Both Creationism and Evolution are completely off the wall. One practice massacred millions of people, while the other has shamelessly and selfishly played a deaf ear to anything they couldn’t prove with their trinkets and baubles.
Maybe I’m just cynical. In one hand, you have creationism which says that a God from a shimmering cloud came down and created the universe. He talked to people regularly over two thousand years ago, but now he has decided not to communicate verbally to the masses anymore. In the other, you have faux theories that instead of going from the beginning. They put down a sign which reads, “Evolution starts here!” without exploring how nothing came from nothing in the fist place. Besides, the assertion that we came from bacteria is just downright laughable.
Realistically, I suppose I’d have to side with Science. Not because their religious-like fervor is any better than creationism. Just because they haven’t been so blatant to impose their beliefs on others.
Members of contemporary religious sects, creationists, those who get by on “faith”…
You hereby give up the right to claim that anything science theorizes, no matter how bizzare and beyond comprehension it may seem, can never be declared bogus or unbelievable by you or your peers because…and follow along now…because you have already passed on your right to apply logic to anything since you have subscribed to a belief, quite frankly, that is down right unbelievable in itself.
Hmmm…take Christianity…that’s one of yer bigger religions, is it not? Well, holy crap, take a look at what you are asked to believe? Some of it is quite unbelievable, is it not( C’mon…be honest)? Jews believe some extraordinary stuff too - and come to think of it, most major religions have extraordinary events bound to their history, many of which are the very basis for faith in the first place! Duh! You can’t reject evolution because it’s “unbelieveable”!!!
Questioning evolution? Discarding it as a bizzare idea? Can’t comprehend how we went from simple cell creatures to some guy standing on the corner in a winter coat yelling “Taxi”? Guess what? Have faith! To discount the theory of evolution because it is pretty incomprehnsible, would mean that, for the sake of consistency, you abandon your belief system as well. Therefor, you must have faith in the theory, lest you be the first in line to discard your own beliefs because they are, well…unbelievable.
Andros…that’s hysterical. Let’s see if Honesty is honest.
I love when people claim that coming from “bacteria” or simple cell organisms is downright laughable.
Know what I find laughable (for the sake of making a point - not that I find it laughable)? No? Well, I’ll tell ya. Someone told me that I grew from just a few cells (which were originally in two separate human beings), and that those cells were coded with this DNA stuff, and the cells kept splitting…and at one time I was merely more than an egg, then I looked like a 2 centimeter chicken, then I looked like a fish, and now look at me - I’m typing on the SDMB!!! Go ME!!!
Honesty, evolution is unbelievable? How so? I think conception and the development of Humans from combined sperm and eggs is pretty whacky! But, damn, it happens! I was just a little ol’ sperm and an egg in waiting and BAM! Here I (and all of you) are!!! Stick that in your unbelievable bag Honesty!!!
Thank evolution for people like Andros. I wonder if Honesty will read this?
My hatred for both science (that attempts to explain evolution) and creationism is too massive for me to write a post that isn’t riddled with fallacies.
But for now, I will give you a skeleton of my problem.
Evolution doesn’t explain how the universe was created. They fail to address how nothing came from nothing. Now your argument might be “But but but, we can only go far so far.”
Bull. If Evolution was correct, then not only could it explain the origin of man, but it could explain the start of the universe. Instead, they tack their sign, “Evolution starts here!” while failing repeatedly to delve deeper.
Science militantly shows their platinum deaf ear when anything dealing with metaphysics is shoved in their face. Science is based on theories and conjecture, how can they (evolution science) be presumptuous enough to declare that their theories are more believable than say, John 3:16 in the new testament?
They are both disgustful and disgraceful. Science should simply stay in its place advancing mankind with their discoveries. I truly wish these evolution fanatics would shift their studies in medicine and research. Then atleast, maybe the cure for fatal afflictions like Cancer and AIDs could be cured sooner.
This will probably be my last post on the topic. This subject is really too emotional for me to write a coherent post on.
Well, you certainly composed a post riddled with fallacies!
The limits of the theory of evolution are not artificial. Just because it’s called evolution does not mean that it should explain how everything evolves. Would you want it to explain how the contents of your sock drawer change over time?
Cosmology addreses the question of the start of the universe.
And much more, as has been explained repeatedly in this thread and others.
Because scientific theories are testable. Now, the question of what is true rather than what is believable is a different story.
I have no idea what you mean there, but it sure seems silly.
Good lord…this is one of the largest falsehoods I’ve seen perpetrated on my vision in a long time. The rebuttals are so numerous and self-evident (plus I’m really tired and lazy) that I don’t really feel like including links, but Cecil has covered this, and talkorigins probably has too.
Basic point: evolution has not one iota of anything to do with how anything started. Natural selection really doesn’t apply to the formation of planets and solar systems (fercryin out loud, are they going to get digested by a bigger, better adapted galaxy?). Separate ideas, guy. In fact, you don’t need one for the other to be true.
As for the origin of life on earth, it’s again a separate issue (I know talkorigins has somehting on this). All evolution does is explain how and why things change…specifically living things (and some stuff that’s borderline life: viruses, viroids, and whatnot). This is why there’s some oddities with things that aren’t living per se, like ancient free-floating RNA or protocells or whatever theory you happen to ascribe to.
Rocks don’t evolve. Benzene doesn’t evolve. Sugar Chains don’t evolve. Sugar chains with nucleotides attached…well…maybe…sorta…maybe. It’s just a matter of the boundary being a bit hazy (given that it was quite a while ago and all).
Too bad. No free lunch, here - if you have something to say, back it up. If all you have to say is “You’re all wrong and I should be excused from defending that standpoint on emotional grounds”, then you’re not really adding anything toi the debate, are you ?
Bull right back at you. Biology & astrophysics are separate sciences.
Science isn’t metaphysics. Some people span both disciplines, most do not. Most scientists leave metaphysics to philosophers. And I really think you owe us some explanation as to why you chose the word “militantly”. Care to come up with an example ?
Ehm - because their theories are consistent with the observations ? Because the theories are refined & improved whenever new information as added ? Because the scientific method has proved itself to be the most reliable way of gathering & organizing information about the universe ?
MAN, have you got it wrong. There are no “evolution fanatics” trying to conjure up a final proof of evolution to convince the creationists. Scientists are conducting research to find out how the universe ticks and advancing mankind that way. They can’t be tasked with convincing every doubting Thomas out there - that’s what the Straight Dope is for.
An anti-evolution drive-by posting ? Now, that’s something new :rolleyes:
You said ‘Science is based on theories and conjecture, how can they (evolution science) be presumptuous enough to declare that their theories are more believable than say, John 3:16 in the new testament?’
Well there is a lot of physical evidence to back up the theory of evolution. Also, as with all scientific theories, as soon as something contradicts the theory, you form a new one. (We now theorise the sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth).
The Bible verse you mention says that God sent His son to the world, and that believers in Him will have eternal life.
Unfortunately we have no physical evidence for either claim.
Yes, Jesus existed (and gave some wonderful moral teachings). However it was only 30 or so years after his crucifixion that the claim was made that he had risen from the dead.
Similarly noone has ever come back from Heaven to convince the rest of us.
I’m not decrying your personal faith, but you should realise that there is an incredible gulf in physical evidence between your two comparisons.
My hatred for both science (that attempts to explain evolution) and creationism is too massive for me to write a post that isn’t riddled with fallacies.
Hating both (massively, at that), what is left?
Science should simply stay in its place advancing mankind with their discoveries.
Thank you, Honesty. My otherwise drab morning was brightened by an amusing mental image of Thomas Edison (insert scientist/imvemtor of your choice) being told, “Don’t worry about what may or may not have been figured out historically. Just go on out there and advance mankind with your discoveries.”
One thing that never fails to amaze me is how often, and repeatedly, deniers demand from evolution things that it never claims for itself. Among these are the beginning of the universe, the beginning of life, an animal giving birth to a new species, and the mythical missing link. When these fail to be produced, deniers inexplicably take this as a sign of weakness. It’s as sensible as proclaiming the dictionary to be weak or faulty because it doesn’t contain the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.
Remember that biological evolution is a very complicated subject, so much so that many sub-specialties have evolved (pun intended) within the scientific community. I hear all too often, “But Darwin had no idea where the eye came from.” A lot of smart people have been born since Darwin and have added more than a few ideas of their own. We apply his name to the overall field not because he was a prophet and handed down the whole truth but because he originated the basic concepts that scientists have since greatly improved.
(Since the other posters are carrying the main torch far more ably than myself)
Behe’s fallacy is not an argument from ignorance. He is entirely correct in deducing that complex, interdependent structures cannot evolve by addition of features. Rather, he has accepted a faulty premise, to wit: structures can evolve only by addition.
The refutation of this premise is trivial and comprehensible by a normally intelligent twelve year old. I am continually astounded not only that people waste their time and money reading this book, but that Behe displays his staggering stupidity and lack of comprehension of elementary logic to the world by writing it.
Uh, as it happens, it is the continuing study of evolutionary biology at those levels that often leads the fight against disease. Or do you think the search for gene-level treatments for disorders is a waste of time?
Just FYI, but an appropriate hijack here. A few months ago I saved a post in GD that I thought quite eloquently summed up another poster’s arguments. ------>
Regrettably, it appears that your hatred arises from your ignorance about what science, and specifically, evolution, is all about. And the fallacies in your post abound…
Evolution is not meant to explain how the universe was created. Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, not The Origin of the Universe. As others have pointed out, there are separate fields of science which do address this issue. Cosmological beginnings are outside the purview of evolution.
Bull. See above.
Science deals with interpretation of observations and facts, not analysis of faith. Scientists can claim their theories are more believable than, say, John 3:16 because they have evidence to back up their claims.
**
This is an interesting statement, since you have previously implied that scientific discoveries are mere hokum in the first place!
Honestly, Honesty, your hatred of science in general and evolution in particular is not based on any sort of rational thought. You would do well to research a topic before attempting to rail against it.
I hate science = I’m afraid of what I don’t understand
I don’t understand = It must be wrong
Sigh.
The failure to understand a scientific theory is a failure of the imagination, not a failure of the theory.
The acceptance of creationism is based largely on its ability to piggyback on a nice, comforting story about our ability to transcend mortality. Evolution certainly does not have that going for it!
Of course, these thoughts have been repeated hundreds of times and hundreds of ways, on this site and elsewhere.
Admittedly, I’m close-minded on this issue. Both Science and Religion have painfully left a sour taste in my mouth. They fail to address various issues that I brought up in my previous posts. Sadly, nothing you can say can change my stance on this.
I am passionate about this issue for private reasons I will not disclose here. But do know that in any other topic, I’m very flexible, and usually downright nice. Yes, I suppose you can call me a bigot.
