Sheenster303 0 #26 November 23, 2004 QuoteI see more of a mix between the two. I think evolution has had a big effect on life as we know it today, but I think it didn't start at random. I think the same thing.I'm so funny I crack my head open! P.M.S. #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #27 November 23, 2004 Until macro evolution is witnessed people won't think it's proven. Besides the Bible and faith, there is considerably less evidence for creationism. And intelligent design, to me at least, is just an attempt to explain away the fact that we don't know everything. Nope, we don't know everything. We can trust there is a God, or not -- that's what faith is about. But it's not evidence, and evidence is what science is about. Right now in physics it seems like there are some gaping holes in our understanding. But I don't see a big move to say that God put it there, or to discredit the spotty evidence that we do have in some of these areas. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #28 November 23, 2004 > Until macro evolution is witnessed people won't think it's proven. I wonder what that will take. During recorded history we've seen speciation happen dozens of times (i.e. a new species has emerged) we've seen gradual adaptations of literally hundreds of species to new environments and we've seen extinctions of poorly adapted species. We've watched bacteria evolve into new forms (i.e. HIV, VRSA.) We even have a reasonably complete fossil history of mankind. >Right now in physics it seems like there are some gaping holes in our >understanding. But I don't see a big move to say that God put it there, or >to discredit the spotty evidence that we do have in some of these areas. I think there are two reasons for that: 1. Most people don't think about the truly bizarre parts of physics (Schrodinger's cat, spooky action at a distance, quantumn entanglement, wave/particle duality) and it's not mentioned in the bible, so physics is non-threatening to most people's preconceptions about how the world works. To many people, physics is like the elevator machinery that makes their elevator work - they know it's there but are happy not knowing anything more as long as the elevator goes up and down. 2. Of the stuff that _is_ in the bible about physics (mainly celestial mechanics and stellar evolution) few can credibly claim that (for example) the earth is really flat, such that you can see all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a tall mountain (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10.) Generally the cognitive dissonance this causes is resolved through a re-definition of that part of their belief as a parable, not as a real description of the world. I have a feeling the creation story will follow this route eventually. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #29 November 23, 2004 Quote And intelligent design, to me at least, is just an attempt to explain away the fact that we don't know everything. I loathe the idea of intelligent design. At times I'm actually quite worried by the scale of my reaction to it, after all it's only an idea, right? Creationists I can deal with, the idea may be stupid and baseless but at least they are upfront about where the idea comes from and why they believe it. With the proponents of intelligent design however I cannot stand the way they've bastardized parts of each argument, bodged them together and then passed it off as the product of serious scientific research. Aaaargh! I'm sure I had a point I was building up to there but I can't seem to remember exactly what it was so er, back to your normal programming.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #30 November 23, 2004 .... i think It is BOTH Creation AND Evolution.. Only by " Creation" I mean the simple formation of the basic building blocks of life.... Elements, Molecules, Compounds... Some Huge All Encompassing,,,, and very very BUSY Entity.... ( that's why God seems to never be around..... It's a BIG Universe,, and He/She is busy ) .....got the ball rolling.. But then,,, at least on Our particular celestial Body,, that Energy Entity stepped back and let scientific processes simpy occur....... So the creation really was NOT of HUMAN BEINGS .... as they are today....... The creation ( at least in the case of the planet Earth ) was more analogous to the tossing of all the ingredients into a huge basket,,, the addition of solar energy ( the sun), and electro chemical energy ( lightning) coupled with TIME and LOTS of it..........and then NO furthur Input by the Creator. Once the ingredients were together,,, physics, science, photosynthesis miosis and mitosis took off....... Life developed along thousands of branches of the tree ,, some forms of which existed for billions of years,,, some for millions, some for less...... The way i see it.... "Evolution" per se.... refers to only the last 15 million years or so and only in reference to the Human species... While it is true that most all forms of plant AND animal life can trace a path backwards in time,,( or can be said to have evolved) , and while all these forms of life have each followed their own path...... the term "Evolution".... speaks mostly to the species Homo Sapiens sapien...... I do trust that fossil specimens, properly interpreted and accurately dated... do build a logical and acceptable explanation for how Humans of today, came to be,,, and how we have changed from earlier hominid forms,,,,progressing in size, sature, socialization patterns, communication skills, cranial capacity and the ability to exploit the environment,, ..to become what we see today in the year 2004 A.D. the "intelligent" species of Modern Humans... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #31 November 24, 2004 Quote With the proponents of intelligent design however I cannot stand the way they've bastardized parts of each argument, bodged them together and then passed it off as the product of serious scientific research. Aaaargh! I'm sure I had a point I was building up to there but I can't seem to remember exactly what it was so er, back to your normal programming. I think you've summed up Intelligent Design quite nicely. Good point. Thanks. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #32 November 24, 2004 Quote there is no harm to society if a Medieval English Lit professor thinks that women came from a man's rib, or that every land-animal species was one crammed into a little boat. If you'd said ..."there is significantly *less* harm if a Lit prof thinks..." , I'd agree with you. However, citizens, even lowly literature professors vote for politicians as well as vote on specific policy issues that effect us all. If they're voting on issues that require an understanding of the fundamentals of science and they believe creationist nonsense, it has the potential to hurt us all. I'd suggest that such demonstrably false beliefs are also correlated with other questionable belief sets as well. Such people tend to have a set of core beliefs that they justify with selective interpretations of the bible. They are a minority, but highly organized and bent upon imposing their views upon all of us. I would point to stem cell research or our recent presidential election as examples: A whole lot of people voted based upon an unwavering belief that the bible frowns upon homosexuality, when in fact that is a remarkably recent interpretation of selected passages of the old testament. I happen to think that this was a piss poor issue upon which to choose the leader of the "free" world. I suppose the trick is finding a balance between the value and necessity of allowing individuals to believe whatever they want, and allowing said non scientific beliefs to influence policies that ought to be scientifically based. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #33 November 24, 2004 QuoteI loathe the idea of intelligent design. At times I'm actually quite worried by the scale of my reaction to it, after all it's only an idea, right? Creationists I can deal with, the idea may be stupid and baseless but at least they are upfront about where the idea comes from and why they believe it. With the proponents of intelligent design however I cannot stand the way they've bastardized parts of each argument, bodged them together and then passed it off as the product of serious scientific research. Aaaargh! God forbid we think for ourselves, and not be extremists/sheep on other sides of this debate... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #34 November 24, 2004 In related news . . . http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html?cnn=yesquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #35 November 24, 2004 Of course life came from evolution. It surly didn't come from the invisible man in the sky who has a fictional book with 10 things you are never ever to do or else he will send you to another fictional place full of fire, smoke, pain and anguish. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #36 November 24, 2004 Alright folks, toss out freedom of religion, we don't need it anymore, Tuna has told us once again exactly what the truth is.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Merkur 1 #37 November 24, 2004 QuotePlease keep in mind that I'm more interested in the figures than in people starting fights about their opinion. ThanksvSCR No.94 Don't dream your life - live your dream! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #38 November 24, 2004 why? any number you gained from such a poll would be nearly worthless... its not as if its a simple 2 sided system to begin with.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #39 November 24, 2004 QuoteGod forbid we think for ourselves, and not be extremists/sheep on other sides of this debate... The problem is that this is not a political debate. It is not a sociological debate. It is not any kind of debate where different theories and ideas can work equally well. This is a scientific debate and there is very clearly a right and a wrong. Intelligent design has nothing to back it up because you know what, just 'cause you've thought of something yourself doesn't give it anymore weight if what you've thought of is moronic. For instance, I don't think the earth is round, I also don't think those flat earth guy's are seeing the whole picture either. I think the earth is kind of like an old fashioned barbell shape (y'know, two spheres connected by a cylinder) and we live on the inside. There are also two suns, one in each sphere that alternately switch on and off. So since I thought of that all by myself are you going to give me a prize, or are you just going to stick me on the special bus?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #40 November 26, 2004 There's a great article in National Geographic this month about evolution, entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?" The letter from the editor was interesting too: ------------- Humans are not descended from apes. But then Charles Darwin never claimed they were. Still, his ideas were misconstrued and lampooned from the beginning, as in cartoons showing Darwin attired as a monkey. What Darwin actually said was that the myriad species inhabiting Earth are a result of repeated branching from common ancestors - a process that came to be known as "evolution." The mechanism of evolution, Darwin's "natural selection," determines how plants and animals come to look and behave as they do. Today both terms are still misunderstood. Some of the confusion stems from the phrase "the theory of evolution." When scientists say "theory," they mean a statement based on observation or experimentation that explains facets of the observable world so well that it becomes accepted as fact. They do not mean an idea created out of thin air, nor do they mean an unsubstantiated belief. Our magazine aims to explore the world, often by highlighting scientific concepts such as evolution. Is this approach necessarily at odds with faith, which lies beyond the possibility of scientific proof? No. Just as religion did not disappear after Galileo demonstrated the earth is not at the center of the universe, evolution does not exclude god from our origins, the "mystery of mysteries"- a 19th century astronomer's description borrowed by Darwin himself. ---------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #41 November 26, 2004 "Just as religion did not disappear after Galileo demonstrated the earth is not at the center of the universe" Centre of the 'known universe', surely? In an infinite universe, everywhere is at the centre of the universe, right? Surely in an infinite universe, the earth, or any other point has equal amounts of universe all around it, infinity either side as it were, so geometrically the earth, and everywhere else, is technically at the centre of the universe. Taking it one step further, it could be argued that the universe really does revolve around ME! Something I've known for quite some time. If there are boundaries to the universe, ie its not infinite, where are they, and what lies beyond the boundary? A bit abstract for speaker's corner, especially at 8am here, but it makes nice change to squabbling about guns, god, gays, and George. And its more fun than knocking my pan in to make Halliburton richer.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #42 November 26, 2004 QuoteCreation. I don't give a shit about polls. They are only people's opinions. Isn't that a circular argument? Your opinion is that of creation, yet you don't give a shit about individual opinions or collective opinions (polls). Not that I want to disallow your opinion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #43 November 26, 2004 QuoteAlright folks, toss out freedom of religion, we don't need it anymore, Tuna has told us once again exactly what the truth is. Constitutionally it's not really freedon of religion in the sense you have posted it. It's actually protection against a state-sponsored religion, which we are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Morcyk 0 #44 November 26, 2004 I vote cause there wasn't a choice for both. I find it difficult to believe that we evolved by chance, but I do believe that evolution could be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #45 November 26, 2004 As a non-practicing anthropologist/archaeologist.......evolution!A lot of evidence to support the theories.And new on the scene, a lot of DNA evidence to support the movement of humans out of africa about 60000 yrs ago to settle/populate Europe and Asia and according to some,we could "all" be descended from "Lucy"Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #46 November 26, 2004 Quote"Just as religion did not disappear after Galileo demonstrated the earth is not at the center of the universe" Centre of the 'known universe', surely? In an infinite universe, everywhere is at the centre of the universe, right? Surely in an infinite universe, the earth, or any other point has equal amounts of universe all around it, infinity either side as it were, so geometrically the earth, and everywhere else, is technically at the centre of the universe. Taking it one step further, it could be argued that the universe really does revolve around ME! Something I've known for quite some time. If there are boundaries to the universe, ie its not infinite, where are they, and what lies beyond the boundary? A bit abstract for speaker's corner, especially at 8am here, but it makes nice change to squabbling about guns, god, gays, and George. And its more fun than knocking my pan in to make Halliburton richer. Penge (SE London) is the center of the universe, as is well known to those of us who went to school there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #47 November 26, 2004 QuoteI vote cause there wasn't a choice for both. I find it difficult to believe that we evolved by chance, but I do believe that evolution could be true. Evolution is not incompatible with the idea of a creator/God. It's only incompatible with fringe fundamentalist/literal interpretations of the bible. Creationists don't have a rational leg to stand on. However, if they can distract and confuse people to the point that they think accepting the validity of evolution = rejecting god, then a lot of people overlook the glaring flaws in creationist dogma. The good news is that you don't have to choose between the extremes. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but it doesn't address who, what, or how this crazy universe was set in motion. Evolutionary evidence and science doe address *when* and that precludes most variations of creationism. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #48 November 27, 2004 QuotePenge (SE London) is the center of the universe, as is well known to those of us who went to school there. I've heard it's nice but I've never been there myself. Rankin?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #49 November 29, 2004 As this is a politically loaded question, I had to vote in favor of evolution, because I'd rather have scientists teaching my kids than ayatollahs. It would be well worth everyone's time to check out last month's issue of National Geographic for its outstanding defense of evolution theory. It's extremely well written and reasoned. As for the "just a theory" line, the article points out that gravity, electricity, and relativity are also "just theories", but that those theories are so reliable we are able to use them and rely on them. And that evolution is more even more proven. I'm not going to say that God didn't create the world. God's existence can't be proved either - and if it could, what would be the point of faith anyway ? There is no reasonable argument as to why a theory of evolution cannot scientifically explain the processes by which a God creates the world. Many churches reconciled evolution and creation A CENTURY AGO. Those who continue to insist against all reason that our world was literally created in six days approximately 8000 years ago are no better than the Taliban for trying to enforce their hopelessly backward and ill informed views . Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Morcyk 0 #50 November 29, 2004 Yep that threw me for a loop when I first realized that those other "laws" are really just theories until disproven. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
