If Evolution Were True

[darkendless]

Prestigious, indeed.

I believe that one would have to subscribe to the monthly standard - Psuedosciences of the 21st Century to find any higher quality.

A future career as a science pundit on Faux News is usually built on being published in far lesser magazines.

In order to find that magazine anything more than a joke i'd have to unlearn real science, and learn science created by a person who is being paid to fail as a scienntist. People who get a degree like that should be made to have an oath or something, so they do not put theirr PHD behind obvious lies.,

 

[painted wolf]

It's interesting that they are willing to put in real scientific work while they have scientists to impress and watch over them... then pift... soon as they have the paper, nada...
Then they just wave it around as a sort of "look at me, I'm an expert!" badge.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

It's interesting that they are willing to put in real scientific work while they have scientists to impress and watch over them... then pift... soon as they have the paper, nada...
Then they just wave it around as a sort of "look at me, I'm an expert!" badge.

wa:do

It`s not a bad gig though.
Granted you still have the hard work of actually earning the degree but after that you`re done.

You just send out resumes to the DI and creation science institutes and allow your academic credentials alone to land you a cushy job never doing any actual research other than reading up on whatever drivel the ID orgs are spouting each month.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Probably big money offered to any actual scientist willing to ignore his or her ethics.

There can`t be much competition for jobs in that field.

 

[painted wolf]

it's true...

It also makes me wonder about the 'shadow' educational system that Creationist have been trying to set up... with their own 'accreditation' and everything.

They really are trying to set up their own little bizaro world.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

it's true...

It also makes me wonder about the 'shadow' educational system that Creationist have been trying to set up... with their own 'accreditation' and everything.

They really are trying to set up their own little bizaro world.

wa:do

Yes they are but ultimately it won`t matter as it always eventually comes down to rigorously tested and peer reviewed research.

They haven`t found a way around that yet and creating there own little world will do nothing but appease those who live in their world while the rest of us can continue to ignore them as best we can.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not too sure... Russia operated for several decades on anti-darwinian biology...
It ruined their farming and stunted the rest of their science... but is it that odd to think of it happening here?

Imagine the hardships those who live in those parts of the country will face.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

I'm not too sure... Russia operated for several decades on anti-darwinian biology...
It ruined their farming and stunted the rest of their science... but is it that odd to think of it happening here?

Imagine the hardships those who live in those parts of the country will face.

wa:do

Again you are correct but I would argue that communist Russia had it`s political dogma so entrenched into it`s scientific institutions that it`s actions were the equivalent of 14th century Catholicism in Europe concerning science.

I don`t see any dogmatic political system oppressing western science in such a manner any time soon.

I`ve seen attempts recently that have ultimately failed miserably which only gives me greater hope..

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This is the same problem that we had when Lord Bush stacked the government with a bunch (I can't remember the number, but it seems like it was in the 70's) political hacks that had all graduated from Regent College of Law. This was Monica Goodlings school, and she did a very solid job of funneling jobs to her fellow alumni - qualified or not.

 

[painted wolf]

It's not "western science" I worry about... it's American science.

But yes, I agree that there is plenty of room for hope.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

It's not "western science" I worry about... it's American science.

Well I use the term "Western science"for a reason.

I include any nation in the northern hemisphere west of Asia in the descriptive.

The reason I use that term precisely is that these nations have a fairly well established mode of communication and cooperation among their scientific disciplines.

This network itself is also a defense against the possibility that American science could become as that of the USSR did under communism.

If any one nation within this network were to begin to publish work evidenced more by faulty political thought than actual empirical research I`m quite sure those other nations would call them on it very quickly within that system.

It`s just one more way science has to guard its systems from political exploitation.

There ya go PW, a little more hope for ya!

 

[Autodidact]

Again you are correct but I would argue that communist Russia had it`s political dogma so entrenched into it`s scientific institutions that it`s actions were the equivalent of 14th century Catholicism in Europe concerning science.

I don`t see any dogmatic political system oppressing western science in such a manner any time soon.

I`ve seen attempts recently that have ultimately failed miserably which only gives me greater hope..

Well the Bush administrations was certainly heading in that direction.

 

[linwood]

Well the Bush administrations was certainly heading in that direction.

Yes, those are the recent attempts I mentioned.

While he gave it a very good shot it would seem he ultimately failed.

Hot Damn!!
Hope springs eternal!!

 

[Nepenthe]

True enough - I have met 3 YECs in Canada, total, in all my life (not counting the Prime Minister), but I don't know if it's because of the expansion of American fundamentalism or because I've finally lived long enough to stumble across pockets of stupid Canadians who have always been there.

While no American South, Canada doesn't have the best science education record as of late either:
Canada's Science Minister won't confirm his belief in evolution but waffles around the issue with "I'm not going to answer that question, I am a Christian and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate." And I see just 17 hours ago it's reported he's just reversed that stance and says he does accept evolution- looks like someone had a talking to.
Over a 150 million will be cut from the Canadian science budget.
While 82% of Americans are theists, 72% of Canadians are also theists- now being a theist isn't an example of incompetence, but I do think it's an example of how similar the two countries are despite the differences.

It's funny 'cause when I lived in London I would get the most inane questions about American culture, particularly politics and religion, and the Brits knowledge of America was far more abyssmal than my American friends knowledge of the world. Granted, my circles may be particularly well travelled and exceptions, but there's no denying that Canada and the U.K. are far more similar to the states than they are comfortable with. Are American creationist and fundys a specifically loathsome breed? Yes, yes they are. But when other countries are suffering under the same creeping threat that may not be on par with the U.S.'s strain of fundyvirus, it is definitely spreading and it's alarming to me to see other countries insist it's exclusively an American phenomenon.

I'm singling out Canada only because it's ******* me off these days. Oh yeah, almost forgot how bad of a festering pit Australia has become as well: CREATIONISM IN AUSTRALIA

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So God speaks a single species into existence, and it can give rise to new species. Can the new species give rise to further new species? And so on?

Yes.

I'm just responding to your posts, sandy. It's not me who keeps bringing up Biblical perspectives.

My bad, three mentions are a lot. I should have limited it to two, but you keep asking me what I believe. All I originally asked was to have my ignant arse educated about evolution.

Well what would that look like? God says, "tiger," and a tiger magically appears, fully formed, right?

Wrong “m” word.

Based on the Bible you don't want me to talk about?

You keep asking me what I believe. I just don’t see what the Bible has to do with evolution.

And approximately when were these days?

After the second and fourth days.

Yes, contradictory statements can be confusing.

I know you think you misunderstood what you think I said but what I said is not really what I meant.
.

O.K., so for example God created the genus Panthera, and lions, tigers and leopards evolved from it? Is that what you're saying? God didn't create lions and tigers separately? But, for another example, thousands of different genera of beetles?

The Bible doesn’t go into that much detail. I suppose it would be too large a tome to carry to Church on Sunday. God is merciful that way, praise the Lord.

Exactly. So how or why does change stop at the genus level. If a species gives rise to a new species, and that one gives rise to a new species, and so on, why don't we get new genera, and how do you know?

Now that’s a darned good question and puts a lot of doubt into my proposal. Perhaps reconciling the Biblical creation account and the natural world isn’t meant to be. They may be dichotomies that make it a clear choice.

So basically you have no idea about your central assertion?

I wouldn’t say that. I had ideas; vague ideas, but ideas nonetheless. Vague ideas achieved my purpose though.

That's not my point. My point is that you define a "kind" as a genus…

I wasn’t aware I brought up “kinds.” I believe I studiously avoided that.

… while prominent creationists explicity deny that a "kind" is equivalent to a genus. I was wondering whether you were aware of that.

I may have the same distaste for “prominent creationists” that you have. I first researched this whole creation/evolution/abiogenesis debate about ten or twelve years ago and threw my hands up in disgust and fled from the scene. There seemed to be too much conflicting evidence and honestly, some creationist proponents hung on to obviously fallacious evidence long after even most creationists rejected it. The one I recall the most was that whole thing about discovering the footprints of men and three-toed dinosaurs in a riverbed in Mississippi.

I believe you are alone in asserting that God created the separate genera, and wondered how you came to that conclusion.

I’m often unique in what I think but not on this. My thought is that God created plants and animals close to how we see them today. I don’t think I’m all that unique there. One fish changes into another similar fish, one grass becomes a similar grass, ect. and the world goes on looking like it does today (I haven’t given a lot of thought as to what God’s created world will look like going forward. Perhaps a new topic for debate; “Will There be Evolution in Heaven?”) Obviously this does not match up with fossil evidence. But it does match up with actual observed species change. Also obvious is that the Biblical description of creation is not going to match up with the natural world account. That I was attempting to match the two up in a small way is turning out to be kinda lame. I may need to reverbiagize my paradigm.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm sorry, I'll be more accurate here. The charlatans and liars at AIG have come up with some incomprehensible babble which they cite as the definition for "kind." Would you like to hear it?

I understand your ability to be condescending and belittling. I tend to do that myself at times. That doesn’t make it pretty though. It doesn’t make the tenor of your dialogue any more courteous either. Your “courtesy” does seem to stop at simply answering every question asked. Sooooo…who’s going to win “March Madness?”

I will be happy to defend this characterization, if you like. AIG, like all creationist websites, is full of lies, distortion and misinformation. Calling them "psuedo-scientists" is too kind. They are not any kind of scientists, for the most part they are dentists, engineers and teachers, some of them with fake credentials. For example Ken Ham, the founder, has a "diploma in education" from the University of Queensland.

Go for it.

You are mistaken.

Hush your mouth.

Would you like to review the evidence that supports the entire ToE theory that all life descended from a single one-celled ancestor?

I believe that’s in line with my original question.

In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked what empirical evidence supports your position that God "spoke" the various genera into existence, and species have evolved from them. Are you saying there isn't any?

I wasn’t going to say that. The only evidence I have is the Bible and the reasons I believe the Bible are another topic for discussion

I suppose I could use the same bad logic that someone else used for evolution, “They’re here aren’t they?”

 

[sandy whitelinger]

When all the evidence points in the same direction, that's when a theory is considered robust and well-supported. That's called consilience, and it's the holy grail of scientific discovery. So it's not the fossils, not the DNA, not the homologies, not the fulfilled predictions, not the vestigial organs, not the geographical distribution of species, it's all of these taken together and particularly, and this is key, the utter complete total absence of a single piece of evidence not consistent with the theory.

Biblical study uses similar methods. Put simply, it’s “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little…”

If you want to argue against ToE…

I’m really not arguing against evolution. I was asking to be educated about it.

… this is what you have to contend with: consilience. It's the one issue that creationists never address, and you will search AIG, CSM and ICR in vain for a single one of the dishonest fakes there to address it.

I’ll take your word for it.

How on earth is this relevant? You need evidence that supports your hypothesis, not an anecdote about an unrelated experiment. Right, wrong or indifferent, it's utterly irrelevant to our discussion here.

Just pointing out evidence of scientific bias.

Do I take it then that you have absolutely no evidence to support your hypothesis? As opposed to the literal mountains of consilient evidence that ToE has?

Of course I do.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Oh, so your point is that science is bad and wrong. I see, you're opposed to science in general, not just Biology? Your assertion is that science is not the best way to learn about the natural world?

No, my point is that science has bias’ that can lead to misperceptions. Pay closer attention, I don’t see how you keep missing that. Oh, wait, yes I do.

btw, did you happen to notice that the opposite view prevailed? So your anecdote is a good example of how science, unlike religion, overcomes bias?

Touche. Science is better at correcting its mistakes than those ignorant lying creationists. Perhaps we creationists should euthanize Ken Ham. Or maybe just do an interdiction.

So science doesn't work? Is that your point? You're going to have a hard time persuading us that science isn't the best way to learn about the natural world, now that's learned the shape and size of the universe and atomic particles. Good luck with that.

No, I’m only pointing out that you assume that you don’t assume. Science relies on faith as well. You are just loath to call it faith. You use similar words with less correlation to a Biblical way of thought.

You do something with baloney.

I’m sure you’ve painted a picture in your mind. Care to elaborate?

Why not rats?

They’re disgustipating.

A good example of closely related genera? What the evidence is that elephants, mastodons and so forth are related? O.K., I'll work on that.

Use rats if you wish. I read that elephants were a good example in that the lineage is unique and readily identifiable. Plus you might say “Dumbo” and I are related.

Remember, sandy, you're talking about an all powerful, unknowable God.

When did I describe God in this thread as all-powerful and unknowable? And that’s “Sandy” with a capital “S.” I don’t have a diminutive.

God could create things anyway He wanted, exactly that way, or any other way. God could have created large species that are not bilaterally symmetrical, species that lay eggs but feed their offspring milk, tiny creatures with exoskeletons that have wings but 4 body parts instead of 3, plants that fly, animals with roots, anything He wanted.

It’s interesting how those who have never created understand perfectly how to create.

For that reason, you can never use a Creator with magic powers to explain exactly why things are precisely as they are and no other way. Do you see why?

I’ve read the reasoning behind it and I’m not sure I agree with it. It seems that the god that created the universe and sat back to watch it unfold and granted special dispensation to the humans of evolution is just the god who got backed into a corner by science. It was left in charge of the only mysteries in the natural realm that man relegated to it. I prefer the God in charge of the mystery of how the Biblical creation account fits into the life of those who swallowed the pill of belief in Him.

 

[Alceste]

While no American South, Canada doesn't have the best science education record as of late either:
Canada's Science Minister won't confirm his belief in evolution but waffles around the issue with "I'm not going to answer that question, I am a Christian and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate." And I see just 17 hours ago it's reported he's just reversed that stance and says he does accept evolution- looks like someone had a talking to.
Over a 150 million will be cut from the Canadian science budget.
While 82% of Americans are theists, 72% of Canadians are also theists- now being a theist isn't an example of incompetence, but I do think it's an example of how similar the two countries are despite the differences.

Oh, now please don't go confusing Canadians in general with * holds nose * Stephen Harper's minority government. The only reason he got his gong show going in the first place is that he's a professional propagandist who goes to great lengths to conceal his religious views and those of his party. He keeps an iron gag on his political appointees to prevent them from accidentally expressing their actual opinions. The creationist / chiropractor / Science Minister's slip-up is a perfect example: "I don't believe in evolution..." ring ring "uh... hello... mm-hmm... uh... ok... yes sir... sorry sir." click. "so... as I was saying, I do believe in evolution."

If the 36 % of Canadians who actually voted for Conservatives last time around were allowed to hear what they actually think, I believe at least a third of them would have voted differently. As for the others, well there's always going to be a portion of the population who has the sort of bumper sticker values Conservatives of any stripe depend upon for their political survival.

BTW, the 72 % of Canadians who are theists are NOT equivalent to the US theists, since the demographics are completely different. Over half are Catholic to begin with, and of the remainder, the majority are United Church of Canada, who aren't even particularly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

It's funny 'cause when I lived in London I would get the most inane questions about American culture, particularly politics and religion, and the Brits knowledge of America was far more abyssmal than my American friends knowledge of the world.

That's hardly a fair comparison. America is just one country. "The world" is a whole bunch of countries. I live in England myself, and my English friends know quite a lot about the world. Especially compared to Americans, and yes, even Canadians. But it's not like it's a contest or anything, right?

Are American creationist and fundys a specifically loathsome breed? Yes, yes they are. But when other countries are suffering under the same creeping threat that may not be on par with the U.S.'s strain of fundyvirus, it is definitely spreading and it's alarming to me to see other countries insist it's exclusively an American phenomenon.

I'm singling out Canada only because it's ******* me off these days. Oh yeah, almost forgot how bad of a festering pit Australia has become as well: CREATIONISM IN AUSTRALIA

I agree with you about Australia. I don't know what's going on over there - they seemed so... drunk when I was there. What changed?

Seriously, though, it does concern me - even having met three of them concerns me, especially since they've all been within the last 6 years. And particularly since we have a dishonest fundie prime minister with a Machiavellian lust for power and a bunch of equally dishonest mewling minions to do his bidding. The only thing that comforts me is my confidence that if the Conservatives shed their veil of secrecy, they'd lose power in Canada.

 

[themadhair]

I just don’t see what the Bible has to do with evolution

You are right that the bible has nothing to do with evolution. There is just this peculiar hardcore of fundamentalists who seem intent on using it to deny observational reality though, so it tends to come up a lot in forums such as this.

The Bible doesn’t go into that much detail. I suppose it would be too large a tome to carry to Church on Sunday. God is merciful that way, praise the Lord.

Maybe the bible didn’t go into detail because the author was being metaphorical? Either that or he/she it up?

Perhaps reconciling the Biblical creation account and the natural world isn’t meant to be.

Ding Ding!! We have a winrar!

There seemed to be too much conflicting evidence and honestly, some creationist proponents hung on to obviously fallacious evidence long after even most creationists rejected it.
….
My thought is that God created plants and animals close to how we see them today.

So close and yet so far…

One fish changes into another similar fish, one grass becomes a similar grass, ect. and the world goes on looking like it does today. Obviously this does not match up with fossil evidence.

Or the genetics. Given you acknowledge that this evidence contradicts the notion of ‘persisting kinds’ why do you hold to it?

Also obvious is that the Biblical description of creation is not going to match up with the natural world account.

Natural world account = what the physical evidence says?

The only evidence I have is the Bible and the reasons I believe the Bible are another topic for discussion

If only all creationists would admit this instead of trying to play scientist and foul up science education.

I’m really not arguing against evolution. I was asking to be educated about it.

I’m skeptical. If you were genuine then would you really have posted your ‘contradictory evidences’ without researching to verify their validity?

I highly recommend you read the wiki article on evolution as well as its FAQ page which clears up many of the misconceptions that creationist websites propagate.

Just pointing out evidence of scientific bias.

Science is biased in favour of evidence. Really? Who would have thunk it??

No, my point is that science has bias’ that can lead to misperceptions. Pay closer attention, I don’t see how you keep missing that. Oh, wait, yes I do.

Amazing how science, despite all its misperceptions, biases and disagreements with scripture, can manage to produce useable and workable technologies like medicine, computers, aeroplanes and anything else that contributes to the modern standard of living.

No, I’m only pointing out that you assume that you don’t assume. Science relies on faith as well. You are just loath to call it faith. You use similar words with less correlation to a Biblical way of thought.

Why do you folks try and drag evidence-based science down to the level of faith? Is this some sort of admission that you realise that this faith business isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?
Apparently, basing everything on evidence is a faith now? Be sure to tell all those scientists who produced the marvels of modern technology that make our lives better that basing theories on evidence is faith.

 

[roli]

They'll keep asking until they get an answer that conforms to their religious beliefs.

By my estimate it'll be 4,729,883,226,438,999,123 times before it sinks in.

Then there is still room for the theory of creation ????