jonathansampson said:

I'm not a supporter of either candidates, but, where you rejected as a child?
This is CLEARLY trolling.

And it's such succesful trolling too. Just look at the response.

Bas said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

And it's such succesful trolling too. Just look at the response.

Bas said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

And it's such succesful trolling too. Just look at the response.

corona_coder said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I'm a troll because Obama got embarassed last night?  Quit being sore losers.  You knew it was going to happen.  The election is just a formality, President McCain will be in office soon enough.  Fixing the economy and making our lives easier.

foreachdev said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I think neither candidate made any headway last night. Same old arguments. It really comes down to a few things:

-Do you make more than 250k a year? Yes = McCain No=Obama
-Do you fall in line with the Christian right on Gay Civil Liberties? Yes = McCain No=Obama
-Do you believe Iraq is a waste of money even with the surge? Yes = Obama No = McCain
-Do you believe business taxes should be cut? Yes = McCain No = Obama
-Do you believe Corporations need more money by better tax cuts? Yes = McCain No = Obama
-Do you believe Palin is the next President? (Do you believe McCain should be in retirement:) Yes = Obama No = McCain

Everything else they pretty much agree or are not real issues. Really I think we should punish the republicans for the last 8 years of Bush.

You really believe the young wippersnapper attack McCain used last night? He came off to me a crotchety out of touch conservative who only cares about his lobbyest.

I am a maverick isn't really a good defense or attack. When was the last time a western was put out?

corona_coder said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I'm a troll because Obama got embarassed last night?  Quit being sore losers.  You knew it was going to happen.  The election is just a formality, President McCain will be in office soon enough.  Fixing the economy and making our lives easier.

corona_coder said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I'm a troll because Obama got embarassed last night?  Quit being sore losers.  You knew it was going to happen.  The election is just a formality, President McCain will be in office soon enough.  Fixing the economy and making our lives easier.

phreaks said:

foreachdev said:

*snip*

Yeah, so redistribution of wealth is what this country is all about.

Oh, that guy makes 250k, take his hard earned money and give it to me.

What a bunch of lazy, pansy socialists.

Bas said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Where in the plan does it state that people who make less than 250k get the money of people who made more than 250k?

phreaks said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Where do you think their tax cuts come from.

Umm and the 38% of Americans that DON'T pay taxes get a check, where does that money come from?
He is redistributing the wealth.

evildictaitor said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Taxes are inevitable - so how do you get the tax that isn't a "redistribution"? Either you put a flat tax per person which hits the poor very hard (as it becomes a high proportion of their income) or you choose a percentage based scheme which hits the richest in real terms the most. Arguably you should choose a weighted percentage system, since the super-wealthy pay as a proportion of their income much more on luxuries and non-essentials.

There is no such thing as a tax scheme that isn't a redistribution of wealth.

EDIT: Oh I see you changed your response, how nice.


The fact is that the top 5% of earners already pay 40% of the taxes.

You won't be happy until Marx himself is presiding over the Oval office, will you.

The CEO topic is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the tax issue or the redistribution of wealth, which is anti-capitalist on it's face.

phreaks said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

EDIT: Oh I see you changed your response, how nice.


The fact is that the top 5% of earners already pay 40% of the taxes.

You won't be happy until Marx himself is presiding over the Oval office, will you.

The CEO topic is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the tax issue or the redistribution of wealth, which is anti-capitalist on it's face.

littleguru said:

Guys... everything is fine. He's only following the COW (Channel 9 Opposite Week) that Jamie started.

phreaks said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Where do you think their tax cuts come from.

Umm and the 38% of Americans that DON'T pay taxes get a check, where does that money come from?
He is redistributing the wealth.

Where do you think their tax cuts come from.

Bas said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Tax cuts are not equal to receiving money.

30+% of the population doesn't pay taxes, in those cases Obama has clearly stated, "They will receive checks."

phreaks said:

Bas said:

*snip*

30+% of the population doesn't pay taxes, in those cases Obama has clearly stated, "They will receive checks."

If you listened to what Obama was saying you would of heard him say he would not raise taxes for anyone making less than 250k with his tax restructuring. Which I would imagine would include you:)

In my opinion people who make 250k have a lot less to worry about financially than those of us making sub 100k. Its not socialism it restructuring the tax code. As taxes has zero to do with socialism. Now buying up morgages is socialism since you now effectively have a lien on private property. But then again republicans are for socialism since the republican white house was the party who forced the 700 billion dollar bail out. One less reason to vote republican in my estimation. But of course you conviently ignoring that fact.

phreaks said:

Bas said:

*snip*

30+% of the population doesn't pay taxes, in those cases Obama has clearly stated, "They will receive checks."

Then why didn't you say that right away instead of going on about tax cuts?

Here's why: you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting the problem and the proposed solution, either because you don't know the details or because you want to win an argument at any means.

foreachdev said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

If you listened to what Obama was saying you would of heard him say he would not raise taxes for anyone making less than 250k with his tax restructuring. Which I would imagine would include you:)

In my opinion people who make 250k have a lot less to worry about financially than those of us making sub 100k. Its not socialism it restructuring the tax code. As taxes has zero to do with socialism. Now buying up morgages is socialism since you now effectively have a lien on private property. But then again republicans are for socialism since the republican white house was the party who forced the 700 billion dollar bail out. One less reason to vote republican in my estimation. But of course you conviently ignoring that fact.

foreachdev said:

If you listened to what Obama was saying you would of heard him say he would not raise taxes for anyone making less than 250k with his tax restructuring. Which I would imagine would include you:)

foreachdev said:

In my opinion people who make 250k have a lot less to worry about financially than those of us making sub 100k. Its not socialism it restructuring the tax code. As taxes has zero to do with socialism.

Bas said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Then why didn't you say that right away instead of going on about tax cuts?

Here's why: you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting the problem and the proposed solution, either because you don't know the details or because you want to win an argument at any means.

No, you're the one that isn't understanding, and I am not over-simplifying anything.

I don't have the time nor inclination to explain rudimentary economics over the internet.

RoyalSchrubber said:

This picture makes more sense than you.

phreaks said:

RoyalSchrubber said:

*snip*

When you get your MBA and CFA and achieve 10 years experience working in financials, then you can start trolling me on any financial or economic topic you like.

Until then STFU because clearly not many people here have even a basic understanding of the fundamental principles of finance. 

Minh said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Now now guys. A progressive tax system isn't communism.

I love it when in a political thread, I'm the calm one.

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

I didn't say it was communism, I said it was socialism.

Nothing like free hand-outs to inspire people to work harder and achieve on their own merit, aye.

//what was racist about carona's first post? It may have been idiotic, but I didn't notice anything racist about it???

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

I didn't say it was communism, I said it was socialism.

Nothing like free hand-outs to inspire people to work harder and achieve on their own merit, aye.

//what was racist about carona's first post? It may have been idiotic, but I didn't notice anything racist about it???

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

I didn't say it was communism, I said it was socialism.

Nothing like free hand-outs to inspire people to work harder and achieve on their own merit, aye.

//what was racist about carona's first post? It may have been idiotic, but I didn't notice anything racist about it???

blowdart said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Hold on, what? Taxes aren't socialism; nor are they capitalism. They're fund raising, nothing more. It's how the funds get distributed that indicates the political creed.

phreaks said:

RoyalSchrubber said:

*snip*

When you get your MBA and CFA and achieve 10 years experience working in financials, then you can start trolling me on any financial or economic topic you like.

Until then STFU because clearly not many people here have even a basic understanding of the fundamental principles of finance. 

phreaks said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

EDIT: Oh I see you changed your response, how nice.


The fact is that the top 5% of earners already pay 40% of the taxes.

You won't be happy until Marx himself is presiding over the Oval office, will you.

The CEO topic is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the tax issue or the redistribution of wealth, which is anti-capitalist on it's face.

RoyalSchrubber said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Eh, I'm sorry if you felt offended, I didn't make things clear - fries are for corona nut - I replied to root. 

Anyway, yeah I don't know squat about finance, I'm only (CS) student. Didn't read all these economy threads that are springing on C9 recently, anyone knows when this crisis is going to stop? 6 months, a year? Any predictions? 

evildictaitor said:

RoyalSchrubber said:

*snip*

Noone is qualified to make that call, and certainly not here on C9.

ScanIAm said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

Ultimately, there has to be a certain limit to how much someone is actually able to keep, for themselves.  I'll argue that after, for example, $5million, any further money that you earn is just not fair.  All overage should be taken back for any or all of the following:

1) taxes
2) charity
3) active job creation that benefits society, no just you.
4) some other form of social good, not selfish good.

This isn't socialism, it is simply fair.

If you can't find a way to live comfortable and happy on that amount, then let's just pick another amount, but let's be reasonable, here.  Vast wealth collection is not one of 'good things' that comes from capitalism.

Sampy said:

ScanIAm said:

*snip*

As long as we ensure the cost of a pony is MAX_WEALTH + $1 so our flag can be this:

ScanIAm said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

Ultimately, there has to be a certain limit to how much someone is actually able to keep, for themselves.  I'll argue that after, for example, $5million, any further money that you earn is just not fair.  All overage should be taken back for any or all of the following:

1) taxes
2) charity
3) active job creation that benefits society, no just you.
4) some other form of social good, not selfish good.

This isn't socialism, it is simply fair.

If you can't find a way to live comfortable and happy on that amount, then let's just pick another amount, but let's be reasonable, here.  Vast wealth collection is not one of 'good things' that comes from capitalism.

matthews said:

ScanIAm said:

*snip*

It's not the government's or anyone else's money to dispense; it belongs to the person who earned it, and they should be able to do whatever the frak they want to with it.

Also, could you guys ban CC for more than just 'till the 18th? ;D

matthews said:

ScanIAm said:

*snip*

It's not the government's or anyone else's money to dispense; it belongs to the person who earned it, and they should be able to do whatever the frak they want to with it.

Also, could you guys ban CC for more than just 'till the 18th? ;D

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

I didn't say it was communism, I said it was socialism.

Nothing like free hand-outs to inspire people to work harder and achieve on their own merit, aye.

//what was racist about carona's first post? It may have been idiotic, but I didn't notice anything racist about it???

Bass said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

The whole libertarinish (sic) "they should work" argument is a bit native I think. I mean as an software engineer I have written software who's major purpose was to "relieve" the job responsibilities of groups of people. Really, I make a "living" removing the ability for others to "make a living". Sad truth. Well not really, usually the companies keep these largely useless people onboard to waste time. But really I am not sure how I fit into this work based ecomony.. my labor is to kill human labor everywhere and anywhere I can.

We are getting to a point where not everyone really needs to work. We really need a 200 million person workforce to manage the economy anymore. 10 million and some smart technology might be enough. We have increasingly intelligent technology. Soon with advancements in technology, all human labor will become obsolete.

So what then?

Socialism my friend.

Hmm... wouldn't that mean that we would stop at what we achieved? Isn't stopping going backwards?

littleguru said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Hmm... wouldn't that mean that we would stop at what we achieved? Isn't stopping going backwards?

phreaks said:

foreachdev said:

*snip*

Yeah, so redistribution of wealth is what this country is all about.

Oh, that guy makes 250k, take his hard earned money and give it to me.

What a bunch of lazy, pansy socialists.

BHpaddock said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

"Redistribution of wealth" doesn't apply here.  Focusing tax cuts on those with lesser incomes isn't redistributing wealth.  It's being fair.  The GOP have spread this myth that the economy is a fixed pie, and that giving tax relief to lower income families means somehow that it must come out of the pockets of the rich.  That is simply not the case.

I'm in the group that won't get a tax cut under Obama but might under McCain.  I'm voting for Obama.  I don't need a tax break, at least not as much as the US government needs to balance its budget and stop borrowing from China.  Someday my children are going to live in the country that we today leave behind for them.  I don't want them paying for Bush's irresponsible big government spending and endless borrowing.  I don't want religion / creationism being taught in their schools as science.  I will want them to never have to worry about healthcare no matter what happens to me.  I want them to have the same opportunities I had or better.  Basically, I don't want this country to continue going down the toilet as it has over the last 8 years and I give that a higher priority than lowering my tax burden.

I also really have to wonder if you make 250k+ a year and are voting for McCain.  In my experience, the people who seem most concerned with this "redistribution of wealth" fallacy aren't even affected by it.

wisemx said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

One Nation Under God
      -=  Ooh Rah  =-

wisemx said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

One Nation Under God
      -=  Ooh Rah  =-

PaoloM said:

wisemx said:

*snip*

Are you serious?

jonathansampson said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

Not sure why you're asking. Religious recognition of God is one of the fundamental aspects of the American Government, so if he is serious, he's only just as serious as those who breathed this Country into existence by their own blood and passion - nothing wrong with that.

PaoloM said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Plenty of wrong with that, actually.

I'm an Honor Guard and will give my last drop of blood to protect every right to Freedom, for every U.S. Citizen.
Including my own right to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Daily, One Nation Under God.

Anyone wanting to talk to me face to face is more than welcome...
I'll be at the 776th Maintenance Squadron deployment tomorrow at noon.

PaoloM said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Plenty of wrong with that, actually.

jonathansampson said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

It's evident in practically every historical governmental building, monument, and currency for this country. The roots of it's evidence runs far too deep for any history-re-writer to deny. You're welcome to ignore it all though, if you like. That's your right.

PaoloM said:

wisemx said:

*snip*

Are you serious?

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

"God" is not mentioned once in the Constitution of the United States. And for good reasons. Religious symbols are found on some governmental properties, because they are not forbidden, unless they are required. ie, if the government is promoting a particular religion.

wisemx wrote:
Anyone wanting to talk to me face to face is more than welcome...
I'll be at the 776th Maintenance Squadron deployment tomorrow at noon.

Let me know when you come to town.

blowdart said:

Minh said:

*snip*

No but it is there in the pledge of allegiance, and alluded to in the declaration of independence. Which is kind of weird, but, meh. Religion and politics shouldn't mix; but then how do you represent the religious portion of the population without that?

jonathansampson said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

Not sure why you're asking. Religious recognition of God is one of the fundamental aspects of the American Government, so if he is serious, he's only just as serious as those who breathed this Country into existence by their own blood and passion - nothing wrong with that.

phreaks said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

Are you?

I love it how all the 'tolerant' liberals tolerance is only recognized in regards to their own ideals.

BHpaddock said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Please explain what tolerance has to do with teaching myth as science in secular government-sponsored schools?

wisemx said:

I'm an Honor Guard and will give my last drop of blood to protect every right to Freedom, for every U.S. Citizen.
Including my own right to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Daily, One Nation Under God.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Actually no, it isn't and never was.  Of those credited as "founding fathers" of our country, several had no religious affiliation.  Many who did were Deists.  And others who did expressed problems with religion, especially Christianity:

Jefferson, in particular wrote:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it"

BHpaddock said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Please explain what tolerance has to do with teaching myth as science in secular government-sponsored schools?

phreaks said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

The tolerance issue was over saying "God," not teaching myths in science class - stay on topic.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Huh?  The first mention of religion was my point about not wanting creation myth taught in science class.  "wisemx" responded to this saying that it was okay because we are "One Nation Under God."

I'm the one trying to stay on topic.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Huh?  The first mention of religion was my point about not wanting creation myth taught in science class.  "wisemx" responded to this saying that it was okay because we are "One Nation Under God."

I'm the one trying to stay on topic.

brian.shapiro said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

BHpaddock,

Actually the original topic was tax policy, and you decided that it was necessary to talk about creationism. So, no I think you changed the topic.

brian.shapiro said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

BHpaddock,

Actually the original topic was tax policy, and you decided that it was necessary to talk about creationism. So, no I think you changed the topic.

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Where did wisemx say it was okay to teach Creationism in Science class? I think perhaps you didn't practice very good exegesis with his words.

BHpaddock said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

No, the topic was the suggestion that people over a certain income level should vote for McCain because he'll lower their taxes.  My response was clearly that many of us have different priorities.

brian.shapiro said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Your response was closer to this: McCain is a bad, bad guy, who would ruin the country, while the other candidate will bring us out of the darkness.

You listed all the bad, bad things McCain would do, and thought you could do that without moving the thread off topic.

Not that the thread was particularly good to beginwith

BHpaddock said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

What?  I never said McCain was a bad guy.  He's a friend of my family and I campaigned for him in 2000.

I responded to Phreak's comments, his "redistribution of wealth" straw man, and his assertion of priorities in this election.  If you're going to respond to my posts in the future, please read them in the context of the message to which I was replying.

If your idea of a valuable discussion is misrepresenting my post (which is only one page back) and putting words in my mouth, I can direct you to forums where such drivel is more welcome.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Please explain his response, then.

brian.shapiro said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

You did say you wouldn't vote for mccain because you dont want our country to continue going down the toilet, and McCain is apparently part of the side thats ruining our country. So i dont think i misrepresented you that much. I don't know if you think McCain will continue Bush's spending policies, or wouldn't try to work out a health care plan, or think he'll try to put religion in schools. But you didn't really qualify what you were talking about.

evildictaitor said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

Putting religion in schools isn't a bad thing. Putting it into science lessons is.

jonathansampson said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

To my knowledge I don't know of a single candidate who is trying to put religion into science lessons - so why is this even being mentioned? Seems like a red herring.

BHpaddock said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

What?  I never said McCain was a bad guy.  He's a friend of my family and I campaigned for him in 2000.

I responded to Phreak's comments, his "redistribution of wealth" straw man, and his assertion of priorities in this election.  If you're going to respond to my posts in the future, please read them in the context of the message to which I was replying.

If your idea of a valuable discussion is misrepresenting my post (which is only one page back) and putting words in my mouth, I can direct you to forums where such drivel is more welcome.

brian.shapiro said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Yea well when we have a political thread here we get a lot of people going in different directions

phreaks said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

I'm voting for Ron Jeremy

phreaks said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

I'm voting for Ron Jeremy

jonathansampson said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

dup

jonathansampson said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

To my knowledge I don't know of a single candidate who is trying to put religion into science lessons - so why is this even being mentioned? Seems like a red herring.

Minh said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

phreaks wrote:
what was racist about carona's first post?

Toupac in the whitehouse?

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

So, a statement about country music being played in the Bush Whitehouse would be considered 'racist' as well?

I think everyone is a bit hyper-sensitive?

phreaks said:

RoyalSchrubber said:

*snip*

When you get your MBA and CFA and achieve 10 years experience working in financials, then you can start trolling me on any financial or economic topic you like.

Until then STFU because clearly not many people here have even a basic understanding of the fundamental principles of finance. 

Erwin Blonk said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

"When you get your MBA and CFA and achieve 10 years experience working in financials"

The present financial problems, and in the past those of Enron, the S&L troubles and like events do not inspire confidence in the effect of education on the decisionmakers in this field.

ScanIAm said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

The sad part is that you know exactly what was innapropriate and yet you still feel the need to defend it.

Dictionary.com said:

— rac·ist

Pronunciation:

\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\

Function:

noun

Date:

1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

phreaks said:

Erwin Blonk said:

*snip*

Invoking Enron? That was an accounting scandal. Sorry bub, I'm not an accountant.

S&L is out of context as well, bad (traditional) loans by Savings and Loans that weren't securitized.

I'm also not a "decision maker", I'm in research.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Palin.

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

So, a statement about country music being played in the Bush Whitehouse would be considered 'racist' as well?

I think everyone is a bit hyper-sensitive?

jonathansampson said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

It's incredibly annoying how quick people tag others with the "racist" label today. 99% of the time they only show that they don't have the slightest clue what that word even means.

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathansampson wrote:
99% of the time they only show that they don't have the slightest clue what that word even means.

I know what the word means. I thought the comment was racist.

Here's the litmus test, jonathan & J.

You go up to a friend of yours & say something about Obama & playing Toupac in the Whitehouse. If you can't do it, then, maybe you thought it was racist as well.

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

What about that is racist? Sure, it's stereotyping, but what about it is racist?

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

What about that is racist? Sure, it's stereotyping, but what about it is racist?

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Stereotyping in a derogatory context is racist.
I found the context to be derogatory.

While I agree that these things are sometimes subjective, I think the original poster was being deliberately inflamatory, which tips the statement over into racism.

Herbie

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

janathansampson wrote:
What about that is racist? Sure, it's stereotyping, but what about it is racist?

Does that mean you would or would not do my test?

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

You boldly proclaimed it was racist to say such a thing. Ergo, the burden of proof is on you to defend your argument. What about that is racist? I admitted it is stereotyping, but I don't see how that indicates one race is superior than another. Please, explain your position as I explained mine.

Additionally, your "test" is fallacious as it assumes the comments must be "racist" if the reader wouldn't say them to a friend. This is the fallacy of a verified prediction. It could be that the comment is simply rude, or disrespectful, but not racist. And for this reason, some people may refuse to say such a thing.

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Wrong; Palin explicitly stated that she wasn't opposed to allowing students to discuss other ideas. Can you show where she attempted to mandate the teaching of Creationism in science classes, or are you simply regurgitating nonsense you heard elsewhere?

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

No, not wrong.

Palin said that she thinks schools should teach "alternatives" to the logical conjecture based on physical evidence and scientific reasoning.  That is not science class.  That is mythology.  

Religious fundamentalism is the greatest threat to American security and prosperity, regardless of whether it is Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism..  She believes the "end times" have begun and that Alaska will be "safe haven" during the Reckoning.  This is unacceptable for somebody holding the highest office in the land.

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

What I don't get is why they don't just say "You must not teach the theory of evolution as fact - you must always make sure to call it the theory of evolution" and when they ask a question they do not say "how did such-and-such evolve" but rather say "according to the theory of evolution, how did such-and-such evolve?"

This has the advantage that

1. Creationists can learn it without the dogma that's being shoved down their throats that they are wrong and evolutionists are right

2. It stops being contraversial. Creationists don't (by and large) want to have their subject taught in science lessons, they just don't want evolution taught as fact

3. It's actually more accurate. Evolution is a theory and while it's a theory that by-and-large fits the facts, it's still a theory. It's not going to be 100% correct and will need refinement when the facts turn out to disagree with the theory at a later stage.

When "evolutionists" make knee-jerk reactions and call creationists crazy, stupid or "just plain wrong" in the media, it just isolates them more so they dig in further, and then it becomes a argument between two fundamentalist sides.

A creationist can argue you to death if you say "The such-and-such-asaurus evolved from algae", they can't argue against your statement that "According to evolution, the such-and-such-asaurus evolved from algae", because it's clearly true if you use the word "according to". Simmilarly an evolutionist can argue against "God created the world in six days" - they cannot argue against the statement "according to 6-day creationism, God created the world in six days".

It's just a simple question of being pragmatic and trying to avoid a fundamentalist war-of-words which just makes everyone angry, makes both sides more extreme and ends up ultimately with kids getting a worse education.

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

What I don't get is why they don't just say "You must not teach the theory of evolution as fact - you must always make sure to call it the theory of evolution" and when they ask a question they do not say "how did such-and-such evolve" but rather say "according to the theory of evolution, how did such-and-such evolve?"

This has the advantage that

1. Creationists can learn it without the dogma that's being shoved down their throats that they are wrong and evolutionists are right

2. It stops being contraversial. Creationists don't (by and large) want to have their subject taught in science lessons, they just don't want evolution taught as fact

3. It's actually more accurate. Evolution is a theory and while it's a theory that by-and-large fits the facts, it's still a theory. It's not going to be 100% correct and will need refinement when the facts turn out to disagree with the theory at a later stage.

When "evolutionists" make knee-jerk reactions and call creationists crazy, stupid or "just plain wrong" in the media, it just isolates them more so they dig in further, and then it becomes a argument between two fundamentalist sides.

A creationist can argue you to death if you say "The such-and-such-asaurus evolved from algae", they can't argue against your statement that "According to evolution, the such-and-such-asaurus evolved from algae", because it's clearly true if you use the word "according to". Simmilarly an evolutionist can argue against "God created the world in six days" - they cannot argue against the statement "according to 6-day creationism, God created the world in six days".

It's just a simple question of being pragmatic and trying to avoid a fundamentalist war-of-words which just makes everyone angry, makes both sides more extreme and ends up ultimately with kids getting a worse education.

Sorry, no.

The definition of a scientific theory is very different from the layman's common use of the word "theory". One cannot say "how did such-and-such evolve" without implicitly agreeing with the evolution theory, after all the word "evolve" should be a dead ringer that we're not talking about fantasy tales...

And you don't have "evolutionists" vs "creationists", that's giving way too much credit to the latter ones; it should be "intelligent beings" vs "numbnuts". That would be more accurate.

brian.shapiro said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

For me, there's a difference between discussing new earth creationism and some of the more academic critiques by writers like Behe, following that up by explaining the counter-crituqes by other scientists. Science classes should be as much about theory as about the facts, and that means in Biology class you discuss Lamarck, Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and some contemporary dissents and discussions around them.

And the idea that Christians are a huge threat to the country is hysteria from the left, just like you also get hysteria from the right. There's nobody on the Republican ballot who when elected will start holy wars, ban books, put gays in jail, whatever you want to say. Sarah Palin won't do any of that, and she didn't do anything extreme as Alaska governor.

There's nobody on the Republican ballot who when elected will start holy wars, ban books, put gays in jail, whatever you want to say.

You mean that the current policy is going to change? I really hope so...

PaoloM said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

There's nobody on the Republican ballot who when elected will start holy wars, ban books, put gays in jail, whatever you want to say.

You mean that the current policy is going to change? I really hope so...

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathansampson wrote:
It could be that the comment is simply rude, or disrespectful, but not racist. And for this reason, some people may refuse to say such a thing.

OK, then pick a good friend who you don't have a problem saying rude, disrespectful things to.

If you're still unwilling to do that, then you really thought it was a racist comment.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

No, not wrong.

Palin said that she thinks schools should teach "alternatives" to the logical conjecture based on physical evidence and scientific reasoning.  That is not science class.  That is mythology.  

Religious fundamentalism is the greatest threat to American security and prosperity, regardless of whether it is Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism..  She believes the "end times" have begun and that Alaska will be "safe haven" during the Reckoning.  This is unacceptable for somebody holding the highest office in the land.

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

What I don't get is why they don't just say "You must not teach the theory of evolution as fact - you must always make sure to call it the theory of evolution" and when they ask a question they do not say "how did such-and-such evolve" but rather say "according to the theory of evolution, how did such-and-such evolve?"

This has the advantage that

1. Creationists can learn it without the dogma that's being shoved down their throats that they are wrong and evolutionists are right

2. It stops being contraversial. Creationists don't (by and large) want to have their subject taught in science lessons, they just don't want evolution taught as fact

3. It's actually more accurate. Evolution is a theory and while it's a theory that by-and-large fits the facts, it's still a theory. It's not going to be 100% correct and will need refinement when the facts turn out to disagree with the theory at a later stage.

When "evolutionists" make knee-jerk reactions and call creationists crazy, stupid or "just plain wrong" in the media, it just isolates them more so they dig in further, and then it becomes a argument between two fundamentalist sides.

A creationist can argue you to death if you say "The such-and-such-asaurus evolved from algae", they can't argue against your statement that "According to evolution, the such-and-such-asaurus evolved from algae", because it's clearly true if you use the word "according to". Simmilarly an evolutionist can argue against "God created the world in six days" - they cannot argue against the statement "according to 6-day creationism, God created the world in six days".

It's just a simple question of being pragmatic and trying to avoid a fundamentalist war-of-words which just makes everyone angry, makes both sides more extreme and ends up ultimately with kids getting a worse education.

PaoloM said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

Sorry, no.

The definition of a scientific theory is very different from the layman's common use of the word "theory". One cannot say "how did such-and-such evolve" without implicitly agreeing with the evolution theory, after all the word "evolve" should be a dead ringer that we're not talking about fantasy tales...

And you don't have "evolutionists" vs "creationists", that's giving way too much credit to the latter ones; it should be "intelligent beings" vs "numbnuts". That would be more accurate.

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

janathansampson wrote:
What about that is racist? Sure, it's stereotyping, but what about it is racist?

Does that mean you would or would not do my test?

In my old neighborhood where I grew up, I was the only white guy.

I'm not a racist, but I'm not a reactionist either.

phreaks said:

Minh said:

*snip*

In my old neighborhood where I grew up, I was the only white guy.

I'm not a racist, but I'm not a reactionist either.

PaoloM said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

There's nobody on the Republican ballot who when elected will start holy wars, ban books, put gays in jail, whatever you want to say.

You mean that the current policy is going to change? I really hope so...

phreaks said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

LMAO.

Knee jerk reactionism without any attempt of quantification. Classic.

Get off your soapboax and come visit us back here in reality sometime.

for the record:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/28/life.language.reut/

http://www.shfwire.com/story/researchers-say-banned-words-subjects-lead-to-thin-history-textbooks

Who do you think is behind this trend? Is this the effect of a Republican presidency? Or is it something else?

hmmm...

jonathansampson said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

You can't be serious!? You assume a priori that if somebody rejects your idea about the diversity of life they are by default a 'numbnut'? Honestly? Regardless what degrees or academic accomplishments they have, they are still a numbnut? Wow.

The thing is that they aren't just rejecting a single person's idea, they're rejecting the ammassed scientific knowledge of all human history. At some point you have to draw a line and define what is right and what is wrong.

tfraser said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

The thing is that they aren't just rejecting a single person's idea, they're rejecting the ammassed scientific knowledge of all human history. At some point you have to draw a line and define what is right and what is wrong.

jonathansampson said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

As a Creationist, I can safely say that I am not rejecting any "amassed scientific knowledge of all human history." If that were the case, I wouldn't be able to work as a software engineer, and people like Dr. Damandian wouldn't be able to work as Medical Doctors, etc. Come on, if you're going to disagree with Creationists, at least do so on honest grounds.

tfraser said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Your belief in creationism must be pretty weak then. I don't know how anyone can honestly accept a concept like creationism while simultaneously believing common science.

jonathansampson said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Congratulations, I'm your first then. Pick up a book like In 6 Days to read dozens of interviews with degreed Scientists who also believe the theory of Recent Creation, and have absolutely no problem embracing Science. If there's any specific topic that you can't seem to understand why a Creationist would differ with you on, feel free to bring it up - I've discussed issues-in-science with others here before numerous times and love it.

To be honest, I don't see how anybody can believe Universal Common Descent and compare it things like Gravity, which is often done.

tfraser said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Your belief in creationism must be pretty weak then. I don't know how anyone can honestly accept a concept like creationism while simultaneously believing common science.

tfraser said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Well, to start with, I don't know how creationists can believe that Earth was created only 6000 years ago.

Last week I watched a documentary about the LHC and it talked about how we could see the universe in it's infancy by looking at the light from distant stars. Some are so far away that the light we see now depicts them as they were billions of years ago, thus making the universe billions of years old.

A true creationist cannot believe both scenarios, they are simply too disparate.

Edit 1: I think you misunderstand either universal common descent or gravity. They are completely different; there is no comparison between them.

evildictaitor said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

For the record - I don't believe in Creationism, but I don't believe in Evolution _either_. It seems to me that there are stupid people on both sides of the argument. There are some Creationists who have generalized their dislike of Evolution to a full-blown disregard for all things science, claiming that science opposes God, God wins, therefore science is wrong, and my kids shouldn't learn science. These people are stupid.

On the other hand there are the "evolutionists" (and in fairness, these are by and large not the people involved in Biology or any of the disciplines that seriously look at Evolution, but are more Dawkins-reading uninformed imbeciles who have a grudge against religion) who have tried to make science oppose God, and shut religion out of science by saying that they are mutually incompatible, or that science is "right". These people are also stupid.

It seems to me that, at least prior to 18, the syllabus should be devoid of such fanatical lobby groups. People should be taught what creationists believe in Religious Education class, which _should_ be taught because an understanding of the precepts of major world religions is important to an understanding of people who are religious and tolerance therein. Creationists (as jsampson has just shown) generally don't believe that Creationism is "science" - they do believe it to be true and it forms a part of their religion.

Just as people should not be allowed to opt out of RE, people should not be allowed to opt out of science (or even any subset of science) either. While a creationist may well believe that evolution is made up hokey-pokey, the concepts behind the teaching of evolution are more important than the topic itself. Frankly most people don't care about or use the theory of evolution in their day-to-day life, but the idea that you may gather evidence and use these to form a theory, or that you may look at the structure of rock and find different fossils from different strata and come up with a theory that explains why complex organisms are at the top and not at the bottom is a demonstration of a skill that is important, whether you're a creationist, evolutionist or anyone else.

So when Creationists come out with statements such as "I withdrew my child from science/school because they were teaching evolution" I cringe somewhat, but it's just as bad to say "Creationism is a load of codswallop, evolution is true - isn't it obvious?".

@Paolo: The layman term for theory may mean "something that isn't proved", but mathematically what it actually means is "a series of assumptions". The "Theory of Gravity" isn't a statement that says gravity happens - it's a series of assumptions as to how gravity operates. The "Theory of Evolution" doesn't say (or prove) that evolution occurs - it says "Assuming that evolution occurs, we can see that these world phenomena can be explained, and that these conclusions can be drawn".

While a layman may understand the word "theory" to mean "something for which we do not have enough inherent understanding to have yet been proved", when it actually just means "a series of definitions, assumptions (axioms) and conclusions", that doesn't stop the fact that evolution _is_ just a theory, and if the assumptions don't hold, the theory fails.

EvilDictaitor said:

Creationists (as jsampson has just shown) generally don't believe that Creationism is "science" - they do believe it to be true and it forms a part of their religion.

EvilDictaitor said:

While a creationist may well believe that evolution is made up hokey-pokey, the concepts behind the teaching of evolution are more important than the topic itself.

EvilDictaitor said:

evolution _is_ just a theory

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Dude, you don't many any sense. If I refuse to say something rude to a friend it's because I consider the rude comment to be racist? That doesn't even follow.

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathansampson wrote:
Dude, you don't many any sense. If I refuse to say something rude to a friend it's because I consider the rude comment to be racist? That doesn't even follow.

I was just trying to gauge if you really believe in what you wrote. Now I know.

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Of course I believe what I write - I wouldn't write it if it wasn't so. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you've no idea what you are writing. You think that if I wouldn't say something to a friend, then that thing must be "racist," and you fail to grasp the clarity of logic in examples like Affirming the Consequent. Do I really need to spell it out any clearer for you?

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Do you think a watermelon is a racist symbol for African Americans?

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

A watermelon is a watermelon. Do you think cowboy boots and guns are racist symbols for rednecks? Somebody may use these symbols to stereotype a person, but that is stereotyping - not racism. Racism promotes one race over another as superior. I happen to like watermelons, so they can't really be a racist symbol, unless you think I'm inferior because I like them?

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Dude... you remind me of when Clinton said... "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

LOL.

A burning cross on somebody's lawn is just some piece of wood on fire, right?

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Where is my flaw? A watermelon IS a watermelon, and nothing more. If it's true that it's a racist symbol, then what does it mean when you see a white person (me) munching down on some melon? Does it mean I'm inferior?

Ah, so "watermelon" == "burning cross"? So what does it mean if I eat watermelon then?

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Where is my flaw? A watermelon IS a watermelon, and nothing more. If it's true that it's a racist symbol, then what does it mean when you see a white person (me) munching down on some melon? Does it mean I'm inferior?

Ah, so "watermelon" == "burning cross"? So what does it mean if I eat watermelon then?

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathansampson wrote:
Ah, so "watermelon" == "burning cross"? So what does it mean if I eat watermelon then?

Yes. You might eat watermelons, but do you make fun of your black friends with them? Do you even have black friends?

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

You've still not explained how any of this is "racist" and not simply "stereotyping," or harmless playful-banter.

Do I have black friends? How is that relevant? Do you have any pygmy friends?

DCMonkey said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

You know good goddamn well why that watermelon flag is racist. It wouldn't make any f*cking sense if it weren't.

Either you are incredibly ignorant or are being very disingenuous. Probably both.

jonathansampson said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

HOW is it racist? I know that it's stereotyping, and it's disrespectful in this case, but it's not "racist", since it doesn't demonstrate an inferiority of a race, or the superiority of one over the other. Don't mix things up, I'm not defending the watermelon flag, I'm only saying that you've got your objections confused.

jonathansampson said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

This may come as a shock, but I discourage anybody from ever say this. "Just a theory" doesn't work in Science. Science is inductive, ergo, everything can only be at best "just a theory," because you cannot have absolute knowledge to say something is "Fact" with a capital "F". Gravity, while understood, will always only be "just a theory," but that shouldn't leave the user to think it's a frivolous set of ideas.

Evolution is largely great science - and shouldn't be snofted at simply because it's called "a theory." If that were the case, do away with germ-theory, and the theory of Gravity, because these too are "just theories".

I reject concepts in Evolution for legitimate reasons, and not reasons like "it's just a theory."

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

You've still not explained how any of this is "racist" and not simply "stereotyping," or harmless playful-banter.

Do I have black friends? How is that relevant? Do you have any pygmy friends?

jonathansampson said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

I am a Creationist, and I largely agree with you. Any Evolutionist claiming "this IS the way it happened" is clearly ignorant to how Science works, and is only doing a disservice to those whom seek education from that person. Teaching, "to the best of our knowledge, this is what we think happened" is an honest statement, and not a fundamentalist-statement that seems to indicate the speaker contains amazing esoteric knowledge, and wisdom of the unknowable.

Additionally, I agree that I, as a Creationist, do NOT want Creation Science taught in the schools - it doesn't belong there. The facts should be taught, and the interpretations should be discussed. Explain how biological information can be accumulated, inherited, and manipulated, and then feel free to inform the children that the majority of scientists feel these mechanisms are sufficient to address the diversity of life today. That's entirely fair, and don't require you to be dogmatic about unknowable information.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

That's like saying that we shouldn't say "When I drop this apple it will fall to the ground" because gravity is only a theory, and instead we should say "According to the theory of general relativity, when I drop this apple it will fall to the ground."

That's absurd.

Evolution is a fact.  That we evolved from earlier primate species is a fact.  That the earth is roughly 4 billion years old is a fact.  If you want to say that abiogenesis and evolution happened "because God wanted them to" then nobody can have a rational argument with you.  Just like if I claim that Jesus was the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can't disprove it.  It's a useless, nebulous, unfalsifiable claim.

There are a statistically insignificant number of scientists who dispute evolution or common ancestry, and virtually none of them are biologists.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

That's like saying that we shouldn't say "When I drop this apple it will fall to the ground" because gravity is only a theory, and instead we should say "According to the theory of general relativity, when I drop this apple it will fall to the ground."

That's absurd.

Evolution is a fact.  That we evolved from earlier primate species is a fact.  That the earth is roughly 4 billion years old is a fact.  If you want to say that abiogenesis and evolution happened "because God wanted them to" then nobody can have a rational argument with you.  Just like if I claim that Jesus was the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can't disprove it.  It's a useless, nebulous, unfalsifiable claim.

There are a statistically insignificant number of scientists who dispute evolution or common ancestry, and virtually none of them are biologists.

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

It's not a fact, end of. It's a theory which attempts to explain the empirical evidence as we know it. That's not the same as a fact. That's not to discredit it's usefulness, but it simply _isn't_ a fact - and most all of the scientists who work on evolution would agree. It's an empirical model that helps us to understand things - it's not a derivation from a sound axiomatic basis.

If you ignore the implicit assumptions made in a theory and claim that all derivations made from that theory are not dependent on those assumptions, then minor perturbations in the assumptions of that theory from empirical evidence can cause shockwaves through all of your proofs and you end up having to go through everything again to avoid being in a position where you "know" things which are false, and by claiming that evolution (or any theory - even the theory of gravity) is a "fact" then you lend yourself open to making these huge mistakes that hold back progress in science for years.

jonathansampson said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

HOW is it racist? I know that it's stereotyping, and it's disrespectful in this case, but it's not "racist", since it doesn't demonstrate an inferiority of a race, or the superiority of one over the other. Don't mix things up, I'm not defending the watermelon flag, I'm only saying that you've got your objections confused.

jonathansampson said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

I am a Creationist, and I largely agree with you. Any Evolutionist claiming "this IS the way it happened" is clearly ignorant to how Science works, and is only doing a disservice to those whom seek education from that person. Teaching, "to the best of our knowledge, this is what we think happened" is an honest statement, and not a fundamentalist-statement that seems to indicate the speaker contains amazing esoteric knowledge, and wisdom of the unknowable.

Additionally, I agree that I, as a Creationist, do NOT want Creation Science taught in the schools - it doesn't belong there. The facts should be taught, and the interpretations should be discussed. Explain how biological information can be accumulated, inherited, and manipulated, and then feel free to inform the children that the majority of scientists feel these mechanisms are sufficient to address the diversity of life today. That's entirely fair, and don't require you to be dogmatic about unknowable information.

Creation Science

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

It's not a fact, end of. It's a theory which attempts to explain the empirical evidence as we know it. That's not the same as a fact. That's not to discredit it's usefulness, but it simply _isn't_ a fact - and most all of the scientists who work on evolution would agree. It's an empirical model that helps us to understand things - it's not a derivation from a sound axiomatic basis.

If you ignore the implicit assumptions made in a theory and claim that all derivations made from that theory are not dependent on those assumptions, then minor perturbations in the assumptions of that theory from empirical evidence can cause shockwaves through all of your proofs and you end up having to go through everything again to avoid being in a position where you "know" things which are false, and by claiming that evolution (or any theory - even the theory of gravity) is a "fact" then you lend yourself open to making these huge mistakes that hold back progress in science for years.

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Dude, I just defended the idea that "Theory" in Science isn't a bad thing, and now you're acting as though I look down on "theories" in Science? Read the damn posts before you make me waste my time re-explaining everything to you again. To be technical, the Theory of Gravity is a bit more than "Things fall," but I wouldn't expect you to care.

"Evolution is a fact" is a religious mantra. You fail to qualify what you mean, you fail to demonstrate it objectively, you fail on so many levels. Instead, you uphold the statement like any religious nut-job claiming "God did it", just 'cause. Use your brain, man. Our understanding of the Age of the Earth has changed time and time again, and for you to say "4 billion is a fact" is simply ignorant and arrogant. I'll side with the history of science and say "By X-measurements, it appears to be 4 billion, but that could change in the future as we learn more." To say it's a "fact" is to make yourself look very ignorant of how things work.

Not one time in my participation here have I ever said anything remotely like "Because God wanted them to" during discussion on biological topics - yet you feel it's necessary to tag that on me. You're the one spouting nonsense that "X is a fact, Y is a fact, you're an idiot if you deny it" - you really think you sound all that intelligent? You sound a lot like the image you're trying to create to represent me.

Regarding you claim that virtually no biologists dispute evolution or common ancestry, you couldn't be more wrong. The book I cited earlier is littered with testimonies from professional biologists, and there are hundreds more in other publications. Besides, any rationally-minded student of Science should know that numbers don't make anything more right, or less plausible.

Tell me, did the Big Bang Model get wide-spread acceptance immediately? Was it wrong until it did? How about when Pasteur worked with microbes, did his work receive wide-spread support immediately? Not at all. Practically every revolutionary idea in science and medicine was met with hostility long before it was accepted - for you to think weakness in numbers equates to weakness in argument is simply stupid. I'm sorry, but it is.

I'm here and prepared to have intelligent conversations with anybody who disagrees, but this nonsense that you emotionally spew onto the boards is simply ignorant, and doesn't really make you look too educated.

I suggest this series, "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It" to bring you up to speed on the History of understanding, and how we "know" what we know.

My response was not directly solely at you.

However, it does not matter that the "theory of gravity" (aka general theory of relativity) is more than "things fall."  You missed the point of my statement if you think that's what I was trying to get across.  The point was (and quite clearly so) that if you had to qualify every statement based on the facts of evolution with "According to the theory of evolution..." then you would also have to apply similar qualifications to any statement based on scientific theory, like gravity or electromagnetism.  They're each at the same level of "factuality" and indeed many would argue that evolution is far better understood than gravitation.

"Evolution is a fact" is not a religious mantra, and indeed couldn't have any less to do with religion.  I state that evolution is a fact because it is.  Because it can and has been observed both in a laboratory and in nature.  Because the evidence for it is so overwhelming that denying it is tantamount to denying gravity.

I said the earth is roughly 4 billion years old because it is.  An exact "birthdate" is likely impossible to determine at this point, but we know about how old it is.  Any further information may help hone in on a more specific age, but it won't invalidate the current estimate.  The earth is not 6,000 years old.  It is impossible that it is anywhere near that age.  That was the point of my statement.

Virtually no biologists dispute evolution or common ancestry.  If you have been told otherwise, you have been lied to.  The peer-reviewed literature and scientific journals that represent the academic community have absolutely no trace of debate or doubt about these things.  There are debates about specifics, like the geographical movements of our predecessors, specific placements on the evolutionary tree, the specific timeline in which evolution occured (or variations thereof) in our history, or how best to predict evolutionary course.  But none of this questions the fact that life evolves, speciation occurs, and that this is how all the diversity of life on earth came to be (including us).

Similarly, there is much debate and discussion about gravity.  But nothing we learn will invalidate the fact that it exists, or that it is responsible for an apple falling to the ground or for planets orbiting the sun.  Just as Einstein's general theory of relativity didn't invalidate Newton's gravitational laws, it just expanded on and refined them.

I don't know why you imply that I claimed weakness in numbers of supporters affected the accuracy of any claim or argument.  I did not.

I suggest this excellent video series, "From the big bang to us - made easy."

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathan,

racism is something real that happens to real people. It's not a word game that you can play with. I feel that you're not really racist (unlike raymond who's too old to change). You're just ignorant beyond belief.

Anyway, good luck getting into Microsoft with that attitude.

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

"That attitude"? I asked you to explain WHY x is racist. You failed to do so. I tend not to join in on the cheering until I am persuaded by the argument. If you cannot defend why a particular item is racist, then why should I agree with you? Insulting another person solely because they are of another race is racist. Stereotyping people, on the other hand, isn't racist - It's just rude.

Is there some way we can persuade you to f*cking drop it?

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Creationism is a science? Really? So there are people who are attempting to find concrete evidence to prove it? And when evidence to the contrary is found, the theory is adapted to fit the facts? Because that's the scientific method, you know.

So if creationism is a science, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is far, far older than 6000 years, and that humans did not spring into life as they are now, how can creationism still stand today? If you apply scientific method to it, there's no way you could still be claiming that.

BHpaddock said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

When we can observe something happening, it is fact.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

My response was not directly solely at you.

However, it does not matter that the "theory of gravity" (aka general theory of relativity) is more than "things fall."  You missed the point of my statement if you think that's what I was trying to get across.  The point was (and quite clearly so) that if you had to qualify every statement based on the facts of evolution with "According to the theory of evolution..." then you would also have to apply similar qualifications to any statement based on scientific theory, like gravity or electromagnetism.  They're each at the same level of "factuality" and indeed many would argue that evolution is far better understood than gravitation.

"Evolution is a fact" is not a religious mantra, and indeed couldn't have any less to do with religion.  I state that evolution is a fact because it is.  Because it can and has been observed both in a laboratory and in nature.  Because the evidence for it is so overwhelming that denying it is tantamount to denying gravity.

I said the earth is roughly 4 billion years old because it is.  An exact "birthdate" is likely impossible to determine at this point, but we know about how old it is.  Any further information may help hone in on a more specific age, but it won't invalidate the current estimate.  The earth is not 6,000 years old.  It is impossible that it is anywhere near that age.  That was the point of my statement.

Virtually no biologists dispute evolution or common ancestry.  If you have been told otherwise, you have been lied to.  The peer-reviewed literature and scientific journals that represent the academic community have absolutely no trace of debate or doubt about these things.  There are debates about specifics, like the geographical movements of our predecessors, specific placements on the evolutionary tree, the specific timeline in which evolution occured (or variations thereof) in our history, or how best to predict evolutionary course.  But none of this questions the fact that life evolves, speciation occurs, and that this is how all the diversity of life on earth came to be (including us).

Similarly, there is much debate and discussion about gravity.  But nothing we learn will invalidate the fact that it exists, or that it is responsible for an apple falling to the ground or for planets orbiting the sun.  Just as Einstein's general theory of relativity didn't invalidate Newton's gravitational laws, it just expanded on and refined them.

I don't know why you imply that I claimed weakness in numbers of supporters affected the accuracy of any claim or argument.  I did not.

I suggest this excellent video series, "From the big bang to us - made easy."

 

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

A fact is something that is empirically true. It is a fact, for instance, that parents have children. It is also a fact that most children look like their parents. It is also widely believed (and I have no reason to dispute it's truth) that genetics is involved - however this relies on the model of genetics, and therefore it isn't a fact - its a fact under genetics which isn't the same thing.

Simmilarly it is a fact that evolution is taught in schools. It is a fact that fossils are found in different strata in rocks. It is a fact that the fossils higher up in the strata appear to be of more complex organisms than fossils found lower down in the strata. It is also widely believed (and I have no reason to dispute it's truth) that evolution is involved - however this relies on the model of evolution and therefore it isn't a fact - it's a fact under evolution which isn't the same thing.

@johnathan sampson:

My impression of evolution was that it doesn't say dinosaurs evolved from birds or vice-versa - it claims that they have a common ancestor which is a different thing entirely. One could legitimately think (under evolution) that some kind of fat short snake (i.e. which slithers, has no arms and has no wings) evolved down two seperate paths - one leading to legs - some kind of lizard which goes on to become a dinosaur over millions of years and one leading to wings which forms a common ancestor for birds.

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Well, you're doing exactly what I suspected - you've stooped so low as to claim that Evolution and Gravity are practically the one in the same, evidence-wise. This is simply silly, as I can watch a pen drop before my very eyes, yet I cannot observe a dinosaur evolving into a archeopteryx over millions of years. One is presently functional, the other is unobservable and historical - if that basic distinction is acknowledged by you then your probably not worth talking to on these matters - no offense.

You state that "Evolution is a fact...because it is." That's just like any religious fella saying, "God did it, because he did." Not really an intelligent answer if you ask me. You claim that Evolution has been tested and observed both in controlled and uncontrolled experiements, and I may or may not agree with you, since you've not really told me what you mean by "Evolution." I can only assume that you mean Universal Common Descent, which I would welcome you to explain how we've "observed" this in any experiment. And how the observation you provide is the same as how we observe gravity operating before our very eyes.

"Virtually no biologists dispute evolution or common ancestry.  If you have been told otherwise, you have been lied to."

*Sigh* Really? You want to go here? Many of the Scientists found here (http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/) are Biologists and Geneticists. You can also read In Six Days for 50 testimonies of Scientists, many of whom are Biologists. From there, you can read On the Seventh Day for 40 more, again, many of which are biologists. These are just a couple of many resources online demonstrating the blatant truth that many Scientists work within the Creationist Paradigm, and have absolutely no problem with it.

Do these men exist, or not? What you're doing is what Evolutionists continue to try and go - erase any evidence of descent from their ideas to convince others their ideas are universally-accepted among scientists. Let's be honest; they're not.

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

A fact is something that is empirically true. It is a fact, for instance, that parents have children. It is also a fact that most children look like their parents. It is also widely believed (and I have no reason to dispute it's truth) that genetics is involved - however this relies on the model of genetics, and therefore it isn't a fact - its a fact under genetics which isn't the same thing.

Simmilarly it is a fact that evolution is taught in schools. It is a fact that fossils are found in different strata in rocks. It is a fact that the fossils higher up in the strata appear to be of more complex organisms than fossils found lower down in the strata. It is also widely believed (and I have no reason to dispute it's truth) that evolution is involved - however this relies on the model of evolution and therefore it isn't a fact - it's a fact under evolution which isn't the same thing.

@johnathan sampson:

My impression of evolution was that it doesn't say dinosaurs evolved from birds or vice-versa - it claims that they have a common ancestor which is a different thing entirely. One could legitimately think (under evolution) that some kind of fat short snake (i.e. which slithers, has no arms and has no wings) evolved down two seperate paths - one leading to legs - some kind of lizard which goes on to become a dinosaur over millions of years and one leading to wings which forms a common ancestor for birds.

evildictaitor said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Can I just clear one thing up. The theory of gravity is nothing to do with things falling. The theory of gravity says two non-obvious things:

1. Objects do not fall "down". They fall towards their nearest large mass.

2. Gravity works as a force under the equation:

  F = G m1m2 / (distance of centres of mass)^2.

So when you say that disagreeing with the theory of gravity means that suddenly you disagree that things fall, you are doing no such thing - one can legitimately disagree with the theory of gravity by saying "Things fall logically down always" or "Things fall down at the same rate", or "The force applied to things falling is independent of the mass of both objects", or even "There is no such thing as forces on objects that apply to masses" - the latter of which isn't as unreasonable as it sounds when you notice that almost no object is a point particle and that objects can be modeled as such only due to summation theory.

Basically the Theory of Gravity is a MODEL as to how gravity works. It is possible that things fall for some other reason, and that the Theory of Gravity is wrong - but the theory of gravity being wrong, or even disputing it does not require the leap to saying "things do not fall down".

It's always slightly amusing to me that people argue that evolution is as good a theory as evolution - there are no "as good as" relationships in theories and worse than that, it is quite possible (and there is a lot of work going on at the moment) which basically is asking the question "Is the Theory of Gravity inconsistent flawed?". Although the basic premise of the theory of gravity is right, where the distance becomes very small things start to become interesting, so it is far from clear that the Theory of Gravity is "correct". It's a useful model that's all.

The same is true for evolution. Evolution makes a lot of assumptions many of which are non-obvious and are designed to make the MODEL of evolution work. Rather than saying evolution is "true" or a "fact", in reality these assumptions are unproven and chosen to make the conclusions of the model fit reality, rather than the arguably more "scientific" (certainly more mathematical) choosing assumptions because the assumption is inherently good.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Creation, like Naturalism is a Paradigm. When researching any subject, you research it within a Paradigm. Scientists aren't exactly neutral. They don't simply collect a mountain of facts, and then give you the results. They interpret data via their framework to build explanations for why things are the way they are. Creation Scientists do the same. Largely, both sides will teach the same ideas.

Now, when you suggest that "there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is far, far older than 6,000 year" you are suggesting something that came not solely from facts, but from your interpretation of the Facts. The Age of the Earth isn't measured like a stomach ache. You don't interpret the presence of a stomach ache, it's simply there. The Age of the Earth on the other hand requires you to interpret the data, and make assumptions about unobservable history.

Suppose aliens visited Earth to study High School Students. They measured the heart and found that they were on average 65 inches tall. They then found that over a couple of years the students grew an average of 1 inch per year. Mathematically, they deduce an average age of 65 years for the students. This alone is enough evidence to deduce the age of the student, so they measure the weight. On average, the students are 130 pounds, and appeared to gain 2 pounds a year. Again, the results came to 65 years. Two clear indicators the students on Earth are 65 years old on average.

In that example, the Aliens performed hard-science, but screwed up the results because of certain un-spoken issues. A) The Aliens couldn't observe the history of the Students' lives. B) The Aliens assumed an initial weight and height of 0. C) The Aliens assumed the growth rate was unafftected by any factor in the past.

These are all issues that Creation Scientists have pointed out, time and time again, especially in Scientific Writings like R.A.T.E. (Radioisotopes and The Age of the Earth) I and II.

With regards to "Humans springing into life as they are now," I would like you to ask yourself what scientific facts state that they didn't without requiring you to first assume that Universal Common Descent is already true. What objective facts would lead us to believe humans, in their modern form, appeared only a couple million years ago.

With regards to Scientific Ideas standing up in light of the Scientific Method, I've got a question I tend to ask Evolutionists who demand strict adhereance to the Scientific Method.

How exactly does the statement "Birds evolved from dinosaurs" adhere to the Scientific Method. Of course you need to figure out who'se version of the Scientific Method you're going to follow, as almost every Evolutionist I speak to has their own twist of it. Generally it's 1) Identify a problem, 2) Form a hypothesis, 3) Test the hypothesis, 4) Gather results, and 5) From a Conclusion. I'm curious how you think the idea of dinosaur-bird evolution fits in this model.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Your alien example is completely ridiculous. That's way too little data to draw a conclusion from. If you think that's how it's done you have absolutely no idea how science works whatsoever.

But I'm not arguing about who has the correct facts. I have trouble with the assertion that creationism is a science. Can you point me to some work that has been done to verify, based on physical evidence (not what it says in some book), that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is no such evidence. I agree with your basic steps of doing research (except of course it doesn't end with step 5, it's a process that repeats forever). One of the basics tenets of science is that if in step 3 you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, you adjust the hypothesis. You do not try to put up straw man arguments that the evidence is wrong if there is no good reason to believe that. And that's what you're doing.

Creationism is part of religion, it depends on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's inherently not science, which depends on proof.

Sven Groot said:

One of the basics tenets of science is that if in step 3 you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, you adjust the hypothesis. You do not try to put up straw man arguments that the evidence is wrong if there is no good reason to believe that. And that's what you're doing.

evildictaitor said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Can I just clear one thing up. The theory of gravity is nothing to do with things falling. The theory of gravity says two non-obvious things:

1. Objects do not fall "down". They fall towards their nearest large mass.

2. Gravity works as a force under the equation:

  F = G m1m2 / (distance of centres of mass)^2.

So when you say that disagreeing with the theory of gravity means that suddenly you disagree that things fall, you are doing no such thing - one can legitimately disagree with the theory of gravity by saying "Things fall logically down always" or "Things fall down at the same rate", or "The force applied to things falling is independent of the mass of both objects", or even "There is no such thing as forces on objects that apply to masses" - the latter of which isn't as unreasonable as it sounds when you notice that almost no object is a point particle and that objects can be modeled as such only due to summation theory.

Basically the Theory of Gravity is a MODEL as to how gravity works. It is possible that things fall for some other reason, and that the Theory of Gravity is wrong - but the theory of gravity being wrong, or even disputing it does not require the leap to saying "things do not fall down".

It's always slightly amusing to me that people argue that evolution is as good a theory as evolution - there are no "as good as" relationships in theories and worse than that, it is quite possible (and there is a lot of work going on at the moment) which basically is asking the question "Is the Theory of Gravity inconsistent flawed?". Although the basic premise of the theory of gravity is right, where the distance becomes very small things start to become interesting, so it is far from clear that the Theory of Gravity is "correct". It's a useful model that's all.

The same is true for evolution. Evolution makes a lot of assumptions many of which are non-obvious and are designed to make the MODEL of evolution work. Rather than saying evolution is "true" or a "fact", in reality these assumptions are unproven and chosen to make the conclusions of the model fit reality, rather than the arguably more "scientific" (certainly more mathematical) choosing assumptions because the assumption is inherently good.

You're right, it's a model. Gravity particularly is not very well understood at all.

Ask any decent physicist to explain what mass is, and the answer is plain and simple: we don't know.

One of the main criteria for any scientific theory is its ability to predict the outcome of experiments. With gravity, I can predict how fast this apple will drop when I release it, and it's correct which makes it a good theory. When looking at the quantum level the ability of the theory of gravity to predict what's going to happen breaks down, so it's not a complete theory, it doesn't describe every situation, but that doesn't invalidate it.

With the theory of evolution it's the same thing. Scientists working on viruses, bacteria and other organisms with a quick succession of generations are using evolution to predict how these organisms will change depending on changes to the environment, and it can be successfully used to predict that.

In what instances has creationism been used to successfully predict the behaviour of organisms? I'd like some examples please.

Sven Groot said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

You're right, it's a model. Gravity particularly is not very well understood at all.

Ask any decent physicist to explain what mass is, and the answer is plain and simple: we don't know.

One of the main criteria for any scientific theory is its ability to predict the outcome of experiments. With gravity, I can predict how fast this apple will drop when I release it, and it's correct which makes it a good theory. When looking at the quantum level the ability of the theory of gravity to predict what's going to happen breaks down, so it's not a complete theory, it doesn't describe every situation, but that doesn't invalidate it.

With the theory of evolution it's the same thing. Scientists working on viruses, bacteria and other organisms with a quick succession of generations are using evolution to predict how these organisms will change depending on changes to the environment, and it can be successfully used to predict that.

In what instances has creationism been used to successfully predict the behaviour of organisms? I'd like some examples please.

Sven Groot said:

Scientists working on viruses, bacteria and other organisms with a quick succession of generations are using evolution to predict how these organisms will change depending on changes to the environment, and it can be successfully used to predict that.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

I've never, in my life, rejected evidence. Not once. As a matter of fact, no credible Creationist has either. What we reject is the interpretation your paradigm projects on the evidence.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

You're not responding to my criticisms. I'm not asserting that creationism is wrong, or that you're not allowed to believe in it.

I'm just saying that creationism is not a science. It's a belief. And whether or not evolution uses proper scientific method 100% all the time has nothing to do with that at all.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

That's natural selection, not "Evolution." The two aren't one-in-the-same. Natural Selection is embraced by Creationists, so it's not a matter of "So what do they have to offer in it's place." We embrace it as a quality-control mechanism that keeps organisms properly defined for their environments.

Evolution has nothing to do with this. Driving that point home would be the fact that many Creationist Biochemists and Immunologists have absolutely no problem working in their fields, all while rejecting the idea of Common Descent.

That's natural selection, not "Evolution." The two aren't one-in-the-same.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Actually, yes they are. Dictionary.com defines evolution as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift".

Evolution is not the same as the common ancestor theory, I'll give you that. But that's not what I'm talking about.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

The Creation Model is comprised of 98% of the same stuff Evolution is made up of. It's the interpretation of the data that is different. The operations and facts are all the same. So what makes Creation non-science, and Evolution science?

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

"...by such processes as mutation, natural selection"

Natural Selection is a PROCESS of Evolution. A mechanism that drives it. They aren't the same thing, just as I am not digestion. Digestion is a process that rests within me.

Creationists embrace Natural Selection, as I said before.

Even if they're not the same, by that definition evolution, not just natural selection, is what's been observed in real life on many occasions.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Because creationism does not update their theory based on evidence. If you can give me an example where they went back and edited the bible to account for new evidence, I will concede that it's a science.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Even if they're not the same, by that definition evolution, not just natural selection, is what's been observed in real life on many occasions.

Sven Groot said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

You're right, it's a model. Gravity particularly is not very well understood at all.

Ask any decent physicist to explain what mass is, and the answer is plain and simple: we don't know.

One of the main criteria for any scientific theory is its ability to predict the outcome of experiments. With gravity, I can predict how fast this apple will drop when I release it, and it's correct which makes it a good theory. When looking at the quantum level the ability of the theory of gravity to predict what's going to happen breaks down, so it's not a complete theory, it doesn't describe every situation, but that doesn't invalidate it.

With the theory of evolution it's the same thing. Scientists working on viruses, bacteria and other organisms with a quick succession of generations are using evolution to predict how these organisms will change depending on changes to the environment, and it can be successfully used to predict that.

In what instances has creationism been used to successfully predict the behaviour of organisms? I'd like some examples please.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Your alien example is completely ridiculous. That's way too little data to draw a conclusion from. If you think that's how it's done you have absolutely no idea how science works whatsoever.

But I'm not arguing about who has the correct facts. I have trouble with the assertion that creationism is a science. Can you point me to some work that has been done to verify, based on physical evidence (not what it says in some book), that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is no such evidence. I agree with your basic steps of doing research (except of course it doesn't end with step 5, it's a process that repeats forever). One of the basics tenets of science is that if in step 3 you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, you adjust the hypothesis. You do not try to put up straw man arguments that the evidence is wrong if there is no good reason to believe that. And that's what you're doing.

Creationism is part of religion, it depends on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's inherently not science, which depends on proof.

evildictaitor said:

Tell you what though - if a flaw in an assumption of radio-isotope dating means we have to revise our estimates of the age-of-the-world down to 6000 years, can you just imagine the amount of egg-on-face for Richard Dawkins?

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

This is affirming the consequent, now.

Evolution involves natural selection
Natural selection is observed
Evolution must be happening

This is like saying

Consumption of pizza creates stomach aches
Stomach Aches are felt
I must have eaten a bunch of pizza

Since Natural Selection is a mechanism in both the Creation paradigm and the Evolution paradigm, the observance of it doesn't indicate that one or the other is happening. Only that natural selection is happening. Just as a stomach ache doesn't mean I hate pizza, because many things can give me a stomach ache.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Wouldn't happen. We're talking about Historical Science now. The Age will always have to be interpreted, meaning we'll never have absolute data-derived numbers indicating the Earth's age. Only what we think is the age.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I deeply regret getting into this discussion. So now I'm getting out of it.

Sven Groot said:

...by that definition evolution, not just natural selection, is what's been observed in real life on many occasions...

evildictaitor said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Which bit of "revise our estimates down to..." did you interpret as "find out that the age of the world is exactly ..."

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Again, Natural Selection (And Genetic Drift for that matter) works in other Paradigms. Observing it doesn't mean you're observing Evolution, just as a stomach ache doesn't mean you ate too much pizza.

Edited your post to remove "Yes, they are." That's....honest.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

I suspect you're looking at the wrong post. I didn't edit anything.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

If that's the case, I apologize.

Ah, I see. I said natural selection and evolution aren't the same thing, to which you replied with "Actually, yes they are."
http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/431756-Obama-gets-gutted-McCain-closer-to-white-house/?CommentID=432527

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Creation, like Naturalism is a Paradigm. When researching any subject, you research it within a Paradigm. Scientists aren't exactly neutral. They don't simply collect a mountain of facts, and then give you the results. They interpret data via their framework to build explanations for why things are the way they are. Creation Scientists do the same. Largely, both sides will teach the same ideas.

Now, when you suggest that "there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is far, far older than 6,000 year" you are suggesting something that came not solely from facts, but from your interpretation of the Facts. The Age of the Earth isn't measured like a stomach ache. You don't interpret the presence of a stomach ache, it's simply there. The Age of the Earth on the other hand requires you to interpret the data, and make assumptions about unobservable history.

Suppose aliens visited Earth to study High School Students. They measured the heart and found that they were on average 65 inches tall. They then found that over a couple of years the students grew an average of 1 inch per year. Mathematically, they deduce an average age of 65 years for the students. This alone is enough evidence to deduce the age of the student, so they measure the weight. On average, the students are 130 pounds, and appeared to gain 2 pounds a year. Again, the results came to 65 years. Two clear indicators the students on Earth are 65 years old on average.

In that example, the Aliens performed hard-science, but screwed up the results because of certain un-spoken issues. A) The Aliens couldn't observe the history of the Students' lives. B) The Aliens assumed an initial weight and height of 0. C) The Aliens assumed the growth rate was unafftected by any factor in the past.

These are all issues that Creation Scientists have pointed out, time and time again, especially in Scientific Writings like R.A.T.E. (Radioisotopes and The Age of the Earth) I and II.

With regards to "Humans springing into life as they are now," I would like you to ask yourself what scientific facts state that they didn't without requiring you to first assume that Universal Common Descent is already true. What objective facts would lead us to believe humans, in their modern form, appeared only a couple million years ago.

With regards to Scientific Ideas standing up in light of the Scientific Method, I've got a question I tend to ask Evolutionists who demand strict adhereance to the Scientific Method.

How exactly does the statement "Birds evolved from dinosaurs" adhere to the Scientific Method. Of course you need to figure out who'se version of the Scientific Method you're going to follow, as almost every Evolutionist I speak to has their own twist of it. Generally it's 1) Identify a problem, 2) Form a hypothesis, 3) Test the hypothesis, 4) Gather results, and 5) From a Conclusion. I'm curious how you think the idea of dinosaur-bird evolution fits in this model.

• Now, when you suggest that "there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is far, far older than 6,000 year" you are suggesting something that came not solely from facts, but from your interpretation of the Facts. The Age of the Earth isn't measured like a stomach ache. You don't interpret the presence of a stomach ache, it's simply there. The Age of the Earth on the other hand requires you to interpret the data, and make assumptions about unobservable history.

Again, you're making a meaningless distinction.  You're once again saying that if you drop an apple, it isn't a fact that it fell the ground.  You're saying instead that it is "my interpretation of facts that it has fallen to the ground."  This is useless existential pedantics, and if you want to go off in this direction you will never have a productive discussion.

If you want to know more about the age of the earth and how we know it, watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8XXaDrK4A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=5

The first very specifically addresses your claim that lacking direct observation makes our knowledge less valuable.  We don't need to have been there personally to know how old the earth is, just as we don't need to have been in New Orleans to know there was a hurricane there.

There is no such thing as a Creation Scientist.  The so-called "scientists" like Hovind are snake oil salesmen with no credentials, nothing published in the peer review literature, and nothing meaningful to contribute to human knowledge.

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Well, you're doing exactly what I suspected - you've stooped so low as to claim that Evolution and Gravity are practically the one in the same, evidence-wise. This is simply silly, as I can watch a pen drop before my very eyes, yet I cannot observe a dinosaur evolving into a archeopteryx over millions of years. One is presently functional, the other is unobservable and historical - if that basic distinction is acknowledged by you then your probably not worth talking to on these matters - no offense.

You state that "Evolution is a fact...because it is." That's just like any religious fella saying, "God did it, because he did." Not really an intelligent answer if you ask me. You claim that Evolution has been tested and observed both in controlled and uncontrolled experiements, and I may or may not agree with you, since you've not really told me what you mean by "Evolution." I can only assume that you mean Universal Common Descent, which I would welcome you to explain how we've "observed" this in any experiment. And how the observation you provide is the same as how we observe gravity operating before our very eyes.

"Virtually no biologists dispute evolution or common ancestry.  If you have been told otherwise, you have been lied to."

*Sigh* Really? You want to go here? Many of the Scientists found here (http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/) are Biologists and Geneticists. You can also read In Six Days for 50 testimonies of Scientists, many of whom are Biologists. From there, you can read On the Seventh Day for 40 more, again, many of which are biologists. These are just a couple of many resources online demonstrating the blatant truth that many Scientists work within the Creationist Paradigm, and have absolutely no problem with it.

Do these men exist, or not? What you're doing is what Evolutionists continue to try and go - erase any evidence of descent from their ideas to convince others their ideas are universally-accepted among scientists. Let's be honest; they're not.

• Well, you're doing exactly what I suspected - you've stooped so low as to claim that Evolution and Gravity are practically the one in the same, evidence-wise. This is simply silly, as I can watch a pen drop before my very eyes, yet I cannot observe a dinosaur evolving into a archeopteryx over millions of years. One is presently functional, the other is unobservable and historical - if that basic distinction is acknowledged by you then your probably not worth talking to on these matters - no offense.

Absolutely wrong.  You can observe evolution just as you can observe a pen dropping.  Evolution and gravity are not the same, evidence-wise.  We have far more evidence for evolution and a far greater understanding of how it works.  For example, we can observe DNA replication with a microscope, and we can see that it is not a perfect process.  We can see that these mutations cause organisms to change over many generations.  We call this process "evolution" and since we understand the chemical composition of DNA and why it makes imperfect copies (and generally how those changes impact the resulting organism) - we know quite a lot about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs on earth.  We know very little about gravity, and what we do know is largely the result of far more indirect observations than what we know about evolution.

• You state that "Evolution is a fact...because it is." That's just like any religious fella saying, "God did it, because he did." Not really an intelligent answer if you ask me

Now you're lying.  I never stated anything of the sort.  I said that evolution is a fact because any of us can observe it happen, just as we can observe the sun rising.  That makes its existence a fact as far as I'm concerned.  The statement that "God did" anything is absolutely unobservable.

• You claim that Evolution has been tested and observed both in controlled and uncontrolled experiements, and I may or may not agree with you, since you've not really told me what you mean by "Evolution."

Wait, what?  You're arguing like this and you don't even know what evolution is?  Let me help you... Evolution is "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."

• Do these men exist, or not? What you're doing is what Evolutionists continue to try and go - erase any evidence of descent from their ideas to convince others their ideas are universally-accepted among scientists. Let's be honest; they're not.

50 is not a statistically significant number of scientists, and the vast majority of those are not biologists.  Nevermind the fact that those I looked at all seemed to be retired, and absolutely mindless in their sudden "change of heart."  Several simply gave these "testimonies" for book deals or other personal gain.  If you can point me to a peer-reviewed scientific journal where any of these people have submitted findings in favor of "creation" or against evolutionary theory, please do so.

evildictaitor said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Can I just clear one thing up. The theory of gravity is nothing to do with things falling. The theory of gravity says two non-obvious things:

1. Objects do not fall "down". They fall towards their nearest large mass.

2. Gravity works as a force under the equation:

  F = G m1m2 / (distance of centres of mass)^2.

So when you say that disagreeing with the theory of gravity means that suddenly you disagree that things fall, you are doing no such thing - one can legitimately disagree with the theory of gravity by saying "Things fall logically down always" or "Things fall down at the same rate", or "The force applied to things falling is independent of the mass of both objects", or even "There is no such thing as forces on objects that apply to masses" - the latter of which isn't as unreasonable as it sounds when you notice that almost no object is a point particle and that objects can be modeled as such only due to summation theory.

Basically the Theory of Gravity is a MODEL as to how gravity works. It is possible that things fall for some other reason, and that the Theory of Gravity is wrong - but the theory of gravity being wrong, or even disputing it does not require the leap to saying "things do not fall down".

It's always slightly amusing to me that people argue that evolution is as good a theory as evolution - there are no "as good as" relationships in theories and worse than that, it is quite possible (and there is a lot of work going on at the moment) which basically is asking the question "Is the Theory of Gravity inconsistent flawed?". Although the basic premise of the theory of gravity is right, where the distance becomes very small things start to become interesting, so it is far from clear that the Theory of Gravity is "correct". It's a useful model that's all.

The same is true for evolution. Evolution makes a lot of assumptions many of which are non-obvious and are designed to make the MODEL of evolution work. Rather than saying evolution is "true" or a "fact", in reality these assumptions are unproven and chosen to make the conclusions of the model fit reality, rather than the arguably more "scientific" (certainly more mathematical) choosing assumptions because the assumption is inherently good.

• Can I just clear one thing up. The theory of gravity is nothing to do with things falling. The theory of gravity says two non-obvious things:

"Things fall down" is not the content of gravitational theory (general theory of relativity), but it is a useful prediction/observation explained by gravitational theory.  We don't know that things fall down because we know gravitational theory, just as we don't know that things evolve because we know evolutionary theory.  Things fall down, we know it because when we drop things they fall down.  Things evolve, we know it because when we breed a population of organisms they change over time.

We explain things falling down using gravitational theory.  We explain populations changing over time using evolutionary theory.  More specifically, we've determined that our land, water, and atmosphere stick around because the earth has great mass, and that in nature populations evolve toward more resilient forms because of natural selection.

Natural selection isn't a "mechanism" for evolution or whatever else Jonathan tried to describe it as.  Natural selection is an observation that given two things - evolution and an environment that changes over time - a given population will be replaced with a new population better suited to those environmental changes.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Now, when you suggest that "there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Earth is far, far older than 6,000 year" you are suggesting something that came not solely from facts, but from your interpretation of the Facts. The Age of the Earth isn't measured like a stomach ache. You don't interpret the presence of a stomach ache, it's simply there. The Age of the Earth on the other hand requires you to interpret the data, and make assumptions about unobservable history.

Again, you're making a meaningless distinction.  You're once again saying that if you drop an apple, it isn't a fact that it fell the ground.  You're saying instead that it is "my interpretation of facts that it has fallen to the ground."  This is useless existential pedantics, and if you want to go off in this direction you will never have a productive discussion.

If you want to know more about the age of the earth and how we know it, watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8XXaDrK4A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=5

The first very specifically addresses your claim that lacking direct observation makes our knowledge less valuable.  We don't need to have been there personally to know how old the earth is, just as we don't need to have been in New Orleans to know there was a hurricane there.

There is no such thing as a Creation Scientist.  The so-called "scientists" like Hovind are snake oil salesmen with no credentials, nothing published in the peer review literature, and nothing meaningful to contribute to human knowledge.

jonathansampson said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

If that's the case, I apologize.

Ah, I see. I said natural selection and evolution aren't the same thing, to which you replied with "Actually, yes they are."
http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/431756-Obama-gets-gutted-McCain-closer-to-white-house/?CommentID=432527

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Well, you're doing exactly what I suspected - you've stooped so low as to claim that Evolution and Gravity are practically the one in the same, evidence-wise. This is simply silly, as I can watch a pen drop before my very eyes, yet I cannot observe a dinosaur evolving into a archeopteryx over millions of years. One is presently functional, the other is unobservable and historical - if that basic distinction is acknowledged by you then your probably not worth talking to on these matters - no offense.

Absolutely wrong.  You can observe evolution just as you can observe a pen dropping.  Evolution and gravity are not the same, evidence-wise.  We have far more evidence for evolution and a far greater understanding of how it works.  For example, we can observe DNA replication with a microscope, and we can see that it is not a perfect process.  We can see that these mutations cause organisms to change over many generations.  We call this process "evolution" and since we understand the chemical composition of DNA and why it makes imperfect copies (and generally how those changes impact the resulting organism) - we know quite a lot about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs on earth.  We know very little about gravity, and what we do know is largely the result of far more indirect observations than what we know about evolution.

• You state that "Evolution is a fact...because it is." That's just like any religious fella saying, "God did it, because he did." Not really an intelligent answer if you ask me

Now you're lying.  I never stated anything of the sort.  I said that evolution is a fact because any of us can observe it happen, just as we can observe the sun rising.  That makes its existence a fact as far as I'm concerned.  The statement that "God did" anything is absolutely unobservable.

• You claim that Evolution has been tested and observed both in controlled and uncontrolled experiements, and I may or may not agree with you, since you've not really told me what you mean by "Evolution."

Wait, what?  You're arguing like this and you don't even know what evolution is?  Let me help you... Evolution is "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."

• Do these men exist, or not? What you're doing is what Evolutionists continue to try and go - erase any evidence of descent from their ideas to convince others their ideas are universally-accepted among scientists. Let's be honest; they're not.

50 is not a statistically significant number of scientists, and the vast majority of those are not biologists.  Nevermind the fact that those I looked at all seemed to be retired, and absolutely mindless in their sudden "change of heart."  Several simply gave these "testimonies" for book deals or other personal gain.  If you can point me to a peer-reviewed scientific journal where any of these people have submitted findings in favor of "creation" or against evolutionary theory, please do so.

BHpaddock said:

...we can observe DNA replication with a microscope, and we can see that it is not a perfect process.  We can see that these mutations cause organisms to change over many generations.  We call this process "evolution" and since we understand the chemical composition of DNA and why it makes imperfect copies (and generally how those changes impact the resulting organism) - we know quite a lot about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs on earth...

BHpaddock said:

I said that evolution is a fact because any of us can observe it happen, just as we can observe the sun rising.  That makes its existence a fact as far as I'm concerned.  The statement that "God did" anything is absolutely unobservable.

BHpaddock said:

50 is not a statistically significant number of scientists...

RoyalSchrubber said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Jonathan explain this:

It's a fact there is some (a lot) evidence that supposedly support evolution theory (please don't argue there isn't anything in favour of evolution). Creationist search for flaws in this theory in order to disprove it. Now if God wanted to created nature in a way such that nature would appear to us as a result of evolution process, wouldn't he be able to do this perfectly without cracks that would allow creationists to unmask his plot? After all God is believed to be omnipotent.

While it's true that verity of every theory acquired through empirical observation is questionable/doubtful  (and here is included every theory that has not evolved from axioms and even then you can doubt in axioms) usually wise guy will chose one that seems to be the most obvious and the most simple. 

For example one can doubt in gravity theory - when apple falls, how do you know it falls in straight line in a way that is predicted by gravity theory? What if every atom in that apple traveled first ten planck lenghts forth and then one backwards? I think everyone prefers theory that explains gravity without jerky motion - because it's more obvious one - but it's not necessarily true. 

So I believe a theory that actually tries to explain /how/ nature was created is better than theory that says some guy (God) did it. But we by definition can't be sure either theory is right. Anyhow I find it stupid we have to do this evolution vs. creationism debate where none of us (afaik) have extensive knowledge in evolutionary biology or theology. 

Then I also find it stupid that some of us still have problem with evolution even after Vatican said evolution is okay. The way Vatican interprets it is approximately: God allowed evolution to happen, he provided that spark with which life started - I don't know why creationists have problem with this interpretation. 

RoyalSchrubber said:

It's a fact there is some (a lot) evidence that supposedly support evolution theory (please don't argue there isn't anything in favour of evolution).

RoyalSchrubber said:

Creationist search flaws in this theory in order to disprove it.

RoyalSchrubber said:

Now if God created nature in a way such that nature would appear to us as a result of evolution process, wouldn't he be able to do this perfectly without cracks that would allow creationists to unmask his plot? After all God is believed to be omnipotent.

RoyalSchrubber said:

For example one can doubt in gravity theory - when apple falls, how do you know it falls in straight line in a way that is predicted by gravity theory? What if every atom in that apple traveled first ten planck lenghts forth and then one backwards? I think everyone prefers theory that explains gravity without jerky motion - because it's more obvious one - but it's not necessarily true.

RoyalSchrubber said:

So I believe a theory that actually tries to explain /how/ nature was created is better than theory that says some guy (God) did it. But we by definition can't be sure either theory is right.

RoyalSchrubber said:

Then I also find it stupid that some of us still have problem with evolution even after Vatican said evolution is okay.

RoyalSchrubber said:

The way Vatican interprets it is approximately: God allowed evolution to happen, he provided that spark with which life started - I don't know why creationists have problem with this interpretation.

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

Dude, declaring that an apple is falling is not the same as declaring the age of the earth. I'm fully aware how the ages are figured - I've been studying this subject for numerous years now. If you honestly think making statements about the timing of events in the unobserved past is equivalent to making statements to the observable now, you're sadly fooled.

We OBSERVED Katrina. You've not observed the history of the Earth. All you can do is infer based upon your axioms and the data an age. This is basic reasoning, come on man.

If you still disagree, please pick your best dating method and let's examine it exclusively.

You still refuse to accept that there are any Creation Scientists - this is simply head-in-the-sand foolishness. I'll give you one to make this easy, and you demonstrate why he isn't a scientist.

Dr. Dudley Eirich, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist.

How is he not a Scientist?

• Dude, declaring that an apple is falling is not the same as declaring the age of the earth.

I never did that!  If you're going to keep lying about what I've said in your responses, and arguing against straw men, then this discussion is over.

• We OBSERVED Katrina. You've not observed the history of the Earth. All you can do is infer based upon your axioms and the data an age. This is basic reasoning, come on man.

I did not observe Katrina.  I can only infer based on the data available to me (axioms?  We aren't talking about math here.  Unless you consider "believing what I see is real" to be an axiom).

• If you still disagree, please pick your best dating method and let's examine it exclusively.

How did we go from evolution to the age of the earth?  Regardless, you can't examine one method exclusively.  Watch the damn video I linked to.  We have hundreds of dating methods which all independently confirm one another.

• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist.

He doesn't even appear to be a real person!  As far as I can tell, he doesn't exist outside of creationist websites like that one.  Please, find me some biographical information about him.  Find me anything that he's published in the peer reviewed literature.

His supposed quotations on there represent a child's intellect and understanding of the world.  His hugely mischaracterizes evolution, both what it is and how it is used in science. 

If there really is a "scientist" by that name who believes those things, that doesn't change anything.  I never said there weren't any scientists who were idiots or who believed in creationism, I said there is a statistically insignificant number of them.  And if they all talk as this guy supposedly does, then they're crackpots.

Nevermind that bringing them up is an argument from authority fallacy.  Next?

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Dude, declaring that an apple is falling is not the same as declaring the age of the earth.

I never did that!  If you're going to keep lying about what I've said in your responses, and arguing against straw men, then this discussion is over.

• We OBSERVED Katrina. You've not observed the history of the Earth. All you can do is infer based upon your axioms and the data an age. This is basic reasoning, come on man.

I did not observe Katrina.  I can only infer based on the data available to me (axioms?  We aren't talking about math here.  Unless you consider "believing what I see is real" to be an axiom).

• If you still disagree, please pick your best dating method and let's examine it exclusively.

How did we go from evolution to the age of the earth?  Regardless, you can't examine one method exclusively.  Watch the damn video I linked to.  We have hundreds of dating methods which all independently confirm one another.

• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist.

He doesn't even appear to be a real person!  As far as I can tell, he doesn't exist outside of creationist websites like that one.  Please, find me some biographical information about him.  Find me anything that he's published in the peer reviewed literature.

His supposed quotations on there represent a child's intellect and understanding of the world.  His hugely mischaracterizes evolution, both what it is and how it is used in science. 

If there really is a "scientist" by that name who believes those things, that doesn't change anything.  I never said there weren't any scientists who were idiots or who believed in creationism, I said there is a statistically insignificant number of them.  And if they all talk as this guy supposedly does, then they're crackpots.

Nevermind that bringing them up is an argument from authority fallacy.  Next?

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

It is when you insist that no scientist questions evolution. 1 becomes a significant number at that point.

• Secondly, mutations don't really help you here, as nearly all of them are detrimental to the organism, or neutral at best. If they do offer an advantage, it's typically one that consists of shutting down, or removing part of the organisms original physiology or morphology. Not that this really matters anyway. Just make sure it's a heritable change

Incorrect, and if you're going to make such claims please provide some data to back it up.  Nevermind the fact that this is tangential to the discussion of evolution.  Evolution doesn't predict or have anything to do with changes being "beneficial."  All it says is that changes occur.  That is IT.  It is very simple, and it is very undeniably true and observable.

• The last part is very important. "...the mechanisms by which evolution occurs" is the key phrase here. This is all you've attempted to explain. You've not demonstrated that you can observe Evolution, you've demonstrated that you can observe cell-division (or DNA replication in your words) and replication, and natural selection - these are processes that take part in Evolution; they are not "Evolution" themselves.

We can observe fruit flies changing from one generation to the next.  This proves that evolutoin happens.  QED.  Done.  Next?

• An analogous comparison would be
  Pizza can cause a stomach ache
  A stomach ache occurs
  Ergo, pizza caused your stomach ache

Analogous comparison to what?  You're arguing a straw man again.  Natural Selection is not a "mechanism" of evolution.  In fact, it is the other way 'round.  Evolution is the mechanism by which natural selection occurs in, well, nature.  Both evolution and natural selection have been observed.  There is no affirming the consequent here.

• Do me a favor, "observe" fish giving rise to amphibians, then reptiles, and them mammals. Let me know when you have that footage, I'd love to see it. Meanwhile, I'll go record the sunset for you.

Observe hurricane Katrina.

Lets use you pizza analogy.  You're showing me a pizza and saying "this pizza was made magically by God.  Give thanks and praise for hte pizza."  I'm saying that no, I know how pizza is made, your pizza was made the same way.  You ask me to prove it, so I make you a pizza and demonstrate each of the steps.  Now you're saying, "No!  That is a different artifical pizza, my pizza was made by God!"

Then I point out that your pizza is in a box from Pagliacci's.  I find that the ingredients are all those available at Pagliacci's, and that the various toppings are cut in exactly the same way.  I measure the temperature of the pizza and the thermal insulation provided by the box (as well as the approximate ambient temperature) and determine that the pizza has been cooling for rougly 17 minutes, about how long it takes to get to Pagliacci's.  I go to Pagliacci's and find your credit card receipt for a pizza with those same toppings.  The only logical conclusion is that you purchased that pizza and that it was made by the high school kid working the oven that day.

But you say I can't prove it because I didn't see you purchase the pizza, and that because I can't directly observe the past, that I cannot know, and that somehow means your claim that the pizza magically appeared is correct.

blowdart said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Secondly, mutations don't really help you here, as nearly all of them are detrimental to the organism, or neutral at best. If they do offer an advantage, it's typically one that consists of shutting down, or removing part of the organisms original physiology or morphology. Not that this really matters anyway. Just make sure it's a heritable change

Incorrect, and if you're going to make such claims please provide some data to back it up.  Nevermind the fact that this is tangential to the discussion of evolution.  Evolution doesn't predict or have anything to do with changes being "beneficial."  All it says is that changes occur.  That is IT.  It is very simple, and it is very undeniably true and observable.

• The last part is very important. "...the mechanisms by which evolution occurs" is the key phrase here. This is all you've attempted to explain. You've not demonstrated that you can observe Evolution, you've demonstrated that you can observe cell-division (or DNA replication in your words) and replication, and natural selection - these are processes that take part in Evolution; they are not "Evolution" themselves.

We can observe fruit flies changing from one generation to the next.  This proves that evolutoin happens.  QED.  Done.  Next?

• An analogous comparison would be
  Pizza can cause a stomach ache
  A stomach ache occurs
  Ergo, pizza caused your stomach ache

Analogous comparison to what?  You're arguing a straw man again.  Natural Selection is not a "mechanism" of evolution.  In fact, it is the other way 'round.  Evolution is the mechanism by which natural selection occurs in, well, nature.  Both evolution and natural selection have been observed.  There is no affirming the consequent here.

• Do me a favor, "observe" fish giving rise to amphibians, then reptiles, and them mammals. Let me know when you have that footage, I'd love to see it. Meanwhile, I'll go record the sunset for you.

Observe hurricane Katrina.

Lets use you pizza analogy.  You're showing me a pizza and saying "this pizza was made magically by God.  Give thanks and praise for hte pizza."  I'm saying that no, I know how pizza is made, your pizza was made the same way.  You ask me to prove it, so I make you a pizza and demonstrate each of the steps.  Now you're saying, "No!  That is a different artifical pizza, my pizza was made by God!"

Then I point out that your pizza is in a box from Pagliacci's.  I find that the ingredients are all those available at Pagliacci's, and that the various toppings are cut in exactly the same way.  I measure the temperature of the pizza and the thermal insulation provided by the box (as well as the approximate ambient temperature) and determine that the pizza has been cooling for rougly 17 minutes, about how long it takes to get to Pagliacci's.  I go to Pagliacci's and find your credit card receipt for a pizza with those same toppings.  The only logical conclusion is that you purchased that pizza and that it was made by the high school kid working the oven that day.

But you say I can't prove it because I didn't see you purchase the pizza, and that because I can't directly observe the past, that I cannot know, and that somehow means your claim that the pizza magically appeared is correct.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Secondly, mutations don't really help you here, as nearly all of them are detrimental to the organism, or neutral at best. If they do offer an advantage, it's typically one that consists of shutting down, or removing part of the organisms original physiology or morphology. Not that this really matters anyway. Just make sure it's a heritable change

Incorrect, and if you're going to make such claims please provide some data to back it up.  Nevermind the fact that this is tangential to the discussion of evolution.  Evolution doesn't predict or have anything to do with changes being "beneficial."  All it says is that changes occur.  That is IT.  It is very simple, and it is very undeniably true and observable.

• The last part is very important. "...the mechanisms by which evolution occurs" is the key phrase here. This is all you've attempted to explain. You've not demonstrated that you can observe Evolution, you've demonstrated that you can observe cell-division (or DNA replication in your words) and replication, and natural selection - these are processes that take part in Evolution; they are not "Evolution" themselves.

We can observe fruit flies changing from one generation to the next.  This proves that evolutoin happens.  QED.  Done.  Next?

• An analogous comparison would be
  Pizza can cause a stomach ache
  A stomach ache occurs
  Ergo, pizza caused your stomach ache

Analogous comparison to what?  You're arguing a straw man again.  Natural Selection is not a "mechanism" of evolution.  In fact, it is the other way 'round.  Evolution is the mechanism by which natural selection occurs in, well, nature.  Both evolution and natural selection have been observed.  There is no affirming the consequent here.

• Do me a favor, "observe" fish giving rise to amphibians, then reptiles, and them mammals. Let me know when you have that footage, I'd love to see it. Meanwhile, I'll go record the sunset for you.

Observe hurricane Katrina.

Lets use you pizza analogy.  You're showing me a pizza and saying "this pizza was made magically by God.  Give thanks and praise for hte pizza."  I'm saying that no, I know how pizza is made, your pizza was made the same way.  You ask me to prove it, so I make you a pizza and demonstrate each of the steps.  Now you're saying, "No!  That is a different artifical pizza, my pizza was made by God!"

Then I point out that your pizza is in a box from Pagliacci's.  I find that the ingredients are all those available at Pagliacci's, and that the various toppings are cut in exactly the same way.  I measure the temperature of the pizza and the thermal insulation provided by the box (as well as the approximate ambient temperature) and determine that the pizza has been cooling for rougly 17 minutes, about how long it takes to get to Pagliacci's.  I go to Pagliacci's and find your credit card receipt for a pizza with those same toppings.  The only logical conclusion is that you purchased that pizza and that it was made by the high school kid working the oven that day.

But you say I can't prove it because I didn't see you purchase the pizza, and that because I can't directly observe the past, that I cannot know, and that somehow means your claim that the pizza magically appeared is correct.

BHpaddock said:

How did we go from evolution to the age of the earth?  Regardless, you can't examine one method exclusively...

BHpaddock said:

Evolution doesn't predict or have anything to do with changes being "beneficial."  All it says is that changes occur.  That is IT.  It is very simple, and it is very undeniably true and observable.

BHpaddock said:

We can observe fruit flies changing from one generation to the next.  This proves that evolutoin happens.  QED.

BHpaddock said:

Natural Selection is not a "mechanism" of evolution.

BHpaddock said:

Observe hurricane Katrina.

evildictaitor said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

and it is very undeniably true and observable.

--   It's not undeniably true if there are people who are willing to deny it. That's what we call a tautology.

We can observe fruit flies changing from one generation to the next.  This proves that evolutoin happens.  QED.  Done.  Next?

--   No. All that proves is that you observe fruit flies changing from one generation to the next. There's a whole bucket of extra things needed to leap from that to evolution. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen - I _am_ saying that the natural selection of fruit flies does not imply evolution.

Natural Selection is not a "mechanism" of evolution.  In fact, it is the other way 'round.  Evolution is the mechanism by which natural selection occurs in, well, nature.  Both evolution and natural selection have been observed.  There is no affirming the consequent here.

-- No. Natural Selection is the process whereby a group of individuals are affected by a phenomenon such that if a subgroup of the individuals hold a trait that aids progression into the next generation then the percentage of individuals with that trait in the next generation is higher than in the previous generation. This has certainly been observed in studies.

Evolution on the other hand is the theory that states that genetic (rather than trait) differences in the population change over millions of years in such a way that a new distinct species is derived from an older one, for instance a snake may evolve legs and become a lizard. Evolution relies on natural selection and mutation, and makes the claim that one snake with a mutation that gave it stumpy legs had a higher likelihood of making it to the next generation, therefore more snakes in the next generation had stumpy legs. By repeated mutation over millions of years, we ended up with lizards.

If you step back for a minute and look at those two, you'll see that they're not the same at all. Natural selection makes a claim about how useful (either locally useful or globally useful) traits in a population may progress to the next generation, and how this can imply that locally or globally useful trends may spread throughout a population over a number of generations. Evolution on the other hand makes a claim about how entirely new species can be derived from other species over a period of millions of years rather than of a few generations.

Natural Selection has been observed because it can be observed over a few generations (e.g. of fruitflies). Macroscopic evolution has not been observed because it can only be observed over millions of years. That said, it doesn't mean evolution is wrong, or unfounded, but it does disagree with your statement that evolution is observed or a "fact".

@ your analogy,

It's the conclusion "beyond reasonable doubt". It's not the only conclusion.

Think of it this way; Jsampson is saying that the pizza is made by God, you are saying the pizza clearly comes from Pagliacci's. I am noting that while Pagliacci's is 17 minutes away, so is Pizza Express, Pizza Hut and Domino's. Consequently while the pizza can't simulteniously be from God and from Pagliacci's, it's also not clear that either of you are correct. Perhaps jsampson's pizza was delivered by Pizza Hut to the wrong address, who had run out of Pizza Hut boxes, and therefore so far as jsampson is concerned, the pizza is free, delivered to his door unasked for. Therefore God!. Simulteniously his wife has taken his credit card and gone to Pagliacci's, thus the credit card details you discovered.

Perhaps Jsampson is right. Perhaps God uses Pizza hut as a medium for his good works. Perhaps you are right, because beyond reasonable doubt, you are right. But one thing I cannot stand is the hypocriscy of someone claiming to be scientific and claiming something as "true" when there are other possibilities that it may be equally valid - even if they are less likely while simulteniously dammning someone else for holding to dogma and claiming to "know" something to be "true" when it simply can't be.

evildictator said:

Evolution on the other hand is the theory that states that genetic (rather than trait) differences in the population change over millions of years in such a way that a new distinct species is derived from an older one, for instance a snake may evolve legs and become a lizard. Evolution relies on natural selection and mutation, and makes the claim that one snake with a mutation that gave it stumpy legs had a higher likelihood of making it to the next generation, therefore more snakes in the next generation had stumpy legs. By repeated mutation over millions of years, we ended up with lizards.

Dr Herbie said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

Evolution = any net change in the genetic makeup of a population.


Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with 'species'.  A species is an artificial construct of the human mind and is a side-effect of evolution. Most evolution is non-obvious as it does not necessarily result in a directly observable, phenotypic change (think refactoring code; the black-box functionality stays the same, but the underlying code changes).


Natural selection is one mechanism by which evolution can occur.  Genetic drift is another. There may be others, but I've been out of the field for too long to be up-to-date.

There are two 'contexts' for evolution:

1.  Population genetics.  This is the definition which I gave you before.
2.  Paleontological evoltion.  This is the history of the biology of the planet.

1 Is a theory (theory = idea with supporting evidence).
2 Is part theory and a lot of hypothesis (hypothesis = idea without supporting evidence).

I've been keeping out is this thread because it's a hiding to nothing.  No-one ever changed their mind about evolution\religion as a result of an argument and frankly I'm too tired and p*issed-off to continue these stupid arguments ad-nauseum.


Herbie

Dr Herbie said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

Evolution = any net change in the genetic makeup of a population.


Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with 'species'.  A species is an artificial construct of the human mind and is a side-effect of evolution. Most evolution is non-obvious as it does not necessarily result in a directly observable, phenotypic change (think refactoring code; the black-box functionality stays the same, but the underlying code changes).


Natural selection is one mechanism by which evolution can occur.  Genetic drift is another. There may be others, but I've been out of the field for too long to be up-to-date.

There are two 'contexts' for evolution:

1.  Population genetics.  This is the definition which I gave you before.
2.  Paleontological evoltion.  This is the history of the biology of the planet.

1 Is a theory (theory = idea with supporting evidence).
2 Is part theory and a lot of hypothesis (hypothesis = idea without supporting evidence).

I've been keeping out is this thread because it's a hiding to nothing.  No-one ever changed their mind about evolution\religion as a result of an argument and frankly I'm too tired and p*issed-off to continue these stupid arguments ad-nauseum.


Herbie

Minh said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

OK. We had jonathan saying he's not going to bother anymore. Let the evolutionary biologist have the last word and call this a "successful discussion" and let this thread w/ a stupid title die.

jonathansampson said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

HOW is it racist? I know that it's stereotyping, and it's disrespectful in this case, but it's not "racist", since it doesn't demonstrate an inferiority of a race, or the superiority of one over the other. Don't mix things up, I'm not defending the watermelon flag, I'm only saying that you've got your objections confused.

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

just courious <insert appropriate title>  jonathansampson if you still think there is nothing wrong with having watermelon on a flag after reading ScanIAm post andseeing  DCMonkey pictures on page six? ... what do you think about what they said? did you know about the history of the fruit and slavery? ..i didnt..

i doubt anybody changed anybody's mind with the whole evolution thing ..it sounded to me like a bunch of teenage girls arguing over what color is better btw blue and green .. the best people can do here with this topic is to have a good time and increase their post counts if this forum keeps track of that, expecting to convince anybody to change their mind to whatever anybody's currently views is a waste of time and expecting to convince anybody of anything that is related to a belief system in a forum(like this) will only lead to threads that run 8+ pages with no end in sight and no meaningful conclusions at the end ... its been fun reading though ..smile..

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with watermelon on a flag.
I do think it's wrong to put watermelon on a flag in an attempt to ridicule a person.
I don't think watermelons are racist.
I do think that watermelons can be used to inappropriately stereotype a person/group.

That should sum it up

In order to change somebody's mind on the Evolution thing, the person must be willing to admit when they are wrong. I am, as I've changed many of my personal views over the years. Today, I unashamedly admit that Evolution is a grand idea, and beautiful. I still reject it because it's not objective in nature, and requires too much presumptuous dedication for its evidence to make any type of sense.

Post counts aren't an issue (with me anyway) as they're not displayed anywhere. As a matter of fact, the Channel9 team deliberately kept those numbers off of pages to keep anybody from getting post-happy.

With regard to Belief Systems, it is my conviction that both are partially belief systems. Practically every objection Evolutionists have against Creationists, are applicable to most Evolutionists themselves. Both sides are unwilling to remove their basic idea, "Genesis is correct," and "Naturalism is correct." Both are looking for mechanism that work within their frameworks. Creationists don't start with all of the answers, and neither do Evolutionists. Creationists have vicious scientific debates over timing, mechanisms, etc, within their circles, as do Evolutionists.

I sincerely think that meaningful conclusions could come from these discussions if people would only discuss matters they understand, adhere to rational discourse, and remove all arrogance and pride from their dialogue. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. When you have people making claims about evolutionary mechanisms that they clearly don't understand, it tends to take the discussion nowhere - fast.

9 out of 10 Evolutionists online have no clue what they're talking about. And the same is said for 9 out of 10 Creationists. Unfortunately, for guys like me who really sincerely love Science, I have a 90% chance that I'm wasting my time, and 90% chance I'm going to have to answer several misconceptions about this debate before I can even address core issues.

Honesty, above all. And all else will work out fine.

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

what r your views about intelligent design? there are three sides to the debate, i have yet to hear anybody who advocate intelligent design as a way "accomodate" both sides ..

personally, i dont think religion and science mix ..i think most of this debate comes from people trying to use science to challenge religion and religious people(christians) who feel threatened by scientific explanation of our existance and they use the bible to challenge science.

most of this discussion occurs in the west and to the most part, its a debate btw christianity explanation of the world and scientific  one..i wonder how hinduism thinks about evolution, or any other "major" religions that may not be in wide use today ..

i mean before you have this discussion, an assumption must be made  that christianity explanation is the true explanation and all other religious explanations are wrong ..how do you know this? .. ..christianity explanation is jewish explanation ..all major cultures have some sort of a story that tries to explain their existance and the world around them ..i dont know know how well mel gibson's movie apocalypto reflected azteck culture and belief system but there is a part in the movie that tried to explain how they came into existance and why human have intelligence over all other animals around them ..how do japanese explain the world and their existance?

i dont think you can have GOD in science, it just wont make sense .. if you decide to do that, then the question that should follow is who's GOD are you talking about ...does anybody know the discussion btw christianity, hinduism and arztech and the beginning of the world? he he he ..

what makes this discussion so special other than the fact that its happening in west where majority of people happen to be christians and evolution seems to directly challenge what the bible says?

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

what r your views about intelligent design? there are three sides to the debate, i have yet to hear anybody who advocate intelligent design as a way "accomodate" both sides ..

personally, i dont think religion and science mix ..i think most of this debate comes from people trying to use science to challenge religion and religious people(christians) who feel threatened by scientific explanation of our existance and they use the bible to challenge science.

most of this discussion occurs in the west and to the most part, its a debate btw christianity explanation of the world and scientific  one..i wonder how hinduism thinks about evolution, or any other "major" religions that may not be in wide use today ..

i mean before you have this discussion, an assumption must be made  that christianity explanation is the true explanation and all other religious explanations are wrong ..how do you know this? .. ..christianity explanation is jewish explanation ..all major cultures have some sort of a story that tries to explain their existance and the world around them ..i dont know know how well mel gibson's movie apocalypto reflected azteck culture and belief system but there is a part in the movie that tried to explain how they came into existance and why human have intelligence over all other animals around them ..how do japanese explain the world and their existance?

i dont think you can have GOD in science, it just wont make sense .. if you decide to do that, then the question that should follow is who's GOD are you talking about ...does anybody know the discussion btw christianity, hinduism and arztech and the beginning of the world? he he he ..

what makes this discussion so special other than the fact that its happening in west where majority of people happen to be christians and evolution seems to directly challenge what the bible says?

jamie said:

mtz said:

*snip*

well i was trying to go back half on track in this thread to election... but what the heck ill throw my thoughts into the ring on this - red wire topic...

i was brought up with god.  but not going to church. you just prayed to god - and jesus.

fine.

get older - read... see all the info...  start to question.  (questioning is never a bad thing?)

outcome - so far...  i think science is right - but wouldnt want to really think there is nothing else...

just like van gogh paintings - there is such a thing as beauty and love and soul and ..faith..
i just dont find that in science

so.. what to do?

im currently thinking there should be a new :"Book of Gods"  that has the "best of" (ha sorry) all gods... dieties..
you could lose weight while you read about budda, christ, mohamad...  (ok not budda)

*that was a bad joke - but i would rather take the best - of what all religeons say - on living and being - rather than have science as a moral compass - with no real faith in anything

so - do i belive... yes.  in everything.

Jamie said:

outcome - so far...  i think science is right...

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Correction, I wasn't going to bother any more unless somebody with at least cursory understanding of Evolution wanted to discuss these issues. I've spoken with Herbie in the past, and he appears to be the most informed Evolutionist here. Those who initially took part in this discussion have not been following these subjects too closely, and that is evident in their posts claiming they can watch DNA replication in microscopes and demonstrating their ignorance over what Natural Selection is.

jonathansampson said:

jamie said:

*snip*

Jamie, this isn't a Science vs Religion issue. That's a misconception. This is a Science vs Science / Paradigm vs Paradigm issue. It wasn't a "Science vs Religion" war when the Big Bang Model was formulated, even though it certainly had larger-than-science implications. It was still Science vs. Science, as is this battle over origins.

Minh said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathan wote:
Correction, I wasn't going to bother any more unless somebody with at least cursory understanding of Evolution wanted to discuss these issues.

Oh, now that you put it that way, I concur. I see the errs of my ways. I do believe in creationism now. I'll start to attend church next Sunday. For real!

I hope you don't pull that logic ninjitsu on your argument that associating watermelons w/ black people isn't racist because I only have a few things left that I believe to be right.

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

troll.

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

mtz,

I want to clear something up real quick before I address any other issues you've raised. One is that I, as a Christian and Creationist, don't feel threatened by Evolution. Not in the least bit. Honestly.

I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should. I invite you to visit the previous pages and count how many times I quoted scripture as an objection to Evolution. You'll find that I didn't, because it's isn't an objective way of discussing this subject, and I readily admit that. What you will find is that I make constant reference to the inductive nature of science, and the non-objective nature of evolutionary understanding. I defend my position as objectively as possible.

Creationists are Scientists as well, regardless what head-in-the-sand participants wish to believe. Ask a Creationist how the Grant Canyon formed, and an Evolutionist how it formed and they will describe the exact same processes in every detail. Where they differ is in how long it took, and when it took place. But their science is practically the same thing. The same is true if you ask them about immunology, antibiotic resistance, reproduction, inheritance, and any other scientific topic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "God in Science," because no Creationist is asking for any such thing. Instead, I am asking for reason in Science. I'm asking that we distinguish between facts, and our interpretations. That's all. There isn't a single fact in science that Creationists disagree with, not one piece of data is objected to.

jonathansampson said:

Minh said:

*snip*

troll.

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

i though creationists believe something like "jewish GOD created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and the world is the way it is because HE wants it to be that way"

why religion and science dont mix? lets have an example, john was walking(fact), he fell(fact), he broke two ribs(fact) ..then john shouts .."praise the LORD!! ..i only broke two ribs because jesus loves me so much..i would have broken 15 ribs if it wasnt for him" ..how exactly can you prove/disprove the last part? ..i think this is where science and religion dont mix because at the end of the day, a creationist will say "this thing is this way because GOD wants it that way" ...

that grand canyon will have to be less than 6000 years old  ..i think evolution has holes in it, i think the bible also has holes in it ..the biggest hole in the bible is this 6000 year old world ..the world is clearly more than 6000 years old ..the biggest hole in evolution i think is  the missing gaps btw species ..

evolution is not perfect, but its the best explanation of our natural world if you think about it logically ..for example, the bible says that GOD created adam first and then later one created eve when he saw that he was lonely alone ..at least thats how i remember my bible, the question follows, why did GOD created Adam with nipples? he is man, he doesnt need them ..male gorillas have them, cats dont ...nipples in male animal showed up somewhere in the animal tree, where? ..why did it happen? ..becaue GOD just felt like it?

do you know that you share close to 70 % of your DNA with a banana? why is that? was it because GOD was lazy/efficient and reused some of the DNA lying around from his previous creatins? IF he reused stuff, wont evolution be a better candidate to explain how he started with simpler stuff and build complex stuff ..

if you look at the periodic table, you will notice that all elements share the same elementary entities, electrons, protons and neutron ..the logical existance of the periodic table is that these elementary particles just add themselves up to form the periodic table ..if you look at animal classification, you will see the same pattern ..if GOD created everything he seem to follow some sort of a plan ..as you can see, i am bordering an intelligence design argument ..the reason why this doesnt fly with science is that the only thing that can reasonably be assumed about GOD in a scientific discourse is that he keeps his hands to himself and can safely be removed out of equestions and assumptions

as a cretionistt, how do you explain the existence of the periodic table? how do naturalists explain the existence of the periodic table?

mtz said:

mtz said:

*snip*

"I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should"

one of the core principles of science is that all complex entities comes from combination of simple entities .. if you punch a hole in this principle and the whole scientific thinking crumbles down ..

look at the periodic table, all elements are arranged according to increasing number of protons, the simplest element is hydrogen with a single proton ..where did this proton come from?

if you look at the universe, the universe gets bigger as we go forward it time, its logical to assume it will get small as we back it time up to a single point ..what happen before that?

if you look at logic ..all complex truths and false are based on combination of simpler truths and false ..at the bottom, you will have axioms and all logical statements are based on them as you go up the ladder ..where do they come from?

if you look at living organisms ..if you classify all living organisms based on their similarities and differences ..you will end up with some sort of a tree and they will all have a common ancestry, a single cell ..where did it come from? what forces forced animal diversity?

if you look at animals, the complexity starts at the cell level as they organize themselves to tissues, organs, systems and last to complex living organisms ..how did the cell organize itself?

evolution is a scientific attempt to explain animal diversity in a way that is consistent with all scientific explanations of how complex entities are formed ..

all scientific explanations fails to explain how basic entities came into existence but can easily explain how they seem to come together to form complex entities

can you come up with a better scientific explanation of how complex entities are formed? where did the simple ones came from?

the only reason why people go after evolution is because it directly challenges the bible and people use it when attacking the bible .. but if you attack evolution, you are effectively attacking one of the core understanding of science  ....what logical grounds do you have against evolution? what about some of other things i have mentioned?

i can personally coexist with both of them ...

mtz said:

mtz said:

*snip*

"I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should"

one of the core principles of science is that all complex entities comes from combination of simple entities .. if you punch a hole in this principle and the whole scientific thinking crumbles down ..

look at the periodic table, all elements are arranged according to increasing number of protons, the simplest element is hydrogen with a single proton ..where did this proton come from?

if you look at the universe, the universe gets bigger as we go forward it time, its logical to assume it will get small as we back it time up to a single point ..what happen before that?

if you look at logic ..all complex truths and false are based on combination of simpler truths and false ..at the bottom, you will have axioms and all logical statements are based on them as you go up the ladder ..where do they come from?

if you look at living organisms ..if you classify all living organisms based on their similarities and differences ..you will end up with some sort of a tree and they will all have a common ancestry, a single cell ..where did it come from? what forces forced animal diversity?

if you look at animals, the complexity starts at the cell level as they organize themselves to tissues, organs, systems and last to complex living organisms ..how did the cell organize itself?

evolution is a scientific attempt to explain animal diversity in a way that is consistent with all scientific explanations of how complex entities are formed ..

all scientific explanations fails to explain how basic entities came into existence but can easily explain how they seem to come together to form complex entities

can you come up with a better scientific explanation of how complex entities are formed? where did the simple ones came from?

the only reason why people go after evolution is because it directly challenges the bible and people use it when attacking the bible .. but if you attack evolution, you are effectively attacking one of the core understanding of science  ....what logical grounds do you have against evolution? what about some of other things i have mentioned?

i can personally coexist with both of them ...

mtz said:

....what logical grounds do you have against evolution?

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

i though creationists believe something like "jewish GOD created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and the world is the way it is because HE wants it to be that way"

why religion and science dont mix? lets have an example, john was walking(fact), he fell(fact), he broke two ribs(fact) ..then john shouts .."praise the LORD!! ..i only broke two ribs because jesus loves me so much..i would have broken 15 ribs if it wasnt for him" ..how exactly can you prove/disprove the last part? ..i think this is where science and religion dont mix because at the end of the day, a creationist will say "this thing is this way because GOD wants it that way" ...

that grand canyon will have to be less than 6000 years old  ..i think evolution has holes in it, i think the bible also has holes in it ..the biggest hole in the bible is this 6000 year old world ..the world is clearly more than 6000 years old ..the biggest hole in evolution i think is  the missing gaps btw species ..

evolution is not perfect, but its the best explanation of our natural world if you think about it logically ..for example, the bible says that GOD created adam first and then later one created eve when he saw that he was lonely alone ..at least thats how i remember my bible, the question follows, why did GOD created Adam with nipples? he is man, he doesnt need them ..male gorillas have them, cats dont ...nipples in male animal showed up somewhere in the animal tree, where? ..why did it happen? ..becaue GOD just felt like it?

do you know that you share close to 70 % of your DNA with a banana? why is that? was it because GOD was lazy/efficient and reused some of the DNA lying around from his previous creatins? IF he reused stuff, wont evolution be a better candidate to explain how he started with simpler stuff and build complex stuff ..

if you look at the periodic table, you will notice that all elements share the same elementary entities, electrons, protons and neutron ..the logical existance of the periodic table is that these elementary particles just add themselves up to form the periodic table ..if you look at animal classification, you will see the same pattern ..if GOD created everything he seem to follow some sort of a plan ..as you can see, i am bordering an intelligence design argument ..the reason why this doesnt fly with science is that the only thing that can reasonably be assumed about GOD in a scientific discourse is that he keeps his hands to himself and can safely be removed out of equestions and assumptions

as a cretionistt, how do you explain the existence of the periodic table? how do naturalists explain the existence of the periodic table?

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

mtz,

I want to clear something up real quick before I address any other issues you've raised. One is that I, as a Christian and Creationist, don't feel threatened by Evolution. Not in the least bit. Honestly.

I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should. I invite you to visit the previous pages and count how many times I quoted scripture as an objection to Evolution. You'll find that I didn't, because it's isn't an objective way of discussing this subject, and I readily admit that. What you will find is that I make constant reference to the inductive nature of science, and the non-objective nature of evolutionary understanding. I defend my position as objectively as possible.

Creationists are Scientists as well, regardless what head-in-the-sand participants wish to believe. Ask a Creationist how the Grant Canyon formed, and an Evolutionist how it formed and they will describe the exact same processes in every detail. Where they differ is in how long it took, and when it took place. But their science is practically the same thing. The same is true if you ask them about immunology, antibiotic resistance, reproduction, inheritance, and any other scientific topic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "God in Science," because no Creationist is asking for any such thing. Instead, I am asking for reason in Science. I'm asking that we distinguish between facts, and our interpretations. That's all. There isn't a single fact in science that Creationists disagree with, not one piece of data is objected to.

Ion Todirel said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

creationism, evolution, bla bla bla... what I believe in is very simple: believing in god is f-ing stupid, that's all, you don't need to agree with me though

jonathansampson said:

Ion Todirel said:

*snip*

I disagree, but I'm sure if I understood the concept of God the way you do, I'd likely agree with you. But your words are equivalent to a child saying "math is hard." It's not true, but that's the way you, with your understanding, feel.

jonathansampson said:

Ion Todirel said:

*snip*

I disagree, but I'm sure if I understood the concept of God the way you do, I'd likely agree with you. But your words are equivalent to a child saying "math is hard." It's not true, but that's the way you, with your understanding, feel.

jonathansampson said:

Ion Todirel said:

*snip*

I disagree, but I'm sure if I understood the concept of God the way you do, I'd likely agree with you. But your words are equivalent to a child saying "math is hard." It's not true, but that's the way you, with your understanding, feel.

Sven Groot said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Actually, math is hard. Very very hard. And the more you learn about it, the harder it becomes. I thought I had a pretty good grasp of math after high school. Then I got math at university, and realized I knew nothing. I look at the kind of math physicists use, and I can't even begin to comprehend what's going on there even though I have an M.Sc. in computer science.

Just the latest in a line of flawed examples and analogies you've been using.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

On TV last week, someone asked Stephen Fry if God existed and he said that God does not exist.  Stephen Fry knows everything, ergo God does not exist.

Jonathansampson:  you're right.  People make a lot of assumptions about evolutionary history.  There is too little evidence to say what really happened.  You make your quantum leap, I'll make mine.


Herbie

Ion Todirel said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

the way religious people perceives it, or any other way around, just thinking of it is...

BHpaddock said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

"Redistribution of wealth" doesn't apply here.  Focusing tax cuts on those with lesser incomes isn't redistributing wealth.  It's being fair.  The GOP have spread this myth that the economy is a fixed pie, and that giving tax relief to lower income families means somehow that it must come out of the pockets of the rich.  That is simply not the case.

I'm in the group that won't get a tax cut under Obama but might under McCain.  I'm voting for Obama.  I don't need a tax break, at least not as much as the US government needs to balance its budget and stop borrowing from China.  Someday my children are going to live in the country that we today leave behind for them.  I don't want them paying for Bush's irresponsible big government spending and endless borrowing.  I don't want religion / creationism being taught in their schools as science.  I will want them to never have to worry about healthcare no matter what happens to me.  I want them to have the same opportunities I had or better.  Basically, I don't want this country to continue going down the toilet as it has over the last 8 years and I give that a higher priority than lowering my tax burden.

I also really have to wonder if you make 250k+ a year and are voting for McCain.  In my experience, the people who seem most concerned with this "redistribution of wealth" fallacy aren't even affected by it.

Barack Hussein Obama said:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too."

BHpaddock said:

I also really have to wonder if you make 250k+ a year and are voting for McCain.  In my experience, the people who seem most concerned with this "redistribution of wealth" fallacy aren't even affected by it.

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Herb,

In my example of HC2/CHMP12,13 I show that I make no leap, whereas the Evolutionist adds unnecessary additions making pointless assumptions that this indicates a biological relationship or sorts (note, there may very well be a relationship there, but it's not conveyed in the data under investigation). In all honesty, through examples of operational science, Creationists make far fewer (if any) "leaps" than Evolutionists.

Jonathan

jonathansampson said:

In all honesty, through examples of operational science, Creationists make far fewer (if any) "leaps" than Evolutionists.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

No, creationists make numerous leaps, but pretend it's a single leap.  By invoking a 'creator' you bundle up a massive list of leaps -- there is a creator, but how did that creator come into existence?  Does that creator evolve?  Was that creator made by another creator? Etc, etc. 
'Tutles all the way down', indeed.

Your not explaining the issue, you're just putting it off; distancing it behind another layer if ideas which you conveniently fail to explain, assuming the existence of a creator as a basic fact.


Herbie

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

No, creationists make numerous leaps, but pretend it's a single leap.  By invoking a 'creator' you bundle up a massive list of leaps -- there is a creator, but how did that creator come into existence?  Does that creator evolve?  Was that creator made by another creator? Etc, etc. 
'Tutles all the way down', indeed.

Your not explaining the issue, you're just putting it off; distancing it behind another layer if ideas which you conveniently fail to explain, assuming the existence of a creator as a basic fact.


Herbie

Ion Todirel said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

you know how it's said, when the complexity is too big add a level of abstraction

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Herbie, please trail back through my posts and show me where I invoked the Creator to explain anything. With regards to my latest example, HC2/CHMP12,13 - no Creator is invoked, so where is my leap in that example? I make no leap, I simply state what the data seems to suggest. Humans had another set of chromosomes. Evolutionists make the leap that this demonstrates a relationship between Homo Sapien and his cousin, the chimp. So who is making a leap here?

Creationists don't have to explain where God came from, just as Evolutionists don't have to explain where life came from. It's irrelevant, and you know that having your degree in Evolutionary Biology. What we are discussing is the descent and diversity of life. The origin of life, or the origin of God are interesting topics, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

I took you up on the sentence that I quoted.  That's where you talked about the creator.

I agree with you about your point about the relationship between humans and chimps to an extent; biologists make a relationship between humans and chimps based on overall genetic similarity, not the number of chromosomes.  The number of chromosomes is hypothesised to have changed in humans, based on the suggestion that human chromosomes show evidence of having fused.  The chromosomes are not the basis for the idea that humans and chimps are related, they are one of the differences that would need to be explained to add support to the theory. So far, the facts as we know them (humans and chimps are relatively closely related genetically, humans used to have the same number of chromosomes as chimps) can be used to support the theory that humans and chimps had a shared ancestor at some point in the past.


Creationists do have to explain where God came from and biologists do have to explain where life came from. You cannot explain the descent and diversity of life without going right back to the start and in this area, both camps fall short (although I've yet to even hear an attempt at an explanation for the origins of God).


Herbie

Dr Herbie said:

humans used to have the same number of chromosomes as chimps) can be used to support the theory that humans and chimps had a shared ancestor at some point in the past.

Dr Herbie said:

Creationists do have to explain where God came from and biologists do have to explain where life came from. You cannot explain the descent and diversity of life without going right back to the start and in this area, both camps fall short (although I've yet to even hear an attempt at an explanation for the origins of God).

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Herbie, please trail back through my posts and show me where I invoked the Creator to explain anything. With regards to my latest example, HC2/CHMP12,13 - no Creator is invoked, so where is my leap in that example? I make no leap, I simply state what the data seems to suggest. Humans had another set of chromosomes. Evolutionists make the leap that this demonstrates a relationship between Homo Sapien and his cousin, the chimp. So who is making a leap here?

Creationists don't have to explain where God came from, just as Evolutionists don't have to explain where life came from. It's irrelevant, and you know that having your degree in Evolutionary Biology. What we are discussing is the descent and diversity of life. The origin of life, or the origin of God are interesting topics, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

jonathansampson, i thought you said you are a creationist? ..how do you define "creationist" ..i though it means somebody who believes in the jewish explanation of the world ..the whole "GOD created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh" ..you dont have to mention GOD ..merely saying "i am a creationist" implies believing in jewish GOD and that he created the world the way the book of genesis says .. or what exactly do you mean when you call yourself that?

if you look at our natural world, the world seems to be made of simple entities joined together to form complex entities ..if you believe that GOD created everything in six days 6000 years ago(isnt this what creationist believe?) ..then you will have to logically see that HE first seemed to make the basic entities and then add them up to whatever we have today ..and science, to the most part, explains how these complex entities come together..sometimes science can explain them very well, sometimes it cant ...

science upto now can not explain where these basic entities came from ..same as religion can not explain where GOD came from .. "he was just there" is not really a logical statement to make" ...its more or less that a logician saying "this is true and it doesnt need to be proven" with their axioms

you can always point to specific events and show how evolution is wrong but the bigger aspect of the theory is sound ..and there are assumptions that are made to smooth out the bigger picture ..you may look at these aspects to disprove the theory but whatelse do you have that can take its place ..

if you look at the world, if GOD did it, then he had to have done it in stages, HE had to first build the simplest parts, tweak them a little to differentiate them and then add them up in an interesting way to what we have today ..

you can look at the cromosomes btw chimps and humans and prove that evolution didnt happen ..but if you look at animal "family tree" ..you will see some sort of a pattern ..how do you explain this pattern on a grand scheme of things .. if GOD created the the world and everything in it, HE had to fist have and then followed a master plan and science is trying to explain this master plan ..

maybe evolution is not the best theory, but what is out there attempts to explain in detail how living organisms evolved and the differentiation btw them ..

we can look at the periodic table and see the elements in it ..we can say "GOD did it" ..but how? ..logically, he seemed to start with a single proton and just add them from there throwing neutrons to stabilize the atom ..and them he used the atoms to form complex entities(compounds and molecules) and he move from there ..building stuff ontop of whatever he already had

looking at cromosomes btw chimps and humans and then disprove evolution is more or less equivalent to looking how small the universe is from laws of relativity perspective and say the cheotic quantum mechanic world is wrong ..

evolution may be wrong, maybe imperfect, maybe it needs to be more refined ..but it is the best scientific explanation of how complex entities were formed and differentiate themselves in a biological level ..the core piece of the theory is a fundamental pillar in science ..

if you are to explain how complex entities are formed using religion, you will end up with a lot of "because GOD wanted it that way" or "because he just felt like it" ..you will have to have a lot of "opinions" on how things fit together on a grand scheme of things and you seem to have an issue on how evolutionalists theorise how pieces came together ..it just seem odd to me saying that ..evolution is wrong therefore creation is wright ..can you come up with a detailed explanation of an alternative theory?

what do you think about intelligent design? ..to me, it seems the only way to logically explain how complex entities came together the way they did is by using intelligent design ..scientists just wont have it because its just not possible to "add" GODs hands in scientific experiments and theories ..but it doesnt seem  to be that hard comming from religion point of view ..

by GOD, i am assumption the jewish GOD ..if that wasnt clear cause the whole debate will just crumble if we were talking about another GOD from another civilization because they probably have their own and different explanation of the world

mtz said:

you can always point to specific events and show how evolution is wrong but the bigger aspect of the theory is sound

mtz said:

..and there are assumptions that are made to smooth out the bigger picture ..you may look at these aspects to disprove the theory but what else do you have that can take its place...

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

The good thing is, nothing needs to replace these silly ideas, because the ideas don't actually advance Science in any way. "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" doesn't have to be replaced with anything, no more than having a mole removed from your back needs to be replaced with something to take its place - it's simply unnecessary, and a waste of valuable time.

In a world where cancer is killing children, and families are starving every night, why should we waste time and money trying to investigate pointless issues like which theropod is the best candidate for bird-evolution? It's simply not necessary, and doesn't need to be replaced with anything.

Let's focus our Scientific knowledge and tax-payer dollars on researching things that will actually benefit the world.

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

The good thing is, nothing needs to replace these silly ideas, because the ideas don't actually advance Science in any way. "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" doesn't have to be replaced with anything, no more than having a mole removed from your back needs to be replaced with something to take its place - it's simply unnecessary, and a waste of valuable time.

In a world where cancer is killing children, and families are starving every night, why should we waste time and money trying to investigate pointless issues like which theropod is the best candidate for bird-evolution? It's simply not necessary, and doesn't need to be replaced with anything.

Let's focus our Scientific knowledge and tax-payer dollars on researching things that will actually benefit the world.

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

i will have to disagree with you ...the core understanding of science is that complex entities are made up of simpler entities ..and these entities interact in a interest way and in the process, form new entities or retain their identity but change in properties ..at its core, science is all about understanding our natural world and knowing how, why, when simple and complex entities where formed is a critical component of science ..

complex scientific thinking is build on simpler scientific thinking that are inturn build on more simpler scientific thinking ...you cant just dismiss something at a basic level without replacing it and expect the higher level stuff to continue being sound ..

thats like saying "who cares about quantum mechanics"? when there are children dying of hunger? or whatever that hydrojen collider will show? ...all things in our natural world are interconnected on a fundamental level ..you will have to have something like "GOD did it" in areas  we dont know and dont care to investigate because "who cares?"well, "GOD did it because HE just wanted to" isnt very logical thing to say

"theropod is the best candidate for bird-evolution" and "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" are relevant question if you want to draw "a family of living organism tree and its history" .. a clue to cure to cancer could lie somewhere on that tree ..science doesnt like gaps ...it will always come with an explanation to close it ..you can just remove an explanation without offering a replacement ..even less that complete and troublesome explanations are sometimes used to fill up gaps ..

do you have any links i can read more about the 98% in evolution that is in Creationist paradism? or any attempt and merging/showing similarities creationism and evolution/naturalism?

how do you define a cretionist?

what do you think about intelliget design?

what do you think about teaching intelligent design in public schools?
i am just c

mtz said:

Can you come up with one thing we've benefited from having spent millions researching the evolution of birds from dinosaurs? Just one?

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

I have to disagree. Darwin was perfectly happy discussing the diversity of life without address the origin of life, why? Because the origin is ultimately irrelevant. What is it doing now? That is the question we're concerned with. Just as Astronomers don't need to know what happened prior to the big bang in order to understand how the solar system works, etc.

The question of "Where did God come from" is a fun conversation-starter, and one that I feel there is an adequate answer to, but it's irrelevant since we're not discussing origins. We're discussing descent with modification, which doesn't require any time from the topic of where God came from, just as discussing the way two objects interact with each other doesn't require a discussion of what happened before the big bang took place.

You know this to be true. Practically every mainstream Evolutionist makes it extremely clear that abiogenesis, the big bang, etc have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Likewise, the origin of God has nothing to do with this discussion either.

jonathonsampson said:

This sentence? "In all honesty, through examples of operational science, Creationists make far fewer (if any) "leaps" than Evolutionists." Where did I invoke a creator to explain anything there? My point was that in this example the Creationist invokes NOTHING, and only let's the Science stand on its own. The Evolutionist invokes a story, to add a useless dimension to the data that isn't conveyed in the data itself.

jonathonsampson said:

I agree 100%. This is why I readily admit there is evidence for Evolution, but, as I've said before it's not objective. You must first presume Evolution to be true before the evidence works. All Evolutionists can do is demonstrate similarities, but that doesn't demonstrate biological relatedness if you're honest. Creationists don't have to insist in this case.

jonathonsampson said:

I have to disagree. Darwin was perfectly happy discussing the diversity of life without address the origin of life, why? Because the origin is ultimately irrelevant.

jonathonsampson said:

Because the origin is ultimately irrelevant. What is it doing now? That is the question we're concerned with. Just as Astronomers don't need to know what happened prior to the big bang in order to understand how the solar system works, etc.

jonathonsampson said:

You know this to be true. Practically every mainstream Evolutionist makes it extremely clear that abiogenesis, the big bang, etc have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Likewise, the origin of God has nothing to do with this discussion either.

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

In order to find a cure for cancer we need to be investigating the behavior of cancer, and how it interacts with our biology - not how birds magically came from dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. The latter benefits nobody but the fellow who suckered out the grant money.

With regard to 98% similarity between Creation Paradigm and Evolution Paradigm, I don't know of a resource for you. To be completely honest, it's my perspective and not one I've gotten from any place online. Why do I suggest they are so similar? Because they both are predominantly the same scientific knowledge, with a minor interpretation difference. Chemistry is the same in both, Physiology is the same in both, Astronomy is the same in both, Geology is the same in both, etc. It's all really the same in both Paradigms, with the exception of the interpretation given by the researcher.

AIG does a good job of pointing out that this isn't Science vs. Religion, which is sort-of what I mean when I say "both are very similar," because it's Scientists vs. Scientists - and both sides use the same Science.

How do I define a Creationist? I suppose one who thinks the Universe was Created an intelligent Being.

With regards to teaching ID in schools, no. I don't support it. Nor do I suppose Creation in the curriculum. I do support debate and discussion though. I think the students should be able to discuss whatever they wish without the local atheist group getting all pissed off.

2.	(sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on this:  which mainstream Evolutionary biologists are you talking about?  All the ones I know personally tend to avoid the topic because it leads to pointless arguments like this one.

Herbie

Dr Herbie said:

You are talking about Creationists, but you decalre that this has nothing to do with a creator?  You claim that creationists invoke NOTHING?  They invoke a creator which is exactly the point I was making! The entire thesis of creation relies on an external entity to perform the creation! That is not NOTHING!  That is the point I was making.  You cannot talk about creationism and not talk about a creator.  That is utter nonsense. Your entire argument seems to be based on the implicit assmption that a creator of some sort exists: that is what 'creationism' is all about, the clue is in the name! If you don't want to talk abou a creator, then stop using the word 'creationist'!

Dr Herbie said:

The evidence in a murder trial only works if you believe the person is guilty!

Dr Herbie said:

Of course creationists don't have to insist on evidence.  If they had to insist on evidence they wouldn't be creationists.  Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Dr Herbie said:

Evolution is the most probably answer: it fits the facts and does not need to invoke any outside entities or factors. It is the simplest explanation that we currently hae for the facts.  If you go into creationism you complicate the explanation by having to explain where the outside factor came from.

Dr Herbie said:

No.  Darwin didn't discuss the origins of life because there was nothing that he observed that related to it.  Darwin did not know about genetics, he just knew that some traits were inherited and came up with an indictive theory that explained what he had personally observed.

Dr Herbie said:

Nonsense.  You're sidestepping the issue because you have no cohesive proof.  If you want to know how we got here you have to know the whole story.  You can't just pick and choose the bits you want to look at, you have to address the whole thing even when it means admitting that no-one really knows the answer.

Dr Herbie said:

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on this:  which mainstream Evolutionary biologists are you talking about?  All the ones I know personally tend to avoid the topic because it leads to pointless arguments like this one.

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

TalkOrigins, edited by many Evolutionary Biologists has this response:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

This is the point I've been trying to make. The origin of life is irrelevant to how the life is working currently. Astoundingly I have to back up my argument with the words one the internets largest Evolution-backing website.

Jonathan

ScanIAm said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

JSPC: You aren't listening to me!
JSPC: Read the vast volumes of creationist drivel that I have spread across 10 pages of a thread entitled "Obama gets gutted..."
JSPC: Troll
JSPC: I'm quoting a website back to you to prove that you are wrong.


I figured I'd summarize for those who don't have the time to read 10 pages of nonsense.

jonathansampson said:

ScanIAm said:

*snip*

Is this typically how you respond when you're incapable of participating in a discussion? "I know, I'll make a joke and be funneh'!"

This is crazy, even when I quote from a mainstream Evolution-pushing website, I'm still ridiculed? Brilliant!

• There is no such thing as an "evolutionist."
• Natural Selection is NOT a "mechanism for evolution" or anything even close to that.
• Natural Selection happens because evolution happens.  It takes evolution as a given.  Natural Selection can be summed up as:
  • Evolution + Changing Environment = Changes in the population that favor survival in the new environment.
• There is an ENDLESS supply of transitional forms in the fossil record.  It is a creationist myth that there are not.

Just learn a little bit about evolution, it's easy:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

TalkOrigins, edited by many Evolutionary Biologists has this response:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

This is the point I've been trying to make. The origin of life is irrelevant to how the life is working currently. Astoundingly I have to back up my argument with the words one the internets largest Evolution-backing website.

Jonathan

jonathansampson said:

Not sure how much of my dialogue here you've read, but I invite you to show where I have been talking about Creationism

[quote user = "jonathansampson"]

In all honesty, through examples of operational science, Creationists make far fewer (if any) "leaps" than Evolutionists.

[/quote]

I've quoted this before, but you keep insisting that this has no relevance.  You want to talk about 'operational science' in the context of creationists.  To me that means creationism.
YOU stated that creationism needs fewer 'leaps' thatn evolutionary science.  That's what that scentence above means. I dispute that .
I state that creationists make a massive set of leaps by invoking an external agent to the system, i.e. a creator.
I state that evolution is the preferred explanation in science because it has fewest assumptions of any current hypothesis. (occam's razor). The same cannot be said for creationism because it envokes a massive assumption (the existence of a creator).

So do you agree that you raised the context of creationism in operational science?

[quote user = "jonathansampson"]
You must first determine that a person is guilty before hand? Really? I'm glad you didn't go into criminal law for a profession. Here in the state we have a little phrase, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." That means, until we have your finger prints on the murder weapon, or a receipt showing you purchased the bomb materials, or your face on the camera...you're innocent.
[/quote]

Which is exactly what I said:  if the person is not guilty, the evidence doesn't 'work'!

[quote ="jonathansampson"]
Please tell me that you're working only from data when you suggest a biological relationship between humans and chimps based on the number of chromosomes, and fusion in a site of the human karyotype. How is that not invoking outside factors? There is 0 chance you could discover a relationship in the data itself without invoking outside factors, and you know that.
[/quote]

The link between humans and chimps is NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES!  I stated that already.  The number of chromosomes is an incidental fact that has a possible explanation.  The relationship between humans and chimps is based on genetic distance which has been shown to be relevant in the relationships between other species and poplations. 
How are the genetics of humans and chimps 'external factors'?  What part of genetics can possibly be 'external'? Genetics are an intrinsic part of the system.



TalkOrigins is not a place I've ever been (no loner a practicing biologist, so I don't spend time reading about it). I cannot speculate on whay they avoind the issue.  It might well be that they are an organisation and not an individual, so they prefer not to spark any war of words.

OK, just nipped over to TalkOrigins.  The reason that I've never heard of it is that it's not an evolutionary science site -- it's an evolution\creation site. I didn't recognise any of the names in the administration page as 'mainstream evolutionary biologists' I googled two or three and couldn't find any publications (other than on evolution\creation websites).

When you said 'mainstream' I thought you meant 'big names' which is why I was confused.
I know that Dawkins certainly addresses the issue of the origins of replicators in The Selfish Gene, and that Stephen J Gould has produced hypotheses on it. I'd say they were mainstream.
One of the reasons that many evolutionary biologists avoid abiogenesis is that it is really down to biochemistry which is a different discipline and which many evolutionary biologists (myself included) don't really enjoy or understand.  I guess there aren't many evolutionary biochemists.

[quote user=jonathansampson"]
I'm not asking how we got here. I'm asking how we diversified to the point we see today.
[/quote]

And I'm saying that you can't ask how we diversified to the point we see today without asking how we got here.  You cannot say that we're on the back of a turtle without asking what the turtle is standing on.

Herbie

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

TalkOrigins, edited by many Evolutionary Biologists has this response:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

This is the point I've been trying to make. The origin of life is irrelevant to how the life is working currently. Astoundingly I have to back up my argument with the words one the internets largest Evolution-backing website.

Jonathan

Ion Todirel said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

OMG this thread is going nowhere, needs to be closed

Maddus Mattus said:

I pray for the day we can leave all these type of arguments aside and unite as a people.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Well, it was the bit when you said:

[quote user = "jonathansampson"]

In all honesty, through examples of operational science, Creationists make far fewer (if any) "leaps" than Evolutionists.

Dr Herbie said:

I've quoted this before, but you keep insisting that this has no relevance.  You want to talk about 'operational science' in the context of creationists.  To me that means creationism. YOU stated that creationism needs fewer 'leaps' that evolutionary science.  That's what that scentence above means. I dispute that.

Dr Herbie said:

Which is exactly what I said:  if the person is not guilty, the evidence doesn't 'work'!

Dr Herbie said:

The link between humans and chimps is NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES!

Dr Herbie said:

TalkOrigins is not a place I've ever been (no loner a practicing biologist, so I don't spend time reading about it). I cannot speculate on whay they avoind the issue.  It might well be that they are an organisation and not an individual, so they prefer not to spark any war of words.

Dr Herbie said:

When you said 'mainstream' I thought you meant 'big names' which is why I was confused.

Dr Herbie said:

And I'm saying that you can't ask how we diversified to the point we see today without asking how we got here.  You cannot say that we're on the back of a turtle without asking what the turtle is standing on.

tfraser said:

Ion Todirel said:

*snip*

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Evolution is very simple:

littleguru said:

Jonathan, I have been following this thread the last week. Haver you never thought why you are the only one who fights (it's literally fighting) for creationism?

jonathansampson said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

Guru,

I'm not fighting for Creationism. Practically all of my posts show that I'm discussing issues related to how Scientists make truth-statements about historical events. I am a Creationist, but that doesn't mean I'm fighting for Creationism, and more than me being an American at the same time suggests that I'm fighting for America in here.

Jonathan

jonathansampson said:

In all honesty, through examples of operational science, Creationists make far fewer (if any) "leaps" than Evolutionists.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

I'm not letting this go because I want you to explain what you meant.

So, a simple question:  in examples of operational science, HOW to Creationists make fewer (if any) leaps than 'Evolutionists'.

Herbie

jonathan sampson said:

My example was in "examples of operational science," and by that I gave the example of what HC2/CHMP12,13 Chromosomes indicate from the data. I wasn't talking about Creationism, I was talking about Creationists in this example, and in many other operational sciences. Operational Science is the same for both Creationists (not Creationism) and Evolutionists (not Evolution). My point was that Evolutionists insert a little of funny things that are simply unnecessary, and don't advance our knowledge in any way, e.g., the Chromosome issue. (Note, I'm not saying the relationship between man and chimp is based off of our karyotypes. Please don't mistake my words.)

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

jonathansampson said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

Guru,

I'm not fighting for Creationism. Practically all of my posts show that I'm discussing issues related to how Scientists make truth-statements about historical events. I am a Creationist, but that doesn't mean I'm fighting for Creationism, and more than me being an American at the same time suggests that I'm fighting for America in here.

Jonathan

Well... let's put it in other words: You have a very own position and try to defeat that one.

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Ok.
As I see it the chromosome issue needed to be addressed: you cannot discuss similarities without addressing differences. In this case, noting that there is evidence that the human chromosome count in the past was the same as the chimp adds weight to the similarities between the two.  I don't see this as irrelevant, I see this as additional data.  The model 'humans and chimps are related by a common ancestor' must be tested against as many known facts as we can find.:

'Humans have colour vision, Chimps have colour vision' is a fact. Does it contradict the relatedness model? No.
'Humans use tools, Chimps use tools' is a fact. Does it conflict with the relatedness model? No.
'Humans have 23 chromosomes, Chimps have 24 chromosomes' is a fact.  Does it conflict with the relatedness model?  Looks like it might.  So let's investigate further.

This is the main though process behind this kind of investigation.

Is this different for a Creationist? I don't think it is. So I don't see how an Evolutionist adds any 'little funnies' to this?

Herbie

littleguru said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Well... let's put it in other words: You have a very own position and try to defeat that one.

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

The "little funnies" I'm referring to is suggesting that there's a descent-relationship necessary. Science could live, and thrive perfectly find without making that suggestion. We know that humans and chimps are similar. That's clearly observed. But why look at the similarities/differences (which we can do with any two objects) and then suggest they both descended from a common ancestor - a suggestion that isn't objectively testable, isn't repeatable, and isn't communicated in the data itself. What warrants that addition of information?

That is my point. I am content with "These two are similar, ergo, we can learn alot about humans by studying chimps. Just as we can learn a lot about word by using works - same shortcuts, similar layout, etc). Why is it necessary to add the extra "oh, and they descended from the same ancestor" when we know that statement is subjective, untestable, and not present in the observed data itself?

jonathansampson said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Dr Herbie, after giving this a bit more thought, I suppose Creationists could be viewed as adding more information to the scenario by suggesting that the two organisms were Created very similar to each other to begin with. So in this case, we're both suggesting a reason for their similarity - your reason doesn't hurt the Science, and nor does my reason. So why is mine rejected, but yours embraced? Is there an objective filter for this data?

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

I mentioned occam's razor previously : we need the simplest explanation with the fewest underlying assumtions that still explains all the observed facts.

In science the existence of a creator has no experimental or physical evidence and so is considered a major assumption.  I've refered to it previously as an 'external agent', by which we mean that God is not a measurable part of the environment in which humans and chimps live.

However, genetics is considered physical evidence and observations of evolutionary change (both paleontology and experimental selection) are considered measurable parts of the environment in which humans and chimps live, so the evolutionary relationship theory has no external agents involved and is therefore considered the simpler of the two simpler.

Herbie

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

I understand your position, but I still don't see how unobservable claims about the past are any more testable than supposing an intelligence created the forms. I mean, Science doesn't inherently have a problem with outside intelligence. Forensics, Anthropology, and many other fields recognize intelligence and factor it into what they do. Even the biological areas are recognizing intelligence in dealing with possibilities of biochemical warfare.

So what is detrimental about suggesting an intelligence, as opposed to suggesting a common ancestor? It seems to me that parsimony wouldn't really chose one over the other - some other factor would determine which you chose to prefer. Your thoughts?

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

It comes down to evidence for God.
Forensics and Anthropology both consider intelligence of obervable, measurable creatures for which boundless evidence exists. (humans in both cases).

You're right that the past is unobservable, but what were dealing with here are hypotheses.  The first stage of investigation is to whittle down all the hypotheses available to the simplest one. Adding an unobservable, unmeasurable intelligence is not considered to be simple.

Herbie

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

The "little funnies" I'm referring to is suggesting that there's a descent-relationship necessary. Science could live, and thrive perfectly find without making that suggestion. We know that humans and chimps are similar. That's clearly observed. But why look at the similarities/differences (which we can do with any two objects) and then suggest they both descended from a common ancestor - a suggestion that isn't objectively testable, isn't repeatable, and isn't communicated in the data itself. What warrants that addition of information?

That is my point. I am content with "These two are similar, ergo, we can learn alot about humans by studying chimps. Just as we can learn a lot about word by using works - same shortcuts, similar layout, etc). Why is it necessary to add the extra "oh, and they descended from the same ancestor" when we know that statement is subjective, untestable, and not present in the observed data itself?

Science doesn't make "suggestions" that aren't based on evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we share a common ancestor with chimps.  Nobody made this up, nobody "wants it to be true" as creationists want it to be false.  Instead, we want to know what's true and not what somebody decided to make up because they didn't know any better (creationism).

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist."  Evolution is not a doctrine or a set of belief.  There are only Creationists and Rationalists.

I've pointed you at the "made easy" series on YouTube several times hoping that you might take a few minutes to watch through it and educate yourself about the science that you discard so readily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=8

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Science doesn't make "suggestions" that aren't based on evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we share a common ancestor with chimps.  Nobody made this up, nobody "wants it to be true" as creationists want it to be false.  Instead, we want to know what's true and not what somebody decided to make up because they didn't know any better (creationism).

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist."  Evolution is not a doctrine or a set of belief.  There are only Creationists and Rationalists.

I've pointed you at the "made easy" series on YouTube several times hoping that you might take a few minutes to watch through it and educate yourself about the science that you discard so readily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=8

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Note, I never identified the intelligence. It's you who continues to suggest it's God (assuming you mean the Jewish God by that). This is outside the realms of Science, identifying the Intelligence.

Is it possible that highly organized complicated biological systems can be the result of an intelligence? Possibly a form of panspermia, seeded from another local in our Universe?

Is this out of the question?

• Is it possible that highly organized complicated biological systems can be the result of an intelligence? Possibly a form of panspermia, seeded from another local in our Universe?

This question is meaningless.  Is it possible we're all in The Matrix?

Science works from evidence, and looks for natural explanations because if there is a natural explanation it is far more likely and more useful to understand than a supernatural explanation. 

The fact is that there is no need for any intelligence to have "designed" any of the life on earth, from the very first to everything alive today including ourselves.  We know that life can come from non-life, in similar enough conditions to the early years of the earth.  We know that life over time will inevitably evolve.  We know that it did evolve.  So where, exactly, did such an intelligence step in?  Why?

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Is it possible that highly organized complicated biological systems can be the result of an intelligence? Possibly a form of panspermia, seeded from another local in our Universe?

This question is meaningless.  Is it possible we're all in The Matrix?

Science works from evidence, and looks for natural explanations because if there is a natural explanation it is far more likely and more useful to understand than a supernatural explanation. 

The fact is that there is no need for any intelligence to have "designed" any of the life on earth, from the very first to everything alive today including ourselves.  We know that life can come from non-life, in similar enough conditions to the early years of the earth.  We know that life over time will inevitably evolve.  We know that it did evolve.  So where, exactly, did such an intelligence step in?  Why?

BHpaddock said:

The fact is that there is no need for any intelligence to have "designed" any of the life on earth...

jonathansampson said:

BHpaddock said:

*snip*

I don't think we need it, I am only saying it's consistent and rational. It's perfectly logical to suggest that a highly-complicated system may have had an intelligence behind it. And this isn't a suggestion for the supernatural, as I suggested the Intelligence could very well be an advanced intelligence within our Universe. Do you think we're all alone in this Universe?

I would forward the question to you - why do we need  to think of everything as "evolved"? Why not consider that it may have been designed, since that's a perfectly scientific idea as well. Why arbitrarily suggest only one of the two logical scenarios?

[quote user\"BHpaddock"]We know that life can come from non-life...We know that life over time will inevitably evolve...We know that it did evolve.

• I don't think we need it, I am only saying it's consistent and rational. It's perfectly logical to suggest that a highly-complicated system may have had an intelligence behind it. And this isn't a suggestion for the supernatural, as I suggested the Intelligence could very well be an advanced intelligence within our Universe. Do you think we're all alone in this Universe?

But there's no evidence for it!  None!  And if life on earth were "created" by life from somewhere else, how was that life created? 

We cannot observe such things happening today, so we have no reason to believe they've ever happened in the past.  Nobody has witnessed life (or anything at all) magically appearing.

• I would forward the question to you - why do we need  to think of everything as "evolved"? Why not consider that it may have been designed, since that's a perfectly scientific idea as well. Why arbitrarily suggest only one of the two logical scenarios?

Because that's the only thing we have evidence for, and which we have observed.  Evolution is the only means by which we have ever witnessed a new species coming into existence.  The fossil record, common morphology, DNA evidence, and every bit of new evidence we find always, always confirms the predictions made by evolution.

Creation is an illogical suggestion.  There is no evidence for it, it has never been observed, and it makes no useful predictions.

• No, no, and no. You think life can come from non-life, but this has never been demonstrated, or tested successfully. What you have are at best some 50 year old experiments that created a butchered composition of toxic results that would immediately kill any potential life that may have had a chance to begin.

Please explain why life could not have formed naturally.  I know a lot of scientists who would love to hear what evidence you have that it could not have or did not.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

No, no, and no. You think life can come from non-life, but this has never been demonstrated, or tested successfully. What you have are at best some 50 year old experiments that created a butchered composition of toxic results that would immediately kill any potential life that may have had a chance to begin.

Saying that Evolution is inevitable is subjective - what do you mean by "Evolve" in this case? Simple changes are inevitable, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable that eyes, lungs, bones, blood, etc, would all evolve inevitably. You've got no Scientific data suggesting that.

And lastly, you don't know it did Evolve (assuming this means it all came from a common ancestor). If you disagree do more than talk, provide reasons.

• I don't think we need it, I am only saying it's consistent and rational. It's perfectly logical to suggest that a highly-complicated system may have had an intelligence behind it. And this isn't a suggestion for the supernatural, as I suggested the Intelligence could very well be an advanced intelligence within our Universe. Do you think we're all alone in this Universe?

But there's no evidence for it!  None!  And if life on earth were "created" by life from somewhere else, how was that life created? 

We cannot observe such things happening today, so we have no reason to believe they've ever happened in the past.  Nobody has witnessed life (or anything at all) magically appearing.

• I would forward the question to you - why do we need  to think of everything as "evolved"? Why not consider that it may have been designed, since that's a perfectly scientific idea as well. Why arbitrarily suggest only one of the two logical scenarios?

Because that's the only thing we have evidence for, and which we have observed.  Evolution is the only means by which we have ever witnessed a new species coming into existence.  The fossil record, common morphology, DNA evidence, and every bit of new evidence we find always, always confirms the predictions made by evolution.

Creation is an illogical suggestion.  There is no evidence for it, it has never been observed, and it makes no useful predictions.

• No, no, and no. You think life can come from non-life, but this has never been demonstrated, or tested successfully. What you have are at best some 50 year old experiments that created a butchered composition of toxic results that would immediately kill any potential life that may have had a chance to begin.

Please explain why life could not have formed naturally.  I know a lot of scientists who would love to hear what evidence you have that it could not have or did not.

BHpaddock said:

But there's no evidence for it!  None!  And if life on earth were "created" by life from somewhere else, how was that life created?

BHpaddock said:

We cannot observe such things happening today, so we have no reason to believe they've ever happened in the past.  Nobody has witnessed life (or anything at all) magically appearing.

BHpaddock said:

Please explain why life could not have formed naturally.  I know a lot of scientists who would love to hear what evidence you have that it could not have or did not.

BHpaddock said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

• Is it possible that highly organized complicated biological systems can be the result of an intelligence? Possibly a form of panspermia, seeded from another local in our Universe?

This question is meaningless.  Is it possible we're all in The Matrix?

Science works from evidence, and looks for natural explanations because if there is a natural explanation it is far more likely and more useful to understand than a supernatural explanation. 

The fact is that there is no need for any intelligence to have "designed" any of the life on earth, from the very first to everything alive today including ourselves.  We know that life can come from non-life, in similar enough conditions to the early years of the earth.  We know that life over time will inevitably evolve.  We know that it did evolve.  So where, exactly, did such an intelligence step in?  Why?

jonathansampson said:

littleguru said:

*snip*

Not sure if I understand. If this is an invitation for me to be critical of my own views, I am. Very much so Keep in mind that I praise Evolutionary Theory for its splendor and beauty. I also discourage many Creationist arguments as I find them unscientific, or unreasonable. I'm my own Devil's Advocate

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Note, I never identified the intelligence. It's you who continues to suggest it's God (assuming you mean the Jewish God by that). This is outside the realms of Science, identifying the Intelligence.

Is it possible that highly organized complicated biological systems can be the result of an intelligence? Possibly a form of panspermia, seeded from another local in our Universe?

Is this out of the question?

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Actuall, on the drive home tonight I was going to suggest that we replace the word  'God' with the word 'Alien'.

The argument still holds true:  adding any sort of intelligence to the equation is still a massive step because it is something that we cannot measure in the environment that humans and chimps exist in.  Before the theory of evolution arose, intelligent creation was the best working model we had.  Sinve the idea of evolution arose, it has become the best working model.

It is possible that an intelligent agent created life on this planet, it's just not the simplest working model to explain what we see today.

I've always had the same poblem with panspermia theories as I have with creation theories:  it just defers the question, rather than answering it:
Q. How did life start on Earth
A. It arrived from somewhere else.

leads to

Q. Well how did it start there?

and we're back to turtles all the way down again.


Herbie

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Herbie, it seems as though you're suggesting that easy == true. It may be easier to suggest that all events took place within the earth, and never had any influence from the outside, but that is an arbitrary decision. It's not irrational that life started elsewhere, so what logical reason do we have to suggest people adhere to "earth-originating" models?

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Not 'easy == true', but 'easy == most probable'. And it's a pretty good rule of thumb.  A series of complicated events is less likely to occur than a series of simple events and short series of event is more likely to occur that a long series of events (somewhere there's an equilibrium where a short series of complicated events is just as likely as a long series of simple events, that would be a really hard question!).

Exaggerated example for effect:  In the morning you find that your car keys have moved from the kitchen counter where you left them, onto the floor by the counter.  Which is more likely:  a gust of wind through an open window blew your keys off the counter there they landed on your pet cat which jumped in reaction, catapulting the keys into the hallway where they rebounded off two walls back into the kitched, off the cooker and off the fridge and onto the floor by the counter; or just a gust of wind blowing them off the counter onto the floor?


I don't believe we should completely disregard any theories that involve outer-space, just ones that involve some unknown intelligence.
It is entirely possible that replicating molecules originated as a result of a chemical reaction out in space somewhere and were then trasnferred to Earth on a passing meteor, but for the to be the simplest model we would need evidence that such conditions are more likely that replicating molecules originating on earth in the first place, which in my opinion is the simplest model of the two. Note that this is only my opinion on a very hypothetical pair of models.  That is completely allowed until one or the other model gains supporting evidence to become a theory.

Herbie

Dr Herbie said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Not 'easy == true', but 'easy == most probable'. And it's a pretty good rule of thumb.  A series of complicated events is less likely to occur than a series of simple events and short series of event is more likely to occur that a long series of events (somewhere there's an equilibrium where a short series of complicated events is just as likely as a long series of simple events, that would be a really hard question!).

Exaggerated example for effect:  In the morning you find that your car keys have moved from the kitchen counter where you left them, onto the floor by the counter.  Which is more likely:  a gust of wind through an open window blew your keys off the counter there they landed on your pet cat which jumped in reaction, catapulting the keys into the hallway where they rebounded off two walls back into the kitched, off the cooker and off the fridge and onto the floor by the counter; or just a gust of wind blowing them off the counter onto the floor?


I don't believe we should completely disregard any theories that involve outer-space, just ones that involve some unknown intelligence.
It is entirely possible that replicating molecules originated as a result of a chemical reaction out in space somewhere and were then trasnferred to Earth on a passing meteor, but for the to be the simplest model we would need evidence that such conditions are more likely that replicating molecules originating on earth in the first place, which in my opinion is the simplest model of the two. Note that this is only my opinion on a very hypothetical pair of models.  That is completely allowed until one or the other model gains supporting evidence to become a theory.

Herbie

evildictaitor said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Taxes are inevitable - so how do you get the tax that isn't a "redistribution"? Either you put a flat tax per person which hits the poor very hard (as it becomes a high proportion of their income) or you choose a percentage based scheme which hits the richest in real terms the most. Arguably you should choose a weighted percentage system, since the super-wealthy pay as a proportion of their income much more on luxuries and non-essentials.

There is no such thing as a tax scheme that isn't a redistribution of wealth.

Ion Todirel said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

OMG this thread is going nowhere, needs to be closed

And kill the fun?