Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The ToE is not evil.

Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 9:03:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

It is technically incorrect to assume that, "those with immunity already exist". There are plenty of examples where genetic research has proven with in significance when a mutation or genetic change entered a population. Pesticides and adaptation in insects is a good place to start looking for such examples.

Secondly, why does it matter whether the second type "exists" prior to the environmental pressure which gives it advantage versus developed during the time of environmental pressure. Genetic research often can tell exactly what changed to produce the second type and how many generations it split.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 9:38:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 9:03:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

It is technically incorrect to assume that, "those with immunity already exist". There are plenty of examples where genetic research has proven with in significance when a mutation or genetic change entered a population. Pesticides and adaptation in insects is a good place to start looking for such examples.

If they don't exist then what is left alive after the antibiotic kills off those that it is effective against??

Secondly, why does it matter whether the second type "exists" prior to the environmental pressure which gives it advantage versus developed during the time of environmental pressure. Genetic research often can tell exactly what changed to produce the second type and how many generations it split.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 10:56:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

After the antibiotic kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it does that mean those organisms are gone?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test. In others, a collection of incorrect assumptions leading to faulty deductions, or mis-application of scientific principles lead to them incorrectly reject conclusions, rather than the correct approach of rigorously testing and analysing the evidence and demonstrating alternative conclusions.

With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:50:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test. In others, a collection of incorrect assumptions leading to faulty deductions, or mis-application of scientific principles lead to them incorrectly reject conclusions, rather than the correct approach of rigorously testing and analysing the evidence and demonstrating alternative conclusions.

With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.

This is a tired and embarrassing old argument, and one that I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on. Creationists would stop scientific progress...yada yada. The founders of most scientific disciplines were creationists, but hey, let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:50:22 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test. In others, a collection of incorrect assumptions leading to faulty deductions, or mis-application of scientific principles lead to them incorrectly reject conclusions, rather than the correct approach of rigorously testing and analysing the evidence and demonstrating alternative conclusions.

With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.

This is a tired and embarrassing old argument, and one that I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on. Creationists would stop scientific progress...yada yada. The founders of most scientific disciplines were creationists, but hey, let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

The founders of modern scientific displines were creationist because prior to evolution it was the best explanation. Which is just the same old argument.

And they all invented their respective fields through scientific discovery and repeatable experimentation.

Newtons laws of univeral gravitation became accepted because it could be shown to be the best explanation not because Newton founded a political movement to sue people and seruptiously start it getting taught in science classes. Its really that simple. Good ideas end up winning, bad ones are generally championed by religious zealouts!

When religion stamps on science because of misguided dogma, the result is never good. Just ask yourself why the middle east isn't a center for scientific discovery any more when it was in the middle ages...
slo1
Posts: 4,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 9:38:37 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:03:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

It is technically incorrect to assume that, "those with immunity already exist". There are plenty of examples where genetic research has proven with in significance when a mutation or genetic change entered a population. Pesticides and adaptation in insects is a good place to start looking for such examples.

If they don't exist then what is left alive after the antibiotic kills off those that it is effective against??

The entire reason why antiboitics is not a one dose thing is that you can't guarantee effective dosage to each bacteria to kill it.

The second reason why they say to keep the dosing schedule is that if you don't repeatedly take the antibiotic you may create situation where bacteria has a variation where it needs more attacks against it to kill it because it is better defended against the antibotic (IE: an environmental effect turned on more genes than it was born with that allows the expression of a larger quantity of proteins that makes the antibiotic less toxic .) Left alone via one dosage it can multiply the increased gene count for that protein and pass it on to its offspring. There are many things which can happen which makes a bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Secondly, why does it matter whether the second type "exists" prior to the environmental pressure which gives it advantage versus developed during the time of environmental pressure. Genetic research often can tell exactly what changed to produce the second type and how many generations it split.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:38:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

What you've described is just natural selection. While that's a component of evolution, it isn't the whole of the theory. So no one is teaching kids just natural selection and saying that means they evolved from fish.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 4:57:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:03:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

This is a tired and embarrassing old argument, and one that I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on. Creationists would stop scientific progress...yada yada. The founders of most scientific disciplines were creationists, but hey, let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

The founders of modern scientific displines were creationist because prior to evolution it was the best explanation. Which is just the same old argument.

And they all invented their respective fields through scientific discovery and repeatable experimentation.

So what you're saying is that, even though they were creationists, they continued to pursue scientific progress. They didn't just say "Goddidit", and stop pursuing answers, as you claim in your rant. See how easy it is to refute your own point??

Newtons laws of univeral gravitation became accepted because it could be shown to be the best explanation not because Newton founded a political movement to sue people and seruptiously start it getting taught in science classes. Its really that simple. Good ideas end up winning, bad ones are generally championed by religious zealouts!

I believe you have that backwards. It's the evos that continually file, and threaten to file lawsuits if they find out that a teacher even tells some of the negative things about their pet theory. In that respect, they are as much fundamentalists about their ideology as any religious organization.

When religion stamps on science because of misguided dogma, the result is never good. Just ask yourself why the middle east isn't a center for scientific discovery any more when it was in the middle ages...

I don't know a single creationist that wants religion taught in the science class. However, if you're going to make it OK to preach one ideology in science class, why not allow others in. Best answer...don't preach any ideology in science class, teach only that which is empirical science. Keep all imaginative speculations, non-empirical extrapolations, and unscientific opinions out of the classroom and textbook. You do that and you won't hear a peep from us. But the down side of doing that is that, if it were to happen, you wouldn't have anything to help make kids believe that their long lost ancestors were fish.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:05:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:05:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:38:37 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:03:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

It is technically incorrect to assume that, "those with immunity already exist". There are plenty of examples where genetic research has proven with in significance when a mutation or genetic change entered a population. Pesticides and adaptation in insects is a good place to start looking for such examples.

If they don't exist then what is left alive after the antibiotic kills off those that it is effective against??

The entire reason why antiboitics is not a one dose thing is that you can't guarantee effective dosage to each bacteria to kill it.

The second reason why they say to keep the dosing schedule is that if you don't repeatedly take the antibiotic you may create situation where bacteria has a variation where it needs more attacks against it to kill it because it is better defended against the antibotic (IE: an environmental effect turned on more genes than it was born with that allows the expression of a larger quantity of proteins that makes the antibiotic less toxic .) Left alone via one dosage it can multiply the increased gene count for that protein and pass it on to its offspring. There are many things which can happen which makes a bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Were heading down a rabbit hole of minutia, with this argument. I could concede on everything you've said here, and it still doesn't help you show any evidence for goo-to-you evolution, which is the crux of the issue.

Secondly, why does it matter whether the second type "exists" prior to the environmental pressure which gives it advantage versus developed during the time of environmental pressure. Genetic research often can tell exactly what changed to produce the second type and how many generations it split.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:50:22 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test. In others, a collection of incorrect assumptions leading to faulty deductions, or mis-application of scientific principles lead to them incorrectly reject conclusions, rather than the correct approach of rigorously testing and analysing the evidence and demonstrating alternative conclusions.

With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.

This is a tired and embarrassing old argument, and one that I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on. Creationists would stop scientific progress...yada yada. The founders of most scientific disciplines were creationists, but hey, let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

Scientific founders could also be in support of magical fairies at the bottom of a person's garden, but that does not give the existence of fairies any more credibility.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:38:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

What you've described is just natural selection. While that's a component of evolution, it isn't the whole of the theory. So no one is teaching kids just natural selection and saying that means they evolved from fish.

I never said that only NS was being taught.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:11:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 5:07:18 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:50:22 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test. In others, a collection of incorrect assumptions leading to faulty deductions, or mis-application of scientific principles lead to them incorrectly reject conclusions, rather than the correct approach of rigorously testing and analysing the evidence and demonstrating alternative conclusions.

With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.

This is a tired and embarrassing old argument, and one that I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on. Creationists would stop scientific progress...yada yada. The founders of most scientific disciplines were creationists, but hey, let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

Scientific founders could also be in support of magical fairies at the bottom of a person's garden, but that does not give the existence of fairies any more credibility.

That's irrelevant to the context.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:21:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 5:09:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:38:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

What you've described is just natural selection. While that's a component of evolution, it isn't the whole of the theory. So no one is teaching kids just natural selection and saying that means they evolved from fish.

I never said that only NS was being taught.

That was the implication when you described only natural selection and then stated "Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so." If the "this" you were referring to wasn't just natural selection, you might have been more explicit about what "this" was.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:37:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 5:21:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 5:09:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:38:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

What you've described is just natural selection. While that's a component of evolution, it isn't the whole of the theory. So no one is teaching kids just natural selection and saying that means they evolved from fish.

I never said that only NS was being taught.

That was the implication when you described only natural selection and then stated "Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so." If the "this" you were referring to wasn't just natural selection, you might have been more explicit about what "this" was.

I said that "this" was being used as evidence that they evolved from a fish. I never implied anything other than that, so no need to rephrase it.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries.

I'll let the scientists speak for themselves.

Davies, J and Davies, D (2010) Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Review, 74(3), 417-433.

http://mmbr.asm.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 10:17:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 9:22:56 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries.

I'll let the scientists speak for themselves.

Davies, J and Davies, D (2010) Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Review, 74(3), 417-433.

http://mmbr.asm.org...

Point??
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:31:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 10:17:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:22:56 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries.

I'll let the scientists speak for themselves.

Davies, J and Davies, D (2010) Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Review, 74(3), 417-433.

http://mmbr.asm.org...

Point??

That the scientists do not seem to have any problem taking their well-earned credit or using the term "evolution". From the paper:

"This is not a natural process, but a man-made situation superimposed on nature; there is perhaps no better example of the Darwinian notions of selection and survival."

"Antibiotic resistance in M. tuberculosis occurs exclusively by spontaneous mutation."
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 2:47:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 5:37:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 5:21:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 5:09:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:38:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

What you've described is just natural selection. While that's a component of evolution, it isn't the whole of the theory. So no one is teaching kids just natural selection and saying that means they evolved from fish.

I never said that only NS was being taught.

That was the implication when you described only natural selection and then stated "Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so." If the "this" you were referring to wasn't just natural selection, you might have been more explicit about what "this" was.

I said that "this" was being used as evidence that they evolved from a fish. I never implied anything other than that, so no need to rephrase it.

Natural selection is not being used as evidence that humans evolved from fish, though. That's just silly.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 7:39:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:31:46 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/9/2015 10:17:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:22:56 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries.

I'll let the scientists speak for themselves.

Davies, J and Davies, D (2010) Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Review, 74(3), 417-433.

http://mmbr.asm.org...

Point??

That the scientists do not seem to have any problem taking their well-earned credit or using the term "evolution". From the paper:

"This is not a natural process, but a man-made situation superimposed on nature; there is perhaps no better example of the Darwinian notions of selection and survival."

The opinions expressed in this paper do not refute my original point...That with the knowledge of adaptation and variation, scientists would have discovered antibiotic resistant organisms, with or without the ToE, and to pretend that they couldn't have done so is an insult to their intelligence.

Evolutionists seem to want to act as if all biological research would grind to a halt if the ToE were not in place, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Even without Darwinian theory, we know that organisms change over time, and that provides the only necessary framework.

"Antibiotic resistance in M. tuberculosis occurs exclusively by spontaneous mutation."

With the understanding that they can only speak to the samples involved in the experiment, I'm not sure how you think this quote has any relevance.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 8:09:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 2:47:31 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 5:37:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 5:21:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 5:09:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:38:28 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/9/2015 8:29:48 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

I think it's disrespectful to the scientists and researchers, to give credit to evolution for discoveries. Scientists have known about adaptation and variation in biological organisms, for a long time. To claim that they wouldn't have discovered that some organisms are killed by certain antibiotics, while others have immunities, is quite insulting, to their intelligence.

When an antibiotic is used on a virus, it kills off those organisms that aren't immune to it, leaving only those who do have an immunity. Just like what happens with the peppered moth, the light ones get eaten and thus the numbers of dark moths increases in percentage of the overall population. Both those with immunity, and those without immunity already exist, but due to killing off the ones without immunity, the numbers change and those with the immunity become more prevalent. Different antibiotics are effective against certain groups, while being ineffective against other groups. Remove the antibiotic from the equation, and both groups will return to their natural numbers.

Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so.

What you've described is just natural selection. While that's a component of evolution, it isn't the whole of the theory. So no one is teaching kids just natural selection and saying that means they evolved from fish.

I never said that only NS was being taught.

That was the implication when you described only natural selection and then stated "Is it evil to teach this to unknowing kids and tell them that this is evidence that they evolved from a fish?? I think so." If the "this" you were referring to wasn't just natural selection, you might have been more explicit about what "this" was.

I said that "this" was being used as evidence that they evolved from a fish. I never implied anything other than that, so no need to rephrase it.

Natural selection is not being used as evidence that humans evolved from fish, though. That's just silly.

Antibiotic resistance is indeed one of the pieces of evidence that evos use as evidence for their theory of universal common ancestry (aka goo-to-you-through-the-zoo evolution).

http://www.amazon.com...

Excerpt from a review of the book...

"...It combines the excitement of discovery with the rigors of great scholarship to provide a convincing case of evolution from fish to man."- Don Johanson

Neither the author, reviewer, nor myself, are saying that evos believe that a fish evolved directly into man, if that is what you're trying to imply with this argument, but if fundy evolutionists word it that way, then who am I to argue.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 8:10:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 3:22:04 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
In fact, it's good. When one antibiotic is used on a virus too much, it evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic. If we didnt have the theory of evolution, we wouldnt know that. If we didnt know it, viruses would kill people much more often, so it saves lives. How can you call that evil?

Antibiotics don't work on viruses.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 11:31:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 4:57:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/9/2015 12:03:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

This is a tired and embarrassing old argument, and one that I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time on. Creationists would stop scientific progress...yada yada. The founders of most scientific disciplines were creationists, but hey, let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

The founders of modern scientific displines were creationist because prior to evolution it was the best explanation. Which is just the same old argument.

And they all invented their respective fields through scientific discovery and repeatable experimentation.

So what you're saying is that, even though they were creationists, they continued to pursue scientific progress. They didn't just say "Goddidit", and stop pursuing answers, as you claim in your rant. See how easy it is to refute your own point??

Actually. Its fairly irrelevant to the argument that there is a political movement to undermine the teaching of evolution on religious grounds using political methods rather than scientific.

Newtons laws of univeral gravitation became accepted because it could be shown to be the best explanation not because Newton founded a political movement to sue people and seruptiously start it getting taught in science classes. Its really that simple. Good ideas end up winning, bad ones are generally championed by religious zealouts!

I believe you have that backwards. It's the evos that continually file, and threaten to file lawsuits if they find out that a teacher even tells some of the negative things about their pet theory. In that respect, they are as much fundamentalists about their ideology as any religious organization.

Actually yes. I misspoke a little. While creationists have sued; they also use school boards as pawns to instigate legal test cases.

However it misses the point that creationists use solely legal and political means to undermine established science even though they claim that the science is faulty. Pro evolution seeks only to teach established science that has gone through the same process as every other form of science and has been shown to be highly successfull in predictive power, utility and explanatory power.

When religion stamps on science because of misguided dogma, the result is never good. Just ask yourself why the middle east isn't a center for scientific discovery any more when it was in the middle ages...

I don't know a single creationist that wants religion taught in the science class.

This is because most creationists believe creationism is science and not religion. Nice wiggle room.

However, if you're going to make it OK to preach one ideology in science class, why not allow others in. Best answer...don't preach any ideology in science class, teach only that which is empirical science. Keep all imaginative speculations, non-empirical extrapolations, and unscientific opinions out of the classroom and textbook.

Like it or not, that is what evolution is. Backed up by evidence, has made innumerable predictions and provides an explanation that allows why life is the way it is in almost every single way. Other explanations, including yours does not provide any of those things.

You do that and you won't hear a peep from us. But the down side of doing that is that, if it were to happen, you wouldn't have anything to help make kids believe that their long lost ancestors were fish.

The empirical evidence speaks for itself. The fossil record shows the progression in time, the DNA shows the relatedness and evolution predicted that if common descent is true then we should be able to find a species with very specific fish traits and very specific amphibian traits in a very specific strata in a very specific geological region.

Its kind of a strange coincidence that god created a species that just so happened to have been killed off rather than survive and just so happened to be burried in a specific area during the great flood and just so happened to be sorted into the right layer of sediment that just so happened to have just the right type of fish traits and just the right number of amphibian traits as what is expected to be found if life evolved from a common ancestor.

Thats why evolution is science and you are force to play politica. You have no explanation for why such predictions proove true; and instead simply hope no evolutionary biologist mentions it in an argument.

Of course you'll say its 100% a fish or 100% amphibian without citing any relevant comparative anatomy or phylogenic reasons why this is. In fact I find it hilarious when creationists sort of argue amongst themselves whether a discovered transitional form is 100% this or 100% that; the irony that they are effectively showing why the form is transitional by being able to argue at all apparently lost on them.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:09:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test. In others, a collection of incorrect assumptions leading to faulty deductions, or mis-application of scientific principles lead to them incorrectly reject conclusions, rather than the correct approach of rigorously testing and analysing the evidence and demonstrating alternative conclusions.

This is far more true of evolutionists than of creationists. Evolution from the get-go was proposed against the facts. One clear one was that the was limits to the variations of a species and there is NIL evidence of ones species evolving into another. Throughout 'Origin of the species' Darwin was special pleading that species had to be inherently plastic and so had to be able to evolve into other species, never mind the aforestated fact.


With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Indicative of a bigot. There are creationist scientists stretching accross various disciplines and creationists and ID'sts both apply the scientific method.


Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

SMH. Humans have clothed, watered and fed themselves way, way before Darwins ancestors walked the earth. Your support for evolution here borders on insanity.


This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

ID'sts and some creationist organizations have explicitly stated they aren't interested in being taught in class. This is particularly true of ID.

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.

Evolution is taught globally. I don't see how it would improve science and tech ingeneral. In fact, only an over-eager mind would trout such folly given the fact that way more important factors eg political stability are vital to such.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:31:06 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

So what you're saying is that, even though they were creationists, they continued to pursue scientific progress. They didn't just say "Goddidit", and stop pursuing answers, as you claim in your rant. See how easy it is to refute your own point??

Actually. Its fairly irrelevant to the argument that there is a political movement to undermine the teaching of evolution on religious grounds using political methods rather than scientific.

I see what you did there and that is a false assertion. Evolutionism is not being challenged on "religious grounds", it is being challenged because the part of the theory, dealing with origins, is not supported by empirical scientific evidence.

Nothing that is empirical science is at risk. The only thing at risk is the dogmatic indoctrination of kids into the materialistic worldview. If it can be shown by the empirical scientific method, it will still be taught in science class, and that's what scares most materialists. No Creationist, that I know of, wants a science teacher teaching religion to kids. That's a ludicrous argument, yet it continues to be the mantra employed by many on your side, as a scare tactic. It's a slippery slope argument that is easily refuted, just by looking at the history of science.

I believe you have that backwards. It's the evos that continually file, and threaten to file lawsuits if they find out that a teacher even tells some of the negative things about their pet theory. In that respect, they are as much fundamentalists about their ideology as any religious organization.

Actually yes. I misspoke a little. While creationists have sued; they also use school boards as pawns to instigate legal test cases.

However it misses the point that creationists use solely legal and political means

Would you rather they go about it the legal way, or use acts of terror to try and effect change?? If we truly believe that people have a right to free thought, then the best course of action is to try and prevent government-sponsored indoctrination, of ANY ideology, whether "religious" or secular. So it seems to me that if Creationists are using "solely legal and political means", to try and avoid being ruled by a scientific oligarchy preaching materialism and dogmatically defending it, that should be the proper way to effect the kind of change we want to see.

to undermine established science even though they claim that the science is faulty. Pro evolution seeks only to teach established science that has gone through the same process as every other form of science and has been shown to be highly successfull in predictive power, utility and explanatory power.

If UCA were "established science", we wouldn't be having this discussion. You wouldn't have to sound so presumptuous, as though you have the authority to speak on behalf of the entire scientific community, when there are many dissenters among that community. You may have convinced yourself of its validity, but there are a whole lot of people out here, both scientists and laypeople, who aren't convinced. There are a whole lot of people who have looked, and can't find one single piece of observational, repeatable, testable, falsifiable evidence, that organisms go through the type of change proposed by Darwinists, or Neo-Darwinists.

We all have the exact same evidence to work from, and that evidence doesn't support Darwinism/UCA. That hypothesis is something that you have to believe in, a priori, in order to get it, as the interpretation of that evidence. No matter how convinced you may be, or how loudly you shout it to the world, this "interpretation" of empirical findings does not equal "established science".

"Established science", is an empirical finding or observation that is readily observable to anyone who tries to repeat it, and does not rely on the observer's interpretation to prove itself. That some scientists believe something, even if that number is the majority, also doesn't make something "established science". You can call it the "predominant paradigm", or some other similar term, but "established science", it is not.

I don't know a single creationist that wants religion taught in the science class.

This is because most creationists believe creationism is science and not religion. Nice wiggle room.

What does the term "empirical" mean to you?? Do you understand the distinction between "empirical science", and an "interpretation of a piece of evidence"??

Again you're presumptuously attempting, quite arrogantly I might add, to speak for an entire group of people, and are misrepresenting their position.

Do we "believe" that the physical, "empirical" evidence, can be interpreted in light of an intelligent Creator?? Yes. Do we "believe" that Creator to be the best explanation for the totality of the empirical evidence?? Yes. Do we believe that increasing knowledge about the creation will lead us closer to that Creator?? Yes. Are we aware that our ideology, what we "believe", is a "faith-based" belief system?? Yes. Do we understand the distinction between what we "believe", and what we can show through "empirical science"?? Yes, thus the term "faith-based belief system". Therein lies the way that you are misrepresenting the Creationist's position. Those questions also highlight many differences between Creationists, and materialist ideologues, as many materialists do not even realize, or at least will not admit, that they too have a faith-based belief system, about origins.

You, and many others as well, repeatedly present this slippery slope argument and make it sound as though Creationists would replace science textbooks with copies of the King James bible. That couldn't be further from the truth. No Creationist wants their kids to be taught anything, in science class, that is going to diminish that child's opportunities in this world. My position is simply this, we shouldn't push a Creationist ideology in science class, but by the same token, we shouldn't push the materialist ideology, nor discourage any other ideology. We should teach what we can support through empirical science, and leave ideological interpretations out of the textbooks and curriculum. Teach kids factual information, foster the ability to think critically, show them how to find answers to scientific questions, if one exists, and then as they mature and become more knowledgeable, let them put the pieces together on their own, to make an informed, intelligent choice about what they want to "believe". Does that not seem like a rational, sensible position, to you??

If you're going to argue that this is what is already happening, or that the materialist ideology is not being pushed in the schools, or ideologies that you term "religious" are not being discouraged, then this discussion is pointless and I'm wasting my time. I can't argue against denialism.

However, if you're going to make it OK to preach one ideology in science class, why not allow others in. Best answer...don't preach any ideology in science class, teach only that which is empirical science. Keep all imaginative speculations, non-empirical extrapolations, and unscientific opinions out of the classroom and textbook.

Like it or not, that is what evolution is. Backed up by evidence, has made innumerable predictions and provides an explanation that allows why life is the way it is in almost every single way. Other explanations, including yours does not provide any of those things.

Again, you're equivocating between "empirical science" and "interpretation". And again, you're equivocating between the different meanings of "evolution", extrapolating one into the other, and creating an "interpretation" for which you cannot provide one piece of empirical evidence.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:43:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:32:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/10/2015 11:31:06 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Actually. Its fairly irrelevant to the argument that there is a political movement to undermine the teaching of evolution on religious grounds using political methods rather than scientific.

I see what you did there and that is a false assertion. Evolutionism is not being challenged on "religious grounds", it is being challenged because the part of the theory, dealing with origins, is not supported by empirical scientific evidence.

Evolution is based on sound evidence; empirical analysis of DNA, genetic processes, statistics, taxonomy, paleontology, embryology and detailed analysis and predictions based off them. The reason for rejection, is simply religious; reality conflicts with your beleifs, so you reject reality.
Actually yes. I misspoke a little. While creationists have sued; they also use school boards as pawns to instigate legal test cases.

However it misses the point that creationists use solely legal and political means

Would you rather they go about it the legal way, or use acts of terror to try and effect change??

I particularly like the way the options you listed are either "legal" or "terror".

A good place to start to effect change to established science, is take the dozen or so "claims" you and many other creationists make as to why evolution is wrong, and actually TEST them.

The claims you made about "statistically bounded variation", "radioactive decay is inaccurate", "there is no nested heirarchy" and "there is no valid pattern in DNA", which are all paraphrased parts of your arguments can be proven easily with simple experiments in such a way that would provide cast iron disproof of evolution.

The amount it costs to hire the legal team for Dover vs Kitzmiller would have allowed you guys to fund MANY simple experiments to prove that all the opinions you assert as true is actually true.

It's simpler, cheaper, AND will actually allow you to have some real evidence and research on your side!

to undermine established science even though they claim that the science is faulty. Pro evolution seeks only to teach established science that has gone through the same process as every other form of science and has been shown to be highly successfull in predictive power, utility and explanatory power.

If UCA were "established science", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

UCA is most assuredly established and accepted science. UCA is actually as much of a fact as it is possible to be; that evolution is the mechanism that the biodiversity of life has arisen is the theory.

The objection to evolution in the relevant field is close to 0, and lower than the percentage of americans who beleive in flat earth.

We all have the exact same evidence to work from, and that evidence doesn't support Darwinism/UCA.

The evidence supports solely and unambiguously darwinism and UCA.

When the last few arguments we've had, about genetic patterns, the twin nested heirarchy of phylogeny have been dismissed by yourself with the most rudimentary assertions that genetics is "not a pattern that shows anything", and the twin nested heirarchy "not a nested heirarchy", without any attempt to demonstrably show that they are not should detail what the problem with this "controversy is".

People like me produce the evidence, and show how that evidence leads only to common descent. You simply assert that your opinion is correct, even though it should be trivial to show true.

"Established science", is an empirical finding or observation that is readily observable to anyone who tries to repeat it, and does not rely on the observer's interpretation to prove itself.

The evidence for evolution is objective; so exists outside interpretation. The patterns in DNA exist; chromosome 2 matches the equivalent ape chromosomes; cyt c has a pattern that matches phylogeny even though it has no effect or form or function. Life shows a pattern of traits and species matching UCA. No interpretation there and it can be shown to not require interpretation.

What does the term "empirical" mean to you?? Do you understand the distinction between "empirical science", and an "interpretation of a piece of evidence"??

Again you're presumptuously attempting, quite arrogantly I might add, to speak for an entire group of people, and are misrepresenting their position.


Do we "believe" that the physical, "empirical" evidence, can be interpreted in light of an intelligent Creator?? Yes.

Beleive yes. Can you show? Not at all in the slightest at all. This is where evolution is science and creationism isn't.

You cannot supply a supportative argument, or evidence for your position to the exclusion of all others; whereas evolution can. Creationists approach to science is ignoring ANY pattern that creationism cannot explain (pretty much all of it), to make a number of assertions that cannot possibly be demonstrated; or ridiculous arguments that are easily demonstrable as false.

We shouldn't push the materialist ideology, nor discourage any other ideology.

Okay, in the middle of the previous rant, I spotted this. I have to be clear here, and go all caps:

SCIENCE PUSHES METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM; BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS. IS THAT IDEOLOGY THAT MAKES SCIENCE ACTUALLY WORK.

Like it or not, that is what evolution is. Backed up by evidence, has made innumerable predictions and provides an explanation that allows why life is the way it is in almost every single way. Other explanations, including yours does not provide any of those things.

Again, you're equivocating between "empirical science" and "interpretation". And again, you're equivocating between the different meanings of "evolution", extrapolating one into the other, and creating an "interpretation" for which you cannot provide one piece of empirical evidence.

I really don't think I am.

I am using "Evidence" to mean evidence that is the same for everyone, using "Evolution" to mean the process of changing allele frequencies over time, and "UCA" where relevant to mean "life is all realted through a process of descent from a single progenitor life form". I use the word "Explanation" to mean, a consistent description of a process (either measurable or not) that accounts for evidence.

I beleive I have used these consistently throughout; but lets see. Demonstrate I am equivocating.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 4:42:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:09:40 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:17:26 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Creationists, including yourself, simply ignore the evidence that doesn't agree with their position. The demonstrable facts, knowledge and application and interpretation of these facts are either ignored, dismissed or rejected; in most of these cases the argument being put forward is so trivially simple that any single creationist could demonstrate their claims with the most basic of experiments, evidence or test.

This is far more true of evolutionists than of creationists. Evolution from the get-go was proposed against the facts.

Evolution was proposed against the fact that organisms change; that trends in taxonomy are indicitive of shared descent, and trends in geographic distribution of species.

So no, it was not proposed against the facts; in fact the majority of facts concerning trends in biology were explained by evolution and this is, in part, why evolution was and continues to be so succesfull.

One clear one was that the was limits to the variations of a species and there is NIL evidence of ones species evolving into another.

Considering that there was no evidence at the time (either way) that there is some limit to the variations within the species that would put it at odds with ToE at the time; nor is there anything but evidence POSITIVE evidence to support the lack of any sort of fixed limit (with our current understanding of genetics and the nature of mutations evolution we have observed today); I find it puzzling that a statement so at odds with reality can be labelled "fact".

However, feel free to outline the evidence for your position; and what limits to variation are demonstrably true, and why they are at odds with ToE.

Throughout 'Origin of the species' Darwin was special pleading that species had to be inherently plastic and so had to be able to evolve into other species, never mind the aforestated fact.

By special pleading, you mean "applying that which was observed in the real world both by selective breeding and in nature and using it to explain patterns in taxonomy and geography" and by "aforestated fact" you mean "aforestated opinion that cannot be demonstrated yet is asserted as fact", then sure.

With all this in mind, it is obvious that most Creationists are unwilling or unable to either understand, explain or apply either the principles of evolution, the scientific method, or science in general.

Indicative of a bigot. There are creationist scientists stretching accross various disciplines and creationists and ID'sts both apply the scientific method.

"Creation Science", and indeed ID (but in a more subtle way); dismiss evidence based on apriori assumptions and beliefs; rather than dismissing the apriori assumption when the evidence does not support it. Most Creation science organisations explicitly state this when outlining "statements of faith". As such they fundamentally fall at the first hurdle of the scientific method.

Yet despite ALL of this, and despite Creationists demonstrable failure to be fair, rational or honest with regards to either science, nor evidence nor reason; they appear to believe they have a right to undermine the teaching of accepted, well evidenced and demonstrable science and scientific principles that have been responsible for clothing, feeding and watering the majority of civilisation; and is going to be the only hope humanity has for a long term future.

SMH. Humans have clothed, watered and fed themselves way, way before Darwins ancestors walked the earth. Your support for evolution here borders on insanity.

Re-read my quote. I did not use the word "Evolution" or "Darwin" once in this paragraph. I am talking about science. Considering that in both words AND actions ID and creationism want to overturn Methodological naturalism this is a pretty fair statement. That methodological naturalism: that you do not have to invoke magic to explain the world has responsible for most if not all important discoveries made by humans.

This right, the attacking of science via politicisation of science curriculums, rather than via, you know, science, and trying to undermine evolution at the ballot box rather than in the lab (which given their arguments should be EASILY possible to do without much money), appears to be driven having faith so weak, that it cannot possibly survive any exposure to alternatives.

ID'sts and some creationist organizations have explicitly stated they aren't interested in being taught in class. This is particularly true of ID.

Is that a fraudian slip? Because I'm pretty sure I never said that they did; I am talking about the undermining of established science by ID and Creationists which is not the same as it having Creationism taught in schools...

I actually want creationism to be taught in US schools; and the science classes to be controlled by politicized right wing school boards. Doing so has a great benefit; primarily as I live in the UK; and the long term decrease in competition in science and technology that would inevitably result from the implosion of US science standards and education if you guys took control can only benefit my country.

Evolution is taught globally. I don't see how it would improve science and tech ingeneral. In fact, only an over-eager mind would trout such folly given the fact that way more important factors eg political stability are vital to such.

Newton was one of the smartest scientists on the planet; but when he invoked magic to start explaining what he could not, it marked the end of his own serious investigation into planetary motion and discovered and required the likes of laplace and the like to pick up where he left off and advance science further.

Undermining science by falsely representing what science is, and how strong the case for evolution actually is, is pushing people to be implcitly taught that Magic is an acceptable explanatory alternative to science. Considering that Methodological Naturalism is what is being attacked by Creationism AND ID; under the guise of "attacking Materialism!" it is pretty clear that this is the intent.

While there are more pressing short term issues of stability at hand; changing climate, rising global populations, lack of available food and water, future energy crises due to fossil fuel supply collapse and long term survival of the human race as we know it is highly dependant on science and technology which makes it significantly important to have a well educated, scientifically literate population. When you are trying to attack the fundamental things that make that possible, we have a problem.

Jesus gets credit for feeding 5000 people with a miracle; but no one remembers Fritz Haber for his scientific contribution that is responsible for feeding approximately 2.5 billion people every day.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 11:09:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 11:31:06 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

The empirical evidence speaks for itself. The fossil record shows the progression in time, the DNA shows the relatedness and evolution predicted that if common descent is true then we should be able to find a species with very specific fish traits and very specific amphibian traits in a very specific strata in a very specific geological region.

That isn't what I see when I look at fossils, so if they speak for themselves then they're obviously speaking a different language to you, than they are to me. Again, you're trying to conflate your "interpretation" with what can be gleaned empirically, from a fossil.

All that can be known "empirically", is that the organism died and was rapidly buried, thus allowing fossilization. From that point, you apply your a priori belief about it, and claim it as science.

My question is, why would we want to believe that the fossilized organism could do something that organisms today, that we can observe, can't do?? If we look at that fossil, and only give it the abilities that we know, through testing and observation, that biological organisms have, then we know that, assuming that organism produced offspring, those offspring would be just like the one that is fossilized. We know that its parents and grandparents were the same type of organism.

Could the organism make minor changes in response to environmental stimuli?? Sure, and we know that empirically, through observation and testing. Could it have been produced by a fundamentally different type of organism, or produce offspring that are fundamentally different?? No, and when you attribute abilities that extant organisms don't have, you leave the realm of the observable, testable science that you claim to be so fond of.

Its kind of a strange coincidence that god created a species that just so happened to have been killed off rather than survive and just so happened to be burried in a specific area during the great flood and just so happened to be sorted into the right layer of sediment that just so happened to have just the right type of fish traits and just the right number of amphibian traits as what is expected to be found if life evolved from a common ancestor.

I assume that you're talking about tiktaalik, which has fallen into the pile of over-hyped alleged transitions. Tetrapod prints were found that pre-date tiktaalik by millions of years, by the evolutionary method of determining age, meaning that it isn't the water-to-land transitional that it was originally thought to be.

The longer you dig in any area, the more likely you are to find something of interest. Shubin and his crew spent 4 summers on that dig, and found an interesting fossil. Good job, but in the grand scheme of this discussion...So what?? If there are tetrapod prints pre-dating the fossil, by 15-20 million years, using the same dating method, then obviously it isn't the transitional that you believe it to be. The "prediction" that you claim here, did not work out. Which means that tiktaalik is just another example of an organism that has similarities to other known organisms. If you could find a fossilized specimen that fits with your dating method, you could just as easily propose that the mudskipper, an organism alive today, was the water-to-land missing link.

Thats why evolution is science and you are force to play politica. You have no explanation for why such predictions proove true; and instead simply hope no evolutionary biologist mentions it in an argument.

I'm not quite as worried as you seem to think I am, because tiktaalik has already been shown not to be the transitional form you believe it to be.

As for playing political, it's because we do not choose to be ruled by an ideological group who hides behind science, to give themselves legitimacy, but refuse to stick to those scientific principles that they harp about so loudly.

We choose not to be ruled by a group of scientists who, in their alleged search for knowledge about our universe, rule out possible answers just because they've already determined what they want the source of all answers to be, and will reject any answer that does not support their source. That my friend, is an ideological position, not a truly scientific one.

You're free to define science however you wish, and to believe that you're doing science, but we do not wish to be ruled by ideologues that get to define what is "natural", so that it can claim that their answer has to be correct because it is the ONLY one that fits their definition. Where I come from, a "natural" answer is ANY answer that is correct, regardless of its implications, regardless of whether I like that answer. From your perspective, evolutionism is the only game in town. Given what you are willing to work with, something very similar to evolution, just has to be true, and all evidence just has to be interpreted in light of that a priori belief. Conflicting evidence must be ignored, or twisted to fit.

You can't fight people like that who are just as dogmatic and unbending as any Islamic extremist in their belief, with "science", because science to them will mean anything that they need it to mean. They aren't content with holding the scientific community hostage and punishing any dissenters, but wish to extend their sphere of influence to include indoctrination of other people's children, into their materialistic worldview.

So yes, since the battle has been taken outside the scientific community, by these ideologues, we naturally have to try and fight the battle on the battlegrounds that were chosen by the opponent.

Of course you'll say its 100% a fish or 100% amphibian without citing any relevant comparative anatomy or phylogenic reasons why this is. In fact I find it hilarious when creationists sort of argue amongst themselves whether a discovered transitional form is 100% this or 100% that; the irony that they are effectively showing why the form is transitional by being able to argue at all apparently lost on them.

Sorry to disappoint, but I made no such claims.