually devolves.

[Valkhorn]

I once forgot to put my groceries away fast enough and before I knew it, my milk, eggs, flour, yeast, sugar, etc. had evolved into a cake. And it was not even a cake I could have on my diet.

This is not evolution. This is not how evolution works. The tornado in a junkyard analogy is a strawman argument:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/evolution-improb.html

Anti-evolutionists give the "junkyard forming 741 in a tornado" argument to prove that evolution couldn't have occurred. But evolution doesn't say that living things just jumped together like that. Living things gradually developed bit by bit. A 747 wouldn't pull together bit by bit in a tornado in a junkyard, but that's the misleading thing about the analogy-metal doesn't act as carbon compounds do. An organic molecule or living thing made of organic molecules, based on carbon compounds, would gradually change, through random mutation guided by non-random natural selection. Natural selection is the tendency to survive and reproduce due to having the right characteristics. There is no "circular reasoning" here. Survival and reproduction are the result, not the definition, of fitness. "It is a favored argument of creationists to calculate the statistical probability of the molecules necessary for life (say the formation of DNA) arising spontaneously in a primeval biological soup. The chances are next to zero..... But they misunderstood the process of evolution by natural selection." "Adding natural selection to random molecular events imposes order and law. The combination of chance modifications plus the filtering effect of natural selection produces a genuinely creative system that allows new and novel properties to emerge." (Blackmore & Page, 1989, pp. 178, 179, 181) The way the term "natural selection" is used may sound as if it is a conscious force, but that is just a misleading interpretation of its meaning; natural selection is an unconscious process working inanimately.


Carbon is an atom that naturally and readily forms chains into other compounds, including the protein sequences that make the DNA-RNA molecules that male up living things on earth. Anti-evolutionists grossly misstate the difficulty of these compounds forming in nature. They are wrong in their assumption that all possible combinations of atoms must be included in calculations of probability of this. Only successful combinations need be considered. No matter how many unsuccessful chains develop, enough successful ones could develop that could take additional carbon compounds into themselves (eating), give off the residue of these mixes (defecation) and make copies of themselves (reproduction). The successful ones would continue on and build themselves up.


"Because of internal chemical restrictions (certain chemical bonds are easier to form than others) and because certain intermediate structures are more stable than others, there may well have been a sort of 'natural selection' occurring even at the molecular level The result is that quite complex chemical structures necessary for life are far more readily formed than chance alone would suggest. The odds against the sudden yet complete, formation of a DNA molecule are greater than the atoms in the universe. Yet in the early days of the earth's history, simple building blocks may have occurred not just once but many times. The route from these sub-units to the final DNA is still shrouded in mystery. But ignorance is insufficient reason for us to plead impossibility." (Blackmore & Page, pp. 181-182)

[Valkhorn]

By the way, I as the creator, added this feature. Of course, if you ask that pompous forum software, it'll say it evolved to this after thousands of people replying to threads with just a thanks.

This is also not how evolution works. Your forum software doesn't replicate itself.

The biggest proponents against Evolution do not even know what it is.

[Valkhorn]

[Just a refresher course for some of you]

What is evolution?

Biological evolution is the change in a population or species' inherited traits from generation to generation.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

What are examples of evolution?

Humans becoming taller
Humans sharing common ancestry with all great apes
Birds and Dinosaurs share a common ancestor
Evolution is a tree of life
Evolution is descent with modification
Two populations of the same species become separated over a long time so that changes between each one cause them to speciate
Lactose Intolerance
The Nylon Bug - a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste.
Endogenous Retro Viruses - retroviruses derived from ancient infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and as such now remain in the genome
Some species becoming extinct while others remainThis is NOT evolution:

The Big Bang - it is valid and accurate but is not biological evolution
Abiogenesis - the origin of life, good theory but is not biological evolution
A bunch of parts are thrown together to make an animal
A monkey giving birth to a pineapple
A species growing 4 new arms and an extra head in one generation
An individual evolving (remember, populations evolve, not individuals) - which includes a baby growing up to become a tree
Body parts choosing to become arms or a heart or a foot
Organisms choosing to evolve whatever they want in a single lifetime
Social darwinism - yes this is NOT biological evolution
The Holocaust/Nazi Germany or any form of genocide
A rock changing into a whale
Evolution is not a single line of life
Evolution has no goal except survival and reproductionAny questions?

(thanks to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and http://www.christianforums.com/f70)

And yes, I've heard creationists use every single argument against evolution in the 'what is not evolution' part. For shame...

[wilebill]

This is NOT evolution:

A rock changing into a whale
What about a whale changing into a bowl of petunias? I saw that in a movie once and couldn't quite figure out what they were trying to say.

[Valkhorn]

What about a whale changing into a bowl of petunias? I saw that in a movie once and couldn't quite figure out what they were trying to say.

Wonder if it was the same director who did Magnolia - I couldn't stand that movie :P

[SoMissTV]

What about a whale changing into a bowl of petunias? I saw that in a movie once and couldn't quite figure out what they were trying to say.

You beat me to it!

[aaron]

This is also not how evolution works. Your forum software doesn't replicate itself.

The biggest proponents against Evolution do not even know what it is.

You don't know your proponents either, since the Bible frequently puts God in the equation of child birth. A child can't be born without God and is a gift from God. Since I've already read "On the Origin of Species", please read the Bible before replying again so that we can have an educated debate on the subject.

[Valkhorn]

You don't know your proponents either, since the Bible frequently puts God in the equation of child birth. A child can't be born without God and is a gift from God. Since I've already read "On the Origin of Species", please read the Bible before replying again so that we can have an educated debate on the subject.Again, you do not know anything about Evolution.

Have you read ANY of the work that has been done in the last 160 years regarding it? It has changed a lot since Darwin (and I said this about 4 or 5 pages back)

And why are you sticking God into this? This is a science debate, not dueling scriptures.

This just proves my point even more that the ONLY debate against Evolution is a religious one and not a scientific one. If it isn't, by all means Aaron give us actual science and don't try to throw the Bible and Dilbert into a scientific discussion.

[aaron]

Again, you do not know anything about Evolution.

Have you read ANY of the work that has been done in the last 160 years regarding it? It has changed a lot since Darwin (and I said this about 4 or 5 pages back)

And why are you sticking God into this? This is a science debate, not dueling scriptures.

This just proves my point even more that the ONLY debate against Evolution is a religious one and not a scientific one.

Have you noticed what forum this is? The is an evolution debate about it's religious implications. Now, I realize that the Bible is 10 times older than Darwin's book, but we still regard it as fact. It, unlike science, does not change from year to year. It was fact 2000 years ago, and it's still fact today. Please read and get back to the discussion as soon as possible. By the way, I didn't stick God into this, he stuck me into it. I'll be here for a short while, then I'll move on. I'm crossing my fingers it'll be long enough for you to read the book, which is the foundation of the people you debate.

[Valkhorn]

Have you noticed what forum this is? The is an evolution debate about it's religious implications.Evolution has nothing to do with religion.


Now, I realize that the Bible is 10 times older than Darwin's book, but we still regard it as fact. No we do not. We know there was no global flood. We know the Earth is not 6000 years old. We know insects do not have 4 legs. We know that Pi does not equal 3.

Please get back on topic.


It, unlike science, does not change from year to year.That is NOT a good thing. When new evidence comes into study, theories MUST change to agree with new evidence. The Bible has not done this.

We have discovered the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old - but we don't change a 5000 year old creation myth. We discover there to have been NO global flood - yet you still cling to a 5000 year old myth.

It was fact 2000 years ago, and it's still fact today. That is not true, and you know it.

Save that for another thread if you wish this debate to stay on topic.

Please read and get back to the discussion as soon as possible. You haven't read a single post of mine, have you?


By the way, I didn't stick God into this, he stuck me into it.No you stuck god into it. We were discussing the scientific ramifications of Evolution - not whether it agrees with Wotan or Hera, or the JuJu up the Mountain.

I'll be here for a short while, then I'll move on.Maybe it'll actually get back on topic?

I'm crossing my fingers it'll be long enough for you to read the book, which is the foundation of the people you debate.I have already read the Bible.

------- Rant time ------------

Look, Evolution is science, and science has nothing to do with God. It cannot and does not say one way or the other whether it exists. I have stated this in multiple posts WITH CITATIONS, and all you have to offer is empty rhetoric.

You have not given one citation, or one rebuttal to any of the more than valid claims I have made in this thread.

I have asked you three times now for any non-religious opposition to Evolution. You have offered none.

The best you can do is "I don't like it because my Bible says so". Well guess what - the Bible was written a long time ago by fallible men and has been translated and retranslated many times.

The idea of biological descent through modification has got zilch to do with the Bible - and if you want to actually debate this with people that are even more qualified than me I can take you somewhere where you will get your butt handed on a platter.

I have talked to people like you many times and not ONCE have I ever heard a logical argument against Evolution that was a) scientific b) anything besides my bible said so or c) an argument that has already been refuted a thousand times (or a PRATT) or d) a strawman argument against Evolution.

I've given you links.
I've given you sources.
I've given you adequate debate.
I've given you as much patience as I can.

But why is it you refuse to offer a valid argument?

Why is it the best you can do is "jesus told me to do it".

Good look getting that published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Oh and by the way...

How do you explain millions of people who have no problem accepting their faith and Evolution?

[EricStratton]

I like your spunk Valkhorn...I think you must be doin' some serious uppers to keep this pace....But, I like your spunk.

[Valkhorn]

I like your spunk Valkhorn...I think you must be doin' some serious uppers to keep this pace....But, I like your spunk.

Haha thanks. I'm used to debating this sort of... stuff before.

Oh and by the way, Aaron, TheDoc, etc. who might be religious - you might do well to watch this on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

It is a 2 hour discussion (1 hour lecture, 1 hour questions) given by Kenneth Miller - a man who is religious and actually writes textbooks on Biology and Evolution.

[zorro]

Wow!

I go away for a little over 24 hours and some rabid atheistic evolutionist comes along and posts 60 posts!

60 posts in a little over 24 hours. And we aren't talking about forum games posts either. This is rather impressive. In fact, it's got to be some type of MH.com record.

I can't even begin to read all of these now, but since I didn't know what a Valkhorn was, I did a google search and I found the following link about our pedantic newcomer:

http://www.christianforums.com/~valkhorn

No big surprises. He is an admiitted atheist and his worldview is atheistic evolution. In a few days he will be 26 whole years old, and he is single. And he loves to argue against anything remotely Christian. Why else would he have so many posts on a Christian forum? If he posts 50-60 posts per day here, he'll pass jmb's post total easily in less than a year.

I won't have time to address all of his inaccuracies, but as my time allows, I'll try to hit some of the high points. I know that he'll never give an inch though (unless, of course, the Holy Spirit changes his heart). He can't afford to do so.

I'll be posting from a Christian Theistic worldview, but this should come as no surprise.

[wilebill]

And Zorro weighs in!

In a rather disappointing manner, I might add. :confused:

[SoMissTV]

Let the games begin!

[EricStratton]

Whoa, daddy! We got ourselves a real wing dinger here! I'm gettin' butterflies! Ali/Frazier, Leonard/Duran, Tyson/Holifield......Zorro/Valkhorn! LET'S GET IT ON!!!

[Valkhorn]

I'll watch it...now how about you read the New Testament? And if you claim to have already read it, read it again

No thank you. Read my other post in the other thread and quit trying to convert me.

Religious conversion is the biggest thing that puts people off of Christianity. My soul (if I even believed I had one) is just fine the way it is and I was born ok the first time.

[zorro]

I have also argued for many years against ID and Creationism
ID is short for Intelligent Design.

Atheists fight against this with all they have, because in their heart of hearts, they know it is true. What they fear is that you know that it is true too.

A few years ago, a TV talk show host had a Christian guest on his show. The TV talk show host was not known to be a friend of Christianity, and frequently liked to make jokes about it. It was obvious that the Christian had been invited on the show so that some jokes would be made at his expense.

Well, when the guest sat down, the host asked him what he had been doing lately, and the guest said that he had recently visited South Dakota for the first time and that near Keystone, SD, he had seen a mountain that, believe it or not, had the images of 4 faces on it which remarkably looked like the faces of 4 presidents. He named the 4 presidents whose faces were in the side of the mountain, and then stated that it was the most unbelievable thing that he had ever seen. He said that it was absolutely amazing how wind, rain, ice, and erosion had caused the formation of those images in the side of the mountain. And for all the world, the guest looked like he was as serious about this as he could be.

In fact, the talk show host started laughing and he began saying, "you're not really serious, are you?" repeatedly. The guest insisted that he was absolutely serious in this belief, and the talk show host nearly fell out of his chair laughing and finally exclaimed "That is the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard! To think that those 4 faces just happened there as a result of the chance effects of wind, rain, ice erosion, etc is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd!"

The Christian guest replied, "Then, why do people see real living human faces all the time, intricately more complex and wonderful than these crude images on the side of a mountain, and say that these living human faces just happened as a result of chance?"

Atheists see a belief in God as being foolish; God, on the other hand, proclaims that it is the atheist who, in reality, is the fool (see Psalm 14:1).

[Valkhorn]

Wow!

I go away for a little over 24 hours and some rabid atheistic evolutionist comes along and posts 60 posts!I've been busy :)

60 posts in a little over 24 hours. And we aren't talking about forum games posts either. This is rather impressive. In fact, it's got to be some type of MH.com record.Not really. I'm a very fast typer and I know the subject very well. I've done more than this on other forums before.

I can't even begin to read all of these now, but since I didn't know what a Valkhorn was, I did a google search and I found the following link about our pedantic newcomer:

http://www.christianforums.com/~valkhorn (http://www.christianforums.com/%7Evalkhorn)

Exactly. 2500 posts there and plenty of very good ones. Look at my reputation there. And why don't you post there to see what kind of person I am?

In fact I bet dollars to donuts if you even try to post in the Creation vs. Evolution forum you will get your butt handed to you.

No big surprises. He is an admiitted atheist and his worldview is atheistic evolution.

Irrelavent.

Should I repeat this?

Millions of people of all faiths have no trouble accepting Evolution.

In a few days he will be 26 whole years old, and he is single.

More ad hominem attacks. The debate is about Evolution. If you cannot argue against it, then you have lost the debate.

It's fine with me if you want to surrender.

And he loves to argue against anything remotely Christian.

That's only a side point. I like to debate it. Big deal.

This has NOTHING to do with Evolution though - and that is the topic of the thread.

Why else would he have so many posts on a Christian forum?

Have you been to the creation vs. evolution forum? It is a great place to discuss Evolution with people of all faiths - and guess what...

CHRISTIANS THERE ACCEPT EVOLUTION.

If he posts 50-60 posts per day here, he'll pass jmb's post total easily in less than a year.

That is if I stay... now can you get on topic?

I won't have time to address all of his inaccuracies, but as my time allows, I'll try to hit some of the high points. I know that he'll never give an inch though (unless, of course, the Holy Spirit changes his heart). He can't afford to do so.


Be my guest. In fact I'll do an official written formal debate here if you'd like.



I'll be posting from a Christian Theistic worldview, but this should come as no surprise.

But you won't include Theistic Evolution. Now why is that?

[EricStratton]

Z comes out swingin' from the right.

[EricStratton]

V counters with some quick, snippy jabs.

[zorro]

Perhaps, the following illustration may be helpful.

Draw a square. Put the words "tabula rasa" in the square. These words are Latin for "clean slate". The square is going to represent a person's mind. Now draw an arrow into the square from above. At the top of the arrow, put the words "data or facts". On the left side of the square, draw another arrow pointing into the square and to the left of this arrow, put the words "rules of logic". Now on the right side of the square, draw a line coming OUT of the square and pointing to the word "deductions"; then draw a line going up from this word and eventually pointing back to the words "data or facts". Now, draw an arrow coming out from the bottom of the square and pointing downward to the word "conclusion".

OK, have you drawn this. As noted above, the square above represents a person's mind. Going into that mind are certain data or facts. In addition, to manage these data or facts, there are certain rules of logic that the mind uses. When it does so, it comes to certain deductions, which are themselves considered further data or factual information, and this goes back into the mind for further consideration, and finally a conclusion about a matter will be reached. Do you understand the picture or diagram that I am trying to convey here?

If so, then we come to this question: Why do 2 people with the same data or facts, and using the same rules of logic come to different conclusions? In fact, is it possible to have people using the same facts and the same rules of logic to come to different conclusions? For example, why do Z and V in the case of the origin of man come to different conclusions if we are using the same facts and rules of logic?

Well, if the diagram that I had us draw was all there was to consider in the process of thinking, then both Z and V would come to the same conclusion. BUT, it is obvious that we do not. What needs to be added to the diagram for us to come to such radically different conclusions?

Draw a diagonal line with an arrow coming into the top of the square from the left side, and at the top of this arrow put the words "presuppositions or faith".

Everybody has "presuppositions"; everybody has a faith that they use to filter how they see the world in which they live. This faith, or these most basic presuppositions, are like wearing colored glasses that effect the color of everything that you see. And it certainly effects the way that you think.

If your basic presuppostion is naturalistic, then nothing supernatural can even be considered. If you basic presuppostion is atheistic, then nothing that points to Theism can be considered.

And to pretend that you don't have a faith or a bias, to say that you are neutral regarding the facts or data, is simply being dishonest or ignorant.

[Valkhorn]

ID is short for Intelligent Design.

Which is not science.

Atheists fight against this with all they have, because in their heart of hearts, they know it is true. What they fear is that you know that it is true too.

ID has not posted any scientific research. Nor have they produced any peer-reviewed papers.

They have no experiments and no way to test for what they call design. Plus all of their arguments have been thoroughly refuted.

I will cite sources if you wish.

A few years ago, a TV talk show host had a Christian guest on his show. The TV talk show host was not known to be a friend of Christianity, and frequently liked to make jokes about it. It was obvious that the Christian had been invited on the show so that some jokes would be made at his expense.

Irrelavent.

Well, when the guest sat down, the host asked him what he had been doing lately, and the guest said that he had recently visited South Dakota for the first time and that near Keystone, SD, he had seen a mountain that, believe it or not, had the images of 4 faces on it which remarkably looked like the faces of 4 presidents. He named the 4 presidents whose faces were in the side of the mountain, and then stated that it was the most unbelievable thing that he had ever seen. He said that it was absolutely amazing how wind, rain, ice, and erosion had caused the formation of those images in the side of the mountain. And for all the world, the guest looked like he was as serious about this as he could be.

The tornado in a Junkyard argument is coming up - which has been refuted earlier in this thread.


In fact, the talk show host started laughing and he began saying, "you're not really serious, are you?" repeatedly. The guest insisted that he was absolutely serious in this belief, and the talk show host nearly fell out of his chair laughing and finally exclaimed "That is the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard! To think that those 4 faces just happened there as a result of the chance effects of wind, rain, ice erosion, etc is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd!"

*yawn*

The Christian guest replied, "Then, why do people see real living human faces all the time, intricately more complex and wonderful than these crude images on the side of a mountain, and say that these living human faces just happened as a result of chance?"

*yawn*

Atheists see a belief in God as being foolish; God, on the other hand, proclaims that it is the atheist who, in reality, is the fool (see Psalm 14:1).

Irrelavent.

Have you got one scientific point against Evolution or have all you got is "Gee everythings so amazing! God did it!"

You see the problem is Mount Rushmore is inorganic. It does not reproduce. It does not have DNA.

So your argument is flushed right down the toilet into the sewer where it belongs.

[Valkhorn]

Perhaps, the following illustration may be helpful.

Draw a square. Put the words "tabula rasa" in the square. These words are Latin for "clean slate". The square is going to represent a person's mind. Now draw an arrow into the square from above. At the top of the arrow, put the words "data or facts". On the left side of the square, draw another arrow pointing into the square and to the left of this arrow, put the words "rules of logic". Now on the right side of the square, draw a line coming OUT of the square and pointing to the word "deductions"; then draw a line going up from this word and eventually pointing back to the words "data or facts". Now, draw an arrow coming out from the bottom of the square and pointing downward to the word "conclusion". This is not Evolution and is totally irrelevant.

OK, have you drawn this. As noted above, the square above represents a person's mind. Going into that mind are certain data or facts. In addition, to manage these data or facts, there are certain rules of logic that the mind uses. When it does so, it comes to certain deductions, which are themselves considered further data or factual information, and this goes back into the mind for further consideration, and finally a conclusion about a matter will be reached. Do you understand the picture or diagram that I am trying to convey here?This is totally irrelevant and again is not Evolution.


If so, then we come to this question: Why do 2 people with the same data or facts, and using the same rules of logic come to different conclusions? In fact, is it possible to have people using the same facts and the same rules of logic to come to different conclusions? For example, why do Z and V in the case of the origin of man come to different conclusions if we are using the same facts and rules of logic?

This is not Evolution and is irrelevant.



Well, if the diagram that I had us draw was all there was to consider in the process of thinking, then both Z and V would come to the same conclusion. BUT, it is obvious that we do not. What needs to be added to the diagram for us to come to such radically different conclusions?

Draw a diagonal line with an arrow coming into the top of the square from the left side, and at the top of this arrow put the words "presuppositions or faith".

Everybody has "presuppositions"; everybody has a faith that they use to filter how they see the world in which they live. This faith, or these most basic presuppositions, are like wearing colored glasses that effect the color of everything that you see. And it certainly effects the way that you think.

If your basic presuppostion is naturalistic, then nothing supernatural can even be considered. If you basic presuppostion is atheistic, then nothing that points to Theism can be considered.

And to pretend that you don't have a faith or a bias, to say that you are neutral regarding the facts or data, is simply being dishonest or ignorant.

I don't know if I can cuss on the forum but this is total bull****.

Why?

Because the facts regarding evolution and the age of the Earth are NOT divergent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

The evidence for Evolution is not divergent either:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The only way to get separate conclusions is to do what Zorro likes to do - and to make crap up and ignore evidence.

He hasn't posted a single scientific piece of evidence yet.

[EricStratton]

Is the word "presupposition" a bit redundant?

[Valkhorn]

To sum up:

Zorro has not posted any scientific evidence. He has only posted philosophical pap
Valkhorn has cited evidence and sourcesI have even offered up a 2 hour discussion by Kenneth Miller, who is a Christian who accepts Evolution.

Zorro, Ken Miller will tell you why ID is not science.

If you wish to debate this with the big boys on Christian Forums or do a formal written debate - be my guest.

I will tear you apart if it's a written debate. If its on Christian Forums, others will tear you apart.

[Valkhorn]

<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message -->I guess I am sitting here wondering why someone who supposidely comes from a logical standpoint continues to post the fallacy of appealing to general consent (i.e., "Millions of people believe it to be true").

I thought you were sticking to science and logic Valk.

They accept it because of the scientific evidence.

And I am also showing that there are Christians who accept Evolution.

Way to miss my point :)

[zorro]

Evolution is about as proveable as you can get for a scientific theory. It ranks up there with gravity.
No, it's not; and no, it doesn't.

[zorro]

The truth of the debate on Evolution is that the experts unanimously agree that Evolution happens and that it is a fact.
Actually, this is not true either.

[SoMissTV]

For some reason, this is like watching a train wreck.

I can't look away.

[Valkhorn]

No, it's not; and no, it doesn't.

Then tell us why. Give us scientific evidence.

Hey Zorro, ask him how valid his links are.

They are very valid. They are mostly written by paleontologists, geologists, or evolutionary biologists.

And, TheDoc, if you are watching that video at all I find it hard to believe how you could ignore such common sense.

[Valkhorn]

Actually, this is not true either.

Then show us why.

Show. Your. Work.

Why should I be the only one who shows his or her work around here?

[zorro]

Micro-evolution exists, macro-evolution is not provable.
Now, this is a true statement.

[Valkhorn]

Now, this is a true statement.

Show your work.

[Valkhorn]

Oh, I need to keep reminding myself that you are talking about validity from a common sense standpoint.

Well then tell me why Evolutionary Biologists and Geologists are not qualified to talk about Evolution?

Show your work.

[Valkhorn]

I'm sick of backing up my statements while TheDoc, Zorro, and Aaron never do.

[SoMissTV]

wait until zorro starts citing his statements... with scripture.

You're going to love this!

[wilebill]

I'm waiting for Zorro to counter with his definition of "fact" and his definition of "opinion".

You won't win this one Valkie, because you're not even using the right dictionary. :-D

[Valkhorn]

wait until zorro starts citing his statements... with scripture.

You're going to love this!

I know. I would LOVE a public formal debate about this. It would be fun to reminisce with the Geology department again at USM while I do my research on it.

[Valkhorn]

I'm waiting for Zorro to counter with his definition of "fact" and his definition of "opinion".

You won't win this one Valkie, because you're not even using the right dictionary.

It's hard to win against abject stupidity when it reaches the point of stubborn ineptitude :)

Have I not backed up all my statements? Have they?

Like I keep saying - show your work...

[Valkhorn]

I used to go to church with a Geology professor.

You sure seem to get flustered quite easily. I think a public debate would be quite revealing indeed.

Fine with me. I am only flustered because of the amount of sheer ignorance that has coalesced itself in this thread.

[EricStratton]

Fine with me. I am only flustered because of the amount of sheer ignorance that has coalesced itself in this thread.

That's a relief....And here I was feeling all dumb trying to read this "smart people" thread.

[zorro]

The reason why we have this debate about creationism and evolution is because creationism is not science.
Actually, macroevolution is certainly not science either; in all honesty, it is philosophy trying to disguise itself as science.

[SoMissTV]

... trying to read this "smart people" thread.

I'll let you know if any show up.

[Conveyor Belt]

I'm going to print this thread out so I can read it while I'm using the bathroom later on in the morning... Maybe I can wipe my arse with one of zorro's page long posts...

[fuzzis]

I'll let you know if any show up.

:smt103 :smt103

I was gonna rep you, but I'm apparently a rep hoor and give it out a little too freely. :grouplove:

fuzzis

[Valkhorn]

I've actually asked you some rudimentary questions related to research methodology, statistics, and making critical conclusions based on data and you have failed to show a basic knowledge of science each time. And much of the time you spin your answer to such a degree that the reader can't even decipher what question you are attempting to answer.

No you haven't. And I have been abundantly clear. I have cited sources. The best you could do is some sort of modified MLA thing.

Here is what I have learned about your approach today:

1. You do not have a firm grasp on science beyond perhaps the undergraduate level. I am reminded of an undergrad professor telling our class that we now had a loaded gun with our undergraduate education and enough ammo to kill someone.

You don't have a grasp on Evolution or Science because you keep trying to inject god into it - and that is not how Science works.

You even thought that an individual could evolve according to Evolution. Which is completely wrong.

2. You rarely read primary sources.

Talk Origins is a primary source. The NCSE is a primary source.

I have asked you why those sources which are written by experts in Evolution are invalid. You failed to respond.

3. You are easily flustered and resort to ad hominem attacks and other forms of logical fallacies when cornered.

I haven't once been cornered in the debate over Evolution. And if you think I'm the only person who has occasionally resorted to ad hominem attacks then you haven't read anything in this thread.

And I'll say this, I've not tried to witness to you once Valk, but it is telling that you believe I have and act so negatively against it.

You have. More than once.

I have not once said, "GET RIGHT WITH GOD VALK" or "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL VALK" or "JESUS DIED FOR YOU VALK." I have shared the Gospel message.

That is the same thing.

Your reaction to it has been very telling.

That I've heard it so many times that it has no meaning? That I think it's sheer arrogance for you to say what you are saying to me?

Religious conversion is not a nice thing.

Now can we get on topic and can you please show your work?

[Valkhorn]

Actually, macroevolution is certainly not science either; in all honesty, it is philosophy trying to disguise itself as science.

Show your work.

[Valkhorn]

Fez...have you offered Valk a job yet?

I have a job.

[SoMissTV]

:smt103 :smt103

I was gonna rep you, but I'm apparently a rep hoor and give it out a little too freely. :grouplove:

fuzzis

Yes, you apparently are.

Wait until tomorrow and hook me up.

[zorro]

I'm not religious now but I once was -
Actually, you are quite religious. Atheism is a religious stance.

[SoMissTV]

Fez...have you offered Valk a job yet?

It would take too long for the cows to evolve into hamburgers.

[Conveyor Belt]

Fez...have you offered Valk a job yet?

Why would I offer him a job? Have you offered him any of your special services via PM???

[Valkhorn]

Actually, you are quite religious. Atheism is a religious stance.

Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of one.

Show your work. You give out more blind assertions than your standard creationist.

[fuzzis]

Why would I offer him a job? Have you offered him any of your special services via PM???

Awwwwww shit. :smt103 :smt103 :smt103

:laugh: :laugh:

fuzzis

[zorro]

philosophy isn't really science so I don't debate in that realm.
Self-deception.

[SoMissTV]

Why would I offer him a job? Have you offered him any of your special services via PM???

You went there.

And it was awesome.

[Valkhorn]

A quick question would give us some insight.

Valk, are you a believer in global warming?

That has nothing to do with the debate.


Self-deception.

Show your work.