Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Eedo Baba]

The reaction you guys have given to obvious facts is just appalling. You can't just look at time tested science and say, "Well, that's your opinion. I think the moon is made of cheese."

Anyway, I'll say one thing about Darwin's method. He didn't go out on his voyages with evolution in mind, then find facts to justify a theory. He went out with the simple goal to study nature and make logical hypotheses. What he found he didn't even want to publish, because it went against his culture's religion. That's the difference between the methods employed by a logical mind and the mind of a stubborn creationist. The logical mind takes in facts and makes logical theories based on these facts. The religious mind takes in religion as irreputable fact, then looks endlessly for the rare fact that supports their beliefs, with the only goal in mind to prove what they already believe, never considering for a moment that they might be wrong.

[BTGBullseye]

looks endlessly for the rare fact that supports their beliefs, with the only goal in mind to prove what they already believe, never considering for a moment that they might be wrong.

Wow, the same as the evolutionists... Interesting ain't it?

[Eedo Baba]

looks endlessly for the rare fact that supports their beliefs, with the only goal in mind to prove what they already believe, never considering for a moment that they might be wrong.

Wow, the same as the evolutionists... Interesting ain't it?

 

But that's completely false. "Evolutionists" as you call them, follow the law of the scientific method. If a fact presents itself that strongly contradicts what's currently accepted, then the evidence is reevaluated and an updated system is created that fits all of the evidence. Consider dark matter. It was found that there wasn't enough mass in galaxies to hold them together, so the theory of dark matter originated to explain the invisible mass. Scientists don't stubbornly cling to an idea they insist is true (at least not good scientists). They accept new evidence, and reevaluate.

 

Btw, if evolutionists refuse facts, then give me some! You have yet to present any evidence that goes against the accepted laws of evolution by natural selection. You just give flimsy comebacks whenever I explain something that's downright simple, like Darwin's finches, which a fourth grader could understand is obviously valid.

[nomogoodnames]

looks endlessly for the rare fact that supports their beliefs, with the only goal in mind to prove what they already believe, never considering for a moment that they might be wrong.

Wow, the same as the evolutionists... Interesting ain't it?

 

But that's completely false. "Evolutionists" as you call them, follow the law of the scientific method. If a fact presents itself that strongly contradicts what's currently accepted, then the evidence is reevaluated and an updated system is created that fits all of the evidence. Consider dark matter. It was found that there wasn't enough mass in galaxies to hold them together, so the theory of dark matter originated to explain the invisible mass. Scientists don't stubbornly cling to an idea they insist is true (at least not good scientists). They accept new evidence, and reevaluate.

 

Btw, if evolutionists refuse facts, then give me some! You have yet to present any evidence that goes against the accepted laws of evolution by natural selection. You just give flimsy comebacks whenever I explain something that's downright simple, like Darwin's finches, which a fourth grader could understand is obviously valid.

 

I would like to know why there are still monkeys, not that I don't believe in evolution.

[Eedo Baba]

I would like to know why there are still monkeys, not that I don't believe in evolution.

 

lol, I'm not sure about BTG, but I know you're just messing with me.

[ProHypster]

looks endlessly for the rare fact that supports their beliefs, with the only goal in mind to prove what they already believe, never considering for a moment that they might be wrong.

Wow, the same as the evolutionists... Interesting ain't it?

 

But that's completely false. "Evolutionists" as you call them, follow the law of the scientific method. If a fact presents itself that strongly contradicts what's currently accepted, then the evidence is reevaluated and an updated system is created that fits all of the evidence. Consider dark matter. It was found that there wasn't enough mass in galaxies to hold them together, so the theory of dark matter originated to explain the invisible mass. Scientists don't stubbornly cling to an idea they insist is true (at least not good scientists). They accept new evidence, and reevaluate.

 

Btw, if evolutionists refuse facts, then give me some! You have yet to present any evidence that goes against the accepted laws of evolution by natural selection. You just give flimsy comebacks whenever I explain something that's downright simple, like Darwin's finches, which a fourth grader could understand is obviously valid.

 

Wait a second, I support science and am a rationalist and an optimist. I am also a Monotheist.

 

On another matter, I am going to ask you again since you haven't answered.

 

Why do different species of finches on different islands automatically mean that:

 

1. They used to be one species.

 

2. They mutated into the current species.

 

You are a giant step from these conclusions unless you can connect the first with the latter

[ProHypster]

I would like to know why there are still monkeys, not that I don't believe in evolution.

 

lol, I'm not sure about BTG, but I know you're just messing with me.

 

That's actually a decent question... obviously you haven't thought about the question enough.

 

Even if he is messing, the point of the question for me is why some monkeys didn't evolve and why others did. Or in other words why we evolved into humans while they just stayed monkeys.

[Eedo Baba]

I would like to know why there are still monkeys, not that I don't believe in evolution.

 

lol, I'm not sure about BTG, but I know you're just messing with me.

 

That's actually a decent question... obviously you haven't thought about the question enough.

 

Even if he is messing, the point of the question for me is why some monkeys didn't evolve and why others did. Or in other words why we evolved into humans while they just stayed monkeys.

 

Ah, I think I see your point. The answer probably is that certain groups of apes migrated to different areas over the years. This new habitat prompted different mutations to take hold, which eventually led to things like a rise in intelligence with the great apes, eventually homo walking on two legs, and the further increase in brain size as man started using his intelligence as his main weapon when hunting, and eventually farming.

The apes that stayed in the original areas remained in the safety of their niche and therefor mutations had little effect, because they didn't effect the probability of reproduction as much as a population that has not yet gained a foothold in a habitat.

 

Wait a second, I support science and am a rationalist and an optimist. I am also a Monotheist.

 

On another matter, I am going to ask you again since you haven't answered.

 

Why do different species of finches on different islands automatically mean that:

 

1. They used to be one species.

 

2. They mutated into the current species.

 

You are a giant step from these conclusions unless you can connect the first with the latter

 

The similarity of the species despite their isolation points to them having diverged from one species. It wasn't technically provable for Darwin though, since he didn't have the fossil record backing it up at the time. The idea of divergence was just the most logical conclusion given the location of the birds, and similarities between them.

[ProHypster]

That's actually a decent question... obviously you haven't thought about the question enough.

 

Even if he is messing, the point of the question for me is why some monkeys didn't evolve and why others did. Or in other words why we evolved into humans while they just stayed monkeys.

Ah, I think I see your point. The answer probably is that certain groups of apes migrated to different areas over the years. This new habitat prompted different mutations to take hold, which eventually led to things like a rise in intelligence with the great apes, eventually homo walking on two legs, and the further increase in brain size as man started using his intelligence as his main weapon when hunting, and eventually farming.

The apes that stayed in the original areas remained in the safety of their niche and therefor mutations had little effect, because they didn't effect the probability of reproduction as much as a population that has not yet gained a foothold in a habitat.

 

"And then there was (PROBABLY) an intergalactic battle from which the result was that Pluto got pushed away from the sun and ducks started quacking. The snakes slowly turned into bears over a million years since they started liking honey all of a sudden and the neanderthals died from cancer in their homes.... I could go on."

 

Sorry to be rude here but what I wrote was strictly to explain to you how you write to us since I don't know english enough to explain i provided an example. As soon as you wrote probably, your version of the world started flowing and flowing, whilst it may be interesting, you have not backed up your story with any background or facts or even why you assume that..

[ProHypster]

The similarity of the species despite their isolation points to them having diverged from one species. It wasn't technically provable for Darwin though, since he didn't have the fossil record backing it up at the time. The idea of divergence was just the most logical conclusion given the location of the birds, and similarities between them.

 

And what exactly did the fossil record reveal.

[Eedo Baba]

That's actually a decent question... obviously you haven't thought about the question enough.

 

Even if he is messing, the point of the question for me is why some monkeys didn't evolve and why others did. Or in other words why we evolved into humans while they just stayed monkeys.

Ah, I think I see your point. The answer probably is that certain groups of apes migrated to different areas over the years. This new habitat prompted different mutations to take hold, which eventually led to things like a rise in intelligence with the great apes, eventually homo walking on two legs, and the further increase in brain size as man started using his intelligence as his main weapon when hunting, and eventually farming.

The apes that stayed in the original areas remained in the safety of their niche and therefor mutations had little effect, because they didn't effect the probability of reproduction as much as a population that has not yet gained a foothold in a habitat.

 

"And then there was (PROBABLY) an intergalactic battle from which the result was that Pluto got pushed away from the sun and ducks started quacking. The snakes slowly turned into bears over a million years since they started liking honey all of a sudden and the neanderthals died from cancer in their homes.... I could go on."

 

Sorry to be rude here but what I wrote was strictly to explain to you how you write to us since I don't know english enough to explain i provided an example. As soon as you wrote probably, your version of the world started flowing and flowing, whilst it may be interesting, you have not backed up your story with any background or facts or even why you assume that..

 

I was just theorizing based on what I know about natural selection, and how mutations effect populations differently based on the habitat. The detailed story is pretty complicated and involves a lot of branching and different species which died out on the way to modern humans.

As for backing it up, here's the wikipedia article on natural selection, if that helps any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

[ProHypster]

That's actually a decent question... obviously you haven't thought about the question enough.

 

Even if he is messing, the point of the question for me is why some monkeys didn't evolve and why others did. Or in other words why we evolved into humans while they just stayed monkeys.

Ah, I think I see your point. The answer probably is that certain groups of apes migrated to different areas over the years. This new habitat prompted different mutations to take hold, which eventually led to things like a rise in intelligence with the great apes, eventually homo walking on two legs, and the further increase in brain size as man started using his intelligence as his main weapon when hunting, and eventually farming.

The apes that stayed in the original areas remained in the safety of their niche and therefor mutations had little effect, because they didn't effect the probability of reproduction as much as a population that has not yet gained a foothold in a habitat.

 

"And then there was (PROBABLY) an intergalactic battle from which the result was that Pluto got pushed away from the sun and ducks started quacking. The snakes slowly turned into bears over a million years since they started liking honey all of a sudden and the neanderthals died from cancer in their homes.... I could go on."

 

Sorry to be rude here but what I wrote was strictly to explain to you how you write to us since I don't know english enough to explain i provided an example. As soon as you wrote probably, your version of the world started flowing and flowing, whilst it may be interesting, you have not backed up your story with any background or facts or even why you assume that..

 

I was just theorizing based on what I know about natural selection, and how mutations effect populations differently based on the habitat. The detailed story is pretty complicated and involves a lot of branching and different species which died out on the way to modern humans.

As for backing it up, here's the wikipedia article on natural selection, if that helps any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

 

Very interesting to read this, anyways, this is a bit primitive and unscientific response, but if you didn't know, Darwin died a monotheist.

[Eedo Baba]

Very interesting to read this, anyways, this is a bit primitive and unscientific response, but if you didn't know, Darwin died a monotheist.

 

Oh I'm sure. Darwin never liked publishing his work because it went against his religion. The contradictions from his findings to his religion probably troubled him his whole life.

[ProHypster]

Very interesting to read this, anyways, this is a bit primitive and unscientific response, but if you didn't know, Darwin died a monotheist.

 

Oh I'm sure. Darwin never liked publishing his work because it went against his religion. The contradictions from his findings to his religion probably troubled him his whole life.

Correction "the contradictions of his theory." That is if you can call his theory a contradiction to monotheism...

[nomogoodnames]

Additionally, I might add that you might be able to say we are "evolving" technologically now. We might stop evolving naturally and start developing weaker bodies, higher brain capacity, etc, which would be awesome. That is if evolution is 100% true.

[Bjossi]

We won't stop evolving naturally until mutation can be completely stopped and prevented.

[Axeldeath]

A lot of uninformed arguements on here ATM....

[ProHypster]

start developing weaker bodies

Sorry if I am a little ruff here but I don't really know how to respond in a non-aggressive way here, just picture me smiling through this post...

 

So who the hell came to that conclusion?

 

Scientists with Scientific 20.000 year old Neanderthal comparisons to us by bones? (When we don't even know how the pyramids were built (2500 years ago)

or

Scientists who came to the conclusion that nature is all about balance. (Sounds like a dream world)

[ProHypster]

By the way on the subject what schools should be teaching:

 

Both theories.

 

Just like in Germany, where they have a religion class teaching monotheism and a Biology class teaching Human evolution at the same time. (Both mandatory)

 

Let the people choose themselves and let's not be biased here.

[Darkorth]

By the way on the subject what schools should be teaching:

 

Both theories.

 

Just like in Germany, where they have a religion class teaching monotheism and a Biology class teaching Human evolution at the same time. (Both mandatory)

 

Let the people choose themselves and let's not be biased here.

 

Well here in spain I had a variation of this model, Science/History class + Religion, the only difference is that in the Religion Class they taught us about all religions over the world and how they understand concepts as heaven/hell, moral, how they pray and everything, this led me to understand that if all religions are the same (change ala for god, or the saints for the gods of the Roman Empire/Greece, they are all the same, also christmas was back then the day of the Invictus Sun where they celebrated the winter solstice (the sun going down (getting killed) but at the end it resurrects into another year)) so what I think is that our children need to learn evolution to understand the world, and religions (All of them) to understand the people around it.