Overwritten.net
Community => Serious Topics => Topic started by: WindAndConfusion on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 01:08:55 AM
-
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/
McCain will be giving the keynote speech at the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design think tank and (at least formerly) a part of the Institute for Creation Research. He might not be a creationist himself, but he's allying himself with them. (Update: The DI is just a co-sponsor. They're hyping this event and it seems to have been misreported (by me, for instance).)
Judging by his past comments on the issue, his speech will probably be another variation on Teach the ControversyTM.
-
I really dislike him.
-
I don't dislike him- he's probably the most level-headed republican out there (this isn't to say that all democrats are level-headed either...). This is interested, though, because he's known as one of the more left republicans out there, and this is anything but.
I won't be voting for him, however. I just finished watching Barack Obama's keynote address at the 2004 democratic national convention, and I am amazed. If you haven't seen this, go watch it, it's basically what started all this hype about him. I'm watching his announcement for presidency now on his website and it is quite good as well.
-
Creationism is a backhanded attempt to muddy the waters in the science field. It is disinformation, pure and simple. There's nothing wrong with forthright theology and philosophy. They don't try to pose as what they're not.
Given this, I find any association between McCain and creationism very disappointing. I can't give full creedence to the story, though, without additional corroboration from other sources. I'll look into it at some point. I'm fairly out of the voting picture right now, so it's not as if I'm going to be acting on this one way or the other.
-
I thought he was levelheaded too, I guess he came out so he can run for president.
-
I'm sorry, but someone named Barak Obama will not be elected President. He's a great man from what I know about him, but his name will hurt him. Whether that's right or wrong is topic for another discussion.
I definitely get the feeling that McCain will be the next President, which is fine by me. I love the guy. This creationist thing is kinda weird but so what? When were you suddenly not allowed to be religious?
-
well, when someone believes in something that is damned by science, logic and reason, should you not question his mental capacity for making good decisions?
i'm growing increasingly more accepting of religious views, but not the pack mentality that leads to believing in a specific thing simply because people with a similar theological mindset believe it. someone who is in charge of the world's largest superpower should be able to make decisions based on the aforementioned logic and reason - decisions that stand up to as much scrutiny as you can throw at them, rather than faltering to the will of the lowest common denominator.
i mean, he's entitled to his own views and all that, but as with the majority of people who believe in organized religion, my thoughts are that this is an imposed viewpoint of his faith, and he is therefore merely showing weakness and a lack of belief in his own ability to divine fact from fiction (either that or he's just appealing to the unwashed masses).
based on what he has said previously (as in he doesn't believe that creationism has a place in the science classes, just that it's an opinion that kids should, at some point, be exposed to), i think he's on the right track. in fact, i think it's quite a brave and politically clever stance. if, however, he is intending to change his views to accommodate the more right-wing, black-and-white, side of religion, then i'm going to have to mark him down as another idiot politician who has no right grasping for power.
-
Hence the problem with any level of democracy, you don't have any clue what people actually believe in or if they're just reaching out to the masses.
Either way, I'd venture to say that it would matter as much to me in an election as somone's record in the vietnam war (it doesn't), but that's just me. I will say that I've met a large number of hardcore atheists who are just as illogical in their blind faith as creationists. Hence why it doesn't matter to me at all. I'll base all voting decisions I make on political records and nothing more.
-
This is what I hate about our political system. The Republicans shore up support by sucking up to "traditional conservatives" and the Democrats try to shore up support by sucking up to "traditional conservatives." ("Traditional conservatism" being pundit-speak for spineless populism, rather than a philosophy based on small government and fiscal responsibility.) They're both trying to appeal to a (probably fictional) middle class that is moderate, populist, and utterly pigheaded, but that can be counted on to always take the intellectually laziest position on any issue ('the opinion of least effort').
I will say that I've met a large number of hardcore atheists who are just as illogical in their blind faith as creationists.
How does atheism figure in to this?
-
I will say that I've met a large number of hardcore atheists who are just as illogical in their blind faith as creationists. Hence why it doesn't matter to me at all. I'll base all voting decisions I make on political records and nothing more.
blind faith by very definition is illogical. i just have a massive problem with anyone who claims to know the truth about something that they plainly do not. i don't have a problem with people having belief in a higher power, but having such a dogmatic faith where you claim to undeniably know the the truth about the infinite bothers me to great extent. if they understand that their personal beliefs are just that, personal, and recognise that they are not based within the material, logical, math and science world in which we actually have some kind of grasp of understanding - i have no problem with that. on that basis though, i believe that politics and religion have absolutely no business mixing.
despite all of blair's misgivings, he is a very religious man who manages to keep his beliefs away from his political agenda - which i think deserves at least a small amount of respect. there are parts of the world where this attitude has not been mirrored, and the countless conflicts where religion has been a major catalyst have shown this to be a poor decision.
political decisions will always affect the many, whilst religious decisions should only ever really effect those making them (in my opinion, of course). if you are making political decisions based on your religious beliefs, you are essentially imposing your religion on a whole group of people who couldn't give a toss if jesus came from mars, mohamed was conceived by a pelican, or the jesuits are actually a secret organisation of highly evolved mice.
ok, i've gone a bit random and am not stringing my thoughts together too well, but i think i've got the point i was trying to make in there somewhere...
-
well, when someone believes in something that is damned by science, logic and reason, should you not question his mental capacity for making good decisions?
As a religious person myself, uh no. In fact, whether your realize it or not, that statement is probably one of the most insulting things I've ever read from a member of this community.
-
just in case it wasn't clear, i wasn't talking about religion as whole in that statement, just creationism.
i mean, would you elect a politician who believed jelly came from jellyfish? i guess i could see where he was coming from, but it would fly in the face of logic, reason and science - so there's no way i'd want him in power. i'm just following the same thought process, albeit in a way that a lot of non-secularists would disagree with.
just to emphasise again, i am purely talking about creationism, not religion as a whole.
i am sorry if i offend, i just really think creationism is... well, let's just say i don't like it a whole lot.
-
It's unfortunate that conservative bullshit attitudes wouldn't allow a man to be elected based on his name. I think McCain an idiot, as well as Julliani. But then again, I'm a liberal pussy.
-
As a religious person myself, uh no. In fact, whether your realize it or not, that statement is probably one of the most insulting things I've ever read from a member of this community.
We aren't talking about religion. We're talking about one particular group that is demonstrably anti-science (the Disco Institute, namely).
-
It's unfortunate that conservative bullshit attitudes wouldn't allow a man to be elected based on his name.
Maybe. But the way people are going to look at it is that "Barak Obama" doesn't sound like a natural American name, and then that extrapolates to not wanting a non-American to run the country.
-
How does atheism figure in to this?
Sorry, that was carried over from an article I was reading at digg at the same time.
-
Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? I don't understand.
This wasn't why I don't like McCain. Whenever I head him speak he came off as an idiot.
-
Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? I don't understand.
The goal isn't so much to teach Creationism as it is to create an excuse for students to not learn the theory of evolution. It also helps perpetuate the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible (in the US, most people who believe in evolution are Christians; in Turkey, most people who believe in evolution are Muslims). (Look at the numbers (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5788/765) - way more people believe in evolution than are atheists or agnostics.) It creates the illusion that there is only a single controversy, namely Darwinism v. the Abrahamic creation story. Lastly, they want it taught as science, even at the expense of legitimate science.
(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6905/allfq5.gif)
-
Maybe. But the way people are going to look at it is that "Barak Obama" doesn't sound like a natural American name, and then that extrapolates to not wanting a non-American to run the country.
Precisely. That's why it's wrong. It's the same when the Irish came over, you were considered a threat of you have a Gaelic derived name. You would think by the 21st we could get past trivial stuff like this: let's face it, no name is an American name. All of them are.
-
Maybe. But the way people are going to look at it is that "Barak Obama" doesn't sound like a natural American name, and then that extrapolates to not wanting a non-American to run the country.
I think you underestimate the American people's desire for change. We voted for the good ol' American boy last time and look where it got us. As for the argument that he is black and Americans won't vote because they are racist, well, most "racist states" will vote republican anyways. Any other election and I would agree with you- these are things that generally people vote for, not education, the economy, and things that matter. But midterms sent a signal that American voters were tired of the bullshit and wanted a change in the status quo, and they actually voted based on something important- Iraq. Barack is the only candidate who has been against the war from the beginning, and I think that will show in the elections.
Back on topic-
i mean, would you elect a politician who believed jelly came from jellyfish? i guess i could see where he was coming from, but it would fly in the face of logic, reason and science - so there's no way i'd want him in power.
Would I vote for a politician that believed jelly came from jellyfish? No, because that's stupid. Would I vote for a politician that believed in creationism? Yes, if I agreed with his positions on the issues that mattered. Just like you said with Tony Blair, religion should be separate from politics. Why, then would you not vote for someone based on their religious beliefs?
And saying that creationism flies in the face of logic and reason is a highly egocentric point of view. To many, it makes perfect logical sense. Using the jellyfish comparison is much like the "flying spaghetti monster" comparison- a demeaning, superfluous argument used to portray those who believe in god as stupid.
-
Precisely. That's why it's wrong. It's the same when the Irish came over, you were considered a threat of you have a Gaelic derived name. You would think by the 21st we could get past trivial stuff like this: let's face it, no name is an American name. All of them are.
I've heard so many people say that voting for Obama is a waste of his vote because his name will prevent him from winning. All those people also said that they don't personally care though, it's just everyone else. I don't understand that mentality at all. If you think he deserves to be president you vote for him, you don't worry that not enough people will vote with you.
or maybe his name actually is a bigger deal than I think it is.
-
And it should be noted that blindly believing in the evolutionary theory and other such unproven theories (that, coincidentally, have scant evidence to support them) is just as stupid as telling other people that believing what they believe is stupid. Don't bother using science to argue this. Science doesn't support half of what people think it does, and I can guarantee that half of you haven't bothered to look into it far enough to realize that a lot of what is considered accepted scientific fact has no basis in fact whatsoever. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support creationistic viewpoints. I'm not going to say that you can prove God created the earth just as I would never say you can prove the universe was created by a giant explosion, but at least acknowledge that you can't prove either one instead of attempting to crucify anyone who questions what you consider acceptable, especially when the only reason you consider it acceptable is because it's been beaten into your head your whole life. Cobra believes in this stuff so hard it isn't even funny. You can't tell him any part of it is wrong because it's an absolute impossibility to him. I greatly, greatly respect Cobra, and I think he's a wonderful human being, a good person, and someone I would be glad to call a friend any day of the week, so don't think I'm just trying to trash his viewpoint or make him look bad. Far from it. I just find the absolute concrete-and-iron barrier of his refusal to look at any other viewpoint in this regard totally ridiculous. Not because I expect him to believe the opposite, but because he won't see the flaws right under his nose.
I really could give a shit if anyone believes in creationism or not, just as I could care less if anybody is an atheist or not. For all I care the entire world could burn in hell or evolve into higher lifeforms or go fuck themselves. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. What I hate is when people sit around and believe something with as little scientific fact as what they constantly argue against, then pat each other on the back for how smart they are instead of looking at what actually brought most of the current "scientific" ideas into existence and what entirely non-scientific philosophies have kept them from being shown for the total joke that they are.
As for Obama... pretty words don't make him any better than anyone else. I say vote for him, that way when he turns out to be as big an idiot as everyone else maybe you'll realize how ineffectual and worthless our system has become.
-
The fact is, when it comes to evolution vs. creationism, just like anything... both are ponders of PEOPLE. people are fallible. they aren't perfect. they don't know everything and even with all the technology we have, it's still very difficult to prove something happened one way or another millions of years ago. The best thing people can do is stop being so fucking arrogant and thinking they know the secrets of the universe when, in all honestly, they don't know shit. If people were so amazing, why can't they stop fighting wars, bitching over religion and politics and just get along? Because they're flawed. Sure, we can understand the laws of nature around us, but I'm sure it's not a perfect understanding of it. There are definitely areas of gray. Get the fuck over it.
-
Bingo.
-
Que - exactly what parts of the theory of evolution do you consider "unproven"? For that matter, could you describe the theory of evolution as you believe it is understood by biologists?
-
Eh. No, because I've done it a billion times, I'm sick of it, and I have no interest in actually debating the point any more. I'm done. You may disagree with my statement as much as you care to, and I suspect you will do so post haste, but I really don't care to hear the arguments repeated again. I won't believe them any more now than I did yesterday because they'll be just as full of holes today as they will be tomorrow.
-
sorry, i really don't mean to offend, honestly. although, i accept that i did. it's just that where i live, creationism has pretty much been utterly done away with. again, i'm not trying to offend, just telling you were i'm coming from with this. didn't think that anyone here would be that pissed off by that, i'm just trying to debate the topic as i see it.
and you're saying there's as much evidence to back up creationism as there is evolution? or that evolution is just an unproven idea? well it is one of, if not the most consistently *proven* theories of modern science. it has been observed in macro many times over, and a great many pieces of scientific and historical evidence we seem to find backs it up further.
i'm sorry that my views don't match some of your own, but i am serious when i say i could not vote for someone who may let a belief in something which is highly scientifically discredited be taught in schools. my view is not meant to offend, but i just think it's a terrible idea to feed kids what the more intelligent brains of our time consider to be misinformation. i've looked into intelligent design (the scientific argument for creationism), and they do apparently invest in scientific research - although they have not submitted a single paper yet to peer review. which really doesn't bode well for whatever they have or haven't found. i know some of you think it's a bad source, but for a taster on how intelligent design is viewed in the scientific community, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inteligent_design - there are many references and citations.
i think some of you may be taking this more personally than it's intended. i'm sure some of you wouldn't vote for someone like me based purely on some of my moral and religious beliefs, for reasons that would make just as much sense to you, as this does to me. but hey, if i think someone's going to do stuff that would affect me, or my kids, based on a set of beliefs i don't subscribe to, theres no way i'd want them in power. i don't think that's so bad, and i would totally accept that the other way round. it's not that i don't like the person, i just don't want their beliefs making an impact on my life in anyway - that's like breathing second hand smoke, but of a religious kind in my mind. that's why i think the separation between political and religious issues is so vital.
and again, i apologise if i offend, but i do like to debate such things. maybe it's a bad idea for me to do so here.
-
Que, you disappoint me. Whether you believe in evolution or not doesn't matter. It's science. With creationism, belief is all that matters. Therefore, it can't be science. That's all there's to it. They have no ground in common. Pretending that they do is either ignorant or a willful attempt to confuse, misdirect. Teach theology in theology or religion class. Teach science in science class. Argue about the merits of evolution in science class. You can propose new theories based on empirical studies, experiments, if you think it misses the mark despite the centuries of evidence. Argue competing views on scriptures in theology or religion class.
-
Wow, I am so not getting into this. Just throw me in the evolution camp and we'll call it a day.
Atheists are the last group of people in America that are perfectly OK for everyone to hate.
-
In my high school we were taught both. I guess one was taught much more strongly than the other, but we were taught everything about Darwin's theory etc.
Again what is the problem with teaching both?
edit:
I must say I have some, no a lot of agreement with Beo. Religion and logic should be kept separated. Leaders should be able to make decisions based on logic and not instincts developed in their childhood by a mosque, temple or a church.
What did Bush say so very often when he attacked Iraq, before he was criticized for saying it? He would say god told me to invade Iraq. This is a crusade. Saddam is evil and god wants him gone.
Conversely, one of the best presidents Pakistan has ever gotten, is Pervaz Musharraf. Thank god he isn't religious, because all his decisions are based on logic and reasoning and have meant progress in the region. He is currently going around the middle east trying to ask Iran to abide by the American policies.
Finally I really think there is a slight overreaction with this McCain thing. I hate the guy, because he came off as slightly arrogant and a bit biased. But to dislike him for this is a bit odd. I mean so he believes in creationism, it doesn't mean it has affected his political decisions.
-
Que, you disappoint me. Whether you believe in evolution or not doesn't matter. It's science. With creationism, belief is all that matters. Therefore, it can't be science. That's all there's to it. They have no ground in common. Pretending that they do is either ignorant or a willful attempt to confuse, misdirect. Teach theology in theology or religion class. Teach science in science class. Argue about the merits of evolution in science class. You can propose new theories based on empirical studies, experiments, if you think it misses the mark despite the centuries of evidence. Argue competing views on scriptures in theology or religion class.
You make lots of assumptions. Firstly, everyone arguing creationism does not always do so out of some belief system. There are many who argue science and nothing else, never bringing belief into the equation. You do realize that there are people out there who aren't religious and believe in a young earth, don't you? That there are people with no belief system whatsoever who think the evolutionary theory is a load of horseshit? You don't have to be religious to argue against the current norms, whether or not you propose creationism as a viable alternative. Again, I could care less if you believe in creationism or not, God or not, morality or not. I care that people refuse to look at alternative scientific evidence with anything less than contempt because they're so thoroughly worked into their own ridiculous beliefs. And then they have the gall to insult others and call *them* blind?
-
That there are people with no belief system whatsoever who think the evolutionary theory is a load of horseshit?
really? no, i can honestly say that i did not know that, colour me embarrassed. the only people i've met who believe in creationism have been christian, and when i've got into discussion with them about it, it has become rapidly apparent that they actually have a pretty terrible grasp on evolutionary theory. this isn't to say that you or anyone else here doesn't understand it, i am purely talking from personal experience.
i do, believe it or not, try to be as open minded as i can be without letting just anything in. if you can present me with the "alternative scientific evidence" that shows creationism as something that resembles something based in science, i will bow my head to you. so far, i have found nothing, and don't assume that i haven't looked. i have read that there is not a single scientific document that has been put through the rigors of peer evaluation, (that any new scientific theory must go through, before it is accepted as a viable scientific "theory") for intelligent design.
-
Atheists are the last group of people in America that are perfectly OK for everyone to hate.
We're the new Jews. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU)
Again what is the problem with teaching both?
One of them is just theology dressed up to pass as science, which can't be taught in public schools according to Edwards v. Aguillard.
Finally I really think there is a slight overreaction with this McCain thing. I hate the guy, because he came off as slightly arrogant and a bit biased. But to dislike him for this is a bit odd. I mean so he believes in creationism, it doesn't mean it has affected his political decisions.
It bodes poorly for his ability to make correct decisions uninfluenced by politics.
-
C'mon! How can a grown man actually believe in creationism? I mean, believing it is one thing, but to actually believe it? There is absolutely no scientific proof that creationism happen or could happen, actually theres proof against it. Its just wrong, its not right. They people still think the Earth is flat, should that be taught? Some people think that aliens are going to come down and rescue and take us to another planet, what subject should cover that? Christians think that their religion is more credible than most, thats the only reason they feel that their beliefs should be taught in school.
Jesus turning water into wine...must be chemistry.
-
We're the new Jews. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU)
That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I watched 30 seconds of the vid and had enough. Its like "Is there discrimination against atheists?" and the first woman is like "No, and those fucking assholes should just put up with it anyway."
"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."
That makes zero sense. Freedom of religion also applies to those that don't wish to believe in any religion...so yes, it also means freedom FROM religion. Thats the whole point!
-
It bodes poorly for his ability to make correct decisions uninfluenced by politics.
Oh please no it doesn't. You are all making this out to be way the hell bigger than it really is.
-
SHUT UP GUYS
-
I agree with Keebs.
-
It bodes poorly for his ability to make a correct decision uninfluenced by politics.
Oh please no it doesn't. You are all making this out to be way the hell bigger than it really is.
He appears to be publicly supporting a one-sidedly wrong movement for political purposes. In other words, political influences have caused him to make a bad decision.
At best, it looks like someone is hoodwinking him on science and he doesn't realize it.
-
You do realize that there are people out there who aren't religious and believe in a young earth, don't you? That there are people with no belief system whatsoever who think the evolutionary theory is a load of horseshit?
Well, if you're even capable of arguing about something, by definition you have a belief system. But you're right, there are atheists and agnostics who don't believe in the theory of evolution, whether because they never learned it or (in a vanishing few cases) because they actively reject it.
You don't have to be religious to argue against the current norms, whether or not you propose creationism as a viable alternative. Again, I could care less if you believe in creationism or not, God or not, morality or not. I care that people refuse to look at alternative scientific evidence with anything less than contempt because they're so thoroughly worked into their own ridiculous beliefs.
Let me come right out and say this:
There is no alternative scientific evidence.
Go ahead, point to one unambiguous example of evidence against the theory of evolution.
SHUT UP GUYS
No.
-
man, i cut vatos like you
-
OK, fuck. I have to eat some crow here.
The Disco Institute is a co-sponsor at the event. McCain will be there. It seems the Disco Institute is hyping this as "McCain supports ID!" My apologies for being dumb enough to take the Disco Institute at their word, I should have known them better.
Guess we'll know for sure when McCain gives his speech.
-
Sorry, I couldn't let this absurd nonsense slip by without a response:
C'mon! How can a grown man actually believe in creationism?
Faith? Through is belief in the Bible? Millions of other reasons that we don't know?
I mean, believing it is one thing, but to actually believe it?
no comment
There is absolutely no scientific proof that creationism happen or could happen, actually theres proof against it. Its just wrong, its not right.
Read Cobra's post about separating theology and science. Refuting God (or the Bible) with science is a flawed argument.
They people still think the Earth is flat, should that be taught?
Barring the fact that this is a lie, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It isn't even analogous.
Some people think that aliens are going to come down and rescue and take us to another planet, what subject should cover that?
no comment
Christians think that their religion is more credible than most, thats the only reason they feel that their beliefs should be taught in school.
This is by far the most ignorant statement I've ever read on these boards.
-
They people still think the Earth is flat, should that be taught?
Barring the fact that this is a lie, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It isn't even analogous.
I'm not sure about flat-earthers, but there are definitely still some geocentrists (http://www.csama.org/) around. There used to be another guy ("the Biblical Astronomer") who seemed to be one of the people who was hired by the Kansas School Board to re-write certain educational standards after they decided to remove evolution from the curriculum.
Christians think that their religion is more credible than most, thats the only reason they feel that their beliefs should be taught in school.
This is by far the most ignorant statement I've ever read on these boards.
Eh? Everyone thinks their religion/belief system/ideology is more credible than most, and most people want their beliefs taught in school. (The issue is that not everyone has beliefs supported by science, and so not everyone belongs in a science classroom.)
-
Sorry, I couldn't let this absurd nonsense slip by without a response:
Faith? Through is belief in the Bible? Millions of other reasons that we don't know?
no comment
Read Cobra's post about separating theology and science. Refuting God (or the Bible) with science is a flawed argument.
Barring the fact that this is a lie, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It isn't even analogous.
no comment
This is by far the most ignorant statement I've ever read on these boards.
For being "by far the most ignorant statement you've ever read on these boards", you sure don't have much of a rebuttal. Why don't you quit worrying about offending others and just prove your point if you have one.
Oh and don't try to shove me off to someone else's opinion, tell me what you think.
-
Again, I shall repeat that I am not making any pro-creationism comments here. My comments are anti-evolution. I'm not saying that God created the Earth, nor am I even saying the Earth is young. I'm saying that the basic concepts of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are without sufficient evidence to be believed by anyone who actually bothers to look at the so-called "mountains of evidence" to see how many giant, gaping holes there are in it. I'm saying that Neo-Darwinism has mountains of *assumption* that can be logically followed by drawing lines from point to point, but that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that the lines should have ever been drawn that way in the first place. I couldn't give less of a shit what any of you believe, but I find it absolutely laughable that you can go around bashing everyone in the universe who doesn't believe the way you do when most of what you believe is merely a logical chain of landmarks with no linking paths. People are still debating the completeness of the fossil record. There are evolutionists now making claims that assuming incompleteness and imagining relationships that can't be proven should make way for using stratigraphic data to test phylogenetic relationships between species. What heresy! Or we can believe that multiple beneficial mutations were consistently present in large populations yet mystically managed genetic isolation from the majorities. Or we can ignore that population drops are accompanied by the expression of detrimental genes and valleys in genetic variability. How can you base every argument on an incomplete fossil record with 250,000 year gaps when the incompleteness of the fossil record is still being debated by non-religious scientists and molecular biology keeps finding new evidence that contradicts popular implementation?
Anyway, I'm done with this. I should have just stayed done because I don't really feel like this is doing anything for me. Just please stop insulting everyone who believes differently than you do. It's annoying and unnecessary. Want to believe what you do? Nobody's stopping you. But that doesn't mean you have to insult others who feel your "evidence" is still far from concrete and based more on your desire to eliminate opposing ideologies than to actually, you know, promote science. And, for at least the third time, I'm not defending creationism, so please stop claiming that I am. I have not once stated in this thread what I actually believe. I have stated what I don't believe. My own father was an evolutionist, an amateur paleontologist, and the published biographer of a family of paleontologists, so don't think I say anything I say out of some muddled attempt to grasp onto a concept for comfort. The first ten years of my life he devoted to working on that book. We went to digs. I touched. I learned. I loved and respected my father more than any other person I have ever known and I'd have given anything to agree with him in adulthood. I still would. And if someday something is actually proven to a degree I find anything less than ridiculous, maybe I will. Belief in God, after all, does not equal a disbelief in evolutionary theory or some kind of need to refute science. My father proved *that* to me beyond any doubt.
-
Each new fossil discovery just creates two new gaps. So naturally, the fossil record will never be complete (unless we had the fossilized remains of every single ancestor of every single living thing, but that's obviously not gonna happen).
Anyway, I think this is a pretty good example of a transition:
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3)
Besides that:
- There are few or no major morphological gaps in the fossil record.
- Comparative genetics clearly establishes a nested hierarchy of the relatedness of all organisms.
I'll not bother mentioning vitamin C, primate three-color vision, ERVs, horizontal gene transfer, nylon-eating bacteria, or any of my other favorite examples.
Also, "transitional fossil" is Creationist Claim CC200 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC200) in the Talk.Origins index.
-
Now you're going to haveto explain vitamin C and nylon eating bacteria. I have a thirst for knowledge.
-
Most mammals synthesize their own vitamin C. Primates (including humans) don't, hence they are susceptible to scurvy. There was a point mutation in our gene for L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase, which is the last step in vitamin C production - this didn't matter to our ancestor species, because they ate a high-fruit diet rich in vitamin C. Other primates are stuck with this same affliction - because of an identical mutation in a nearly identical gene. (references here - including genomic analyses) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#mol_vestiges)
Nylon is a synthetic material that contains certain bonds - beta-amides - that do not occur in nature. Thus there are no enzymes that can act on nylon - except for a few species of bacteria that have figured out the trick. There are now bacteria that (using modified forms of existing genes) can eat nylon like sugar. (t.o again) (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html)
-
Interesting, thanks.
-
For being "by far the most ignorant statement you've ever read on these boards", you sure don't have much of a rebuttal. Why don't you quit worrying about offending others and just prove your point if you have one.
Oh and don't try to shove me off to someone else's opinion, tell me what you think.
Unfortunately, a rebuttal first requires an argument. The fact that you expect intelligent discourse after you flame an entire religion is laughable. I'm done with this. I shouldn't even have dignified your bullshit with a response to begin with.
-
Unfortunately, a rebuttal first requires an argument. The fact that you expect intelligent discourse after you flame an entire religion is laughable. I'm done with this. I shouldn't even have dignified your bullshit with a response to begin with.
Face it, religion is a business. They're selling a product that they want you to buy into, if you can't see that...then I guess that explains why you're religious.
-
I get the impression you don't know anything about Ghandi at all, so maybe you should stop making assumptions about people and start learning how to make arguments that don't involve insulting people. Ghandi and I disgaree on plenty of subjects, but I think he's a fine individual and somebody I'm glad to know, and you could accomplish a lot more by talking to him than attempting to tear him down, especially since that's a fight you could never hope to win.
-
OK, fuck. I have to eat some crow here.
The Disco Institute is a co-sponsor at the event. McCain will be there. It seems the Disco Institute is hyping this as "McCain supports ID!" My apologies for being dumb enough to take the Disco Institute at their word, I should have known them better.
Guess we'll know for sure when McCain gives his speech.
Heh, I missed this. See, independent verification is really needed on unlikely stories like this one.
There's been a lot of argument back and forth since I posted last, but nothing has changed in terms of calling black "black" and white "white". We can't hope to communicate with each other if we can't even tell what's science and what isn't. Note that I'm not pushing the validity of any scientific theory in the current discussion. I'm only saying that identifying what does and does not qualify in the category is as clear and unambiguous as black and white.
-
I saw this posted on another forum and it sort of ties in with this thread. Don't be offended...just have a chuckle.
(http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png)
-
Funny stuff Idol :)
And thank you for the kind words Que. Good discussion about serious topics is a good way to expand your world view. The fact that we (and many people on here) don't agree on things is a good thing- we can gain a broader picture of the topics we are discussing.
I wasn't defending creationism here, I don't particularly agree with it (in the conventional sense). I do believe, though, that inflammatory remarks (particularly towards vast groups of people) get us nowhere- in fact, they often hinder progress and discussion.
And nickclone, if you actually thought I was going to defend my religion to you, think again.
-
Heh, I missed this. See, independent verification is really needed on unlikely stories like this one.
Well, it didn't seem so unlikely at the time. A Republican presidential hopeful, during the primaries, allies himself with a cause that has both money and much support from the conservative base. And there were people like this jackass (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzE4YThhMmRjZGM2NDIyNmY4Yjk0ZDdhZGVlZjFhMWY=) getting involved, which always makes this stuff into a more confusing mess:
My own forensic involvement [in the evolution controversy] took place nine years ago as host of Firing Line. The two-hour, nationally televised debate on the topic “Resolved: that the evolutionists should acknowledge creation” featured seven professors.
That's right, a two-hour televised debate. And the Creationists won. Kent Hovind must've been there.
Point is, I fucking hate politics. I can think of no topic of discussion that invites more shameless liars and utter misinformation. Debates often turn into shouting matches between two parties spewing utterly contradicting facts; more often than not both sides are wrong and no one actually looks up the facts in question, no matter how trivial they are. Worst of all, almost everyone will tell you what to think but just about no one will bother telling you why you should think that. People spend more time defending their choices than they bother to spend making them.
Here's another thing you'll never see a politician do: Cobra, thanks for correcting me. My research was lazy and political issues are always surrounded by misinformation.