Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Doom Shepherd]

I'm a philosopher,

 

To quote a Mel Brooks movie: "Oh, a bullshit artist!"

[ProHypster]

I'm a philosopher,

 

To quote a Mel Brooks movie: "Oh, a bullshit artist!"

 

Oh, that popular to kids/teens movie?

I'm sure the 5.? billion sheep out of the 6 billion people will agree on that.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

I'm sorry to say this, but I think there are people today that are smarter than Aristotle. And it really depends on what you mean by "smarter". Aristotle would have a tough time with computers unless you taught him such. And could he understand deep space quasars? And let's not get started on modeling in Hammer.

[ProHypster]

I'm sorry to say this, but I think there are people today that are smarter than Aristotle. And it really depends on what you mean by "smarter". Aristotle would have a tough time with computers unless you taught him such. And could he understand deep space quasars? And let's not get started on modeling in Hammer.

 

You know what smart means, it means when I take away all your electronics and supplies and food and throw you into the wilderness you will be able to survive.

I believe at least 5 billion people won't.

[danielsangeo]

So, Bear Grylls is smarter than me?

[Doom Shepherd]

I'm a philosopher,

 

To quote a Mel Brooks movie: "Oh, a bullshit artist!"

 

Oh, that popular to kids/teens movie?

I'm sure the 5.? billion sheep out of the 6 billion people will agree on that.

 

You would know, being a sheepier sheep than average.

 

Incidentally, that big long piece of blather you quoted on the last page?

 

You got SCAMMED.

 

That was authored by Fred Williams, biblical literalist whose "qualifications" in science consist of a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

 

In other words, a fellow bullshit artist.

[Doom Shepherd]

So, Bear Grylls is smarter than me?

 

Or your average Boy Scout is as smart as ThatSmartGuy.

 

Wilderness survival? Been there, done that, got the merit badge. That's what happens when you grow up with Army, Navy, and Marines as close relatives.

[ProHypster]

To quote a Mel Brooks movie: "Oh, a bullshit artist!

 

Oh, that popular to kids/teens movie?

I'm sure the 5.? billion sheep out of the 6 billion people will agree on that.

 

You would know, being a sheepier sheep than average.

 

Incidentally, that big long piece of blather you quoted on the last page?

 

You got SCAMMED.

 

That was authored by Fred Williams, biblical literalist whose "qualifications" in science consist of a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

 

In other words, a fellow bullshit artist.

 

First I want to say that if I am a sheepier than sheep person and that is what you believe in, it is your right.

 

And that is why I wrote that quote here, for it to be analyzed like that.

 

Anyways, I will have to check on the data in the following days as I don't do this type of thing in one second,

also you keep -reping me yet I have only provided content

 

EDITS: damn the stupid quote thingies

[ProHypster]

So, Bear Grylls is smarter than me?

I don't measure intelligence in animals, they are basically automated to the environment. But for humans it's a good logistics/intelligence test.

[danielsangeo]

The way I see it, I see some people looking at a television set and wondering how the pictures get onto the screen and suggesting that light can't travel fast enough to replace the image on a screen at a quick enough speed as to simulate moving pictures; that the human eye would be able to see the "stuttering" between the pictures, even at 100FPS, and then claiming that there's an invisible man sitting in every TV painting the pictures for you and then demanding the "invisible man theory" to be taught in science class.

 

Or, tl;dr: Argument from ignorance (aka "No way!") is no replacement for debunking evidence.

 

(Oh, and Bear Grylls is a human.)

[Koockaburra101]

The smartness thing isn't that hard to explain. First of all evolution works slower than the time frame you mentioned. Second of all, "smartness" isn't necessarily selected for, the smartness genes only spread if smart people get to breed more than non-smart ones, which maybe isn't the case in our society. Thirdly it all depends on your definition of smartness. If I remember correctly the average IQ of people has been going up a little in the last few generations at least, but maybe that's not what you're after?

[danielsangeo]

Koocka: It's a fair point and one I missed. Aristotle lived in the 300s BC. We're currently in the AD 2000s...only about 2300 years between us. Humans have been around for over 50,000 years if not 100,000 years. If you're looking at a clock from noon to midnight, where noon is the beginning of Homo sapiens and we're talking at midnight, Aristotle was at around 11:35-11:40PM (if my math is correct).

[Koockaburra101]

Yeah, and humans have a pretty long time for each generation which also make those type of changes rather hard to spot in the short time we've been around.

There have however been some interesting experiments done on fruit flies. They have a much shorter time per generation and scientists have been able to breed them in a lab so quickly that they could see some rather substantial changes in their fly population.

The thing about selective pressure is also very important. It doesn't seem that strong on our species but when it is it can produce surprising (to us) results in a rather (in evolutionary terms) short time. Prime examples would be one of the many species that are results of human cultivating and selective breeding, like dogs, cows and carrots.

[danielsangeo]

Three words: Nylon Eating Bacteria

[Leif Erikson]

OK. STOP.

 

I will Qualify what is being said.

 

0) Appealing to Majority is a Logical Fallacy. Don't use it if you want to be taken seriously.

 

1) The Public misuses science words regularly. The word "Theory" is one of them.

No scientist would call something a theory until (s)he has picked it to the bone trying to find some weakness in the argument. What the OP means when he says "theory" is in fact called a hypothesis.

 

2) There is no such thing as a scientific fact: Science is applied empiricism. Empiricism (Oversimplification hazard!) basically states "Nothing makes sense until we perform experiments" In science, Logic and Observation are only used to form a hypothesis.

 

 

 

3) Evolution does not work that way. Philosophers, think about this: You have 200 men and 200 women stranded on an uninhabited island. Of the men and women, 10 of each have a genetic disease that reduces their chance of reproducing by 50%. The gene is recessive. (sickle cell anaemia is the disease I'm thinking of). However, a parasite also lives on the island, and cannot attack the anaemic people. (Malaria). The non anaemic people have a 75% chance of dying before reproducing because the mosquitoes are really that bad in some parts of the world. As time passes, The anaemic mutants out-reproduce the healthy humans, since they don't die as frequently. Eventually, the anaemic people will take a majority, having evolved into a new subspecies. If the mutants continue to drift away from the norm, (can take as few as 10000 to as many as several million years), they will loose the ability to interbreed with the normal humans.

 

A Note, in the most malaria ridden parts of Africa and Asia, this is actually happening, with Anaemic vs Normal phenotype ratios as high as 1:10. Usually, this is lower than 1:1000. I must stress that people with anaemia are STILL HUMANS, so don't you dare misquote me! Furthermore, I'm not arguing for Evolution; I'm stating what exactly evolution is, and why anybody at all believes it.

[danielsangeo]

Leif: Agreed. Also, I find the very notion of "believing in evolution" to be......well, weird.

 

I don't know why the word "believe" has to be used. I always go back to math because it's the easiest to understand. Do you "believe" that 2+2=4? Math aside, do you "believe" that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow? Do you "believe" that your cat is alive? Do you "believe" that a baseball is round? Do you "believe" that adhesives are sticky? Why doesn't anyone use the term 'believe' for these things but "believe in evolution" is?

[Eedo Baba]

The "arguments" that some of you are proposing, just baffle me. How the hell could anyone think that this logic makes any sense at all? If your theory is that people aren't getting any smarter, then you yourself are exhibit A.

 

This thread has become like a group of people trying to restrain a few babbling idiots who escaped from their straitjackets.

 

I'M OUT

[Leif Erikson]

Danielsangeo: I was fully aware of the irony involved in putting the words "believe" and "evolution" together in the same sentence. In retrospect, I derped on that one. It's actually kind of arrogant to think that anyone's beliefs will accurately represent the reality. Its just too big.

[danielsangeo]

I wasn't saying "Do you, Leif, believe that 2+2=4?". I was saying "Do you, everyone, believe that 2+2=4?" The royal "you". The group "you". I should really substitute "one" for that kind of "you", huh?

[ProHypster]

So, Bear Grylls is smarter than me?

Wilderness survival? Been there, done that, got the merit badge. That's what happens when you grow up with Army, Navy, and Marines as close relatives.

 

Now I understand why you keep posting like that!

 

Anyways, the point was put a man somewhere where he has no experience whatsoever and isolate him from society, see how fast and good he can adapt, how he uses his logic, that is the test, so all the Bear Grylls/Doom Shepherds would be cheating (I assume Bear Grylls is one of those tv wilderness guys)