Why is fake evolution so important to some people?

...

Is it "okay" to say that I'm an agnostic as far as evolution is concerned?

Because my jury is still out -- I haven't seen definitive proof of evolution yet. Scientists can still keep trying to prove it to me.

As long as you don't misrepresent what evolution is, you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject.

Not sure if the word "agnostic" is the right choice, as it has a meaning in a religious context. Being "agnostic" with regard to evolution is as useful as being "agnostic" with regard to a city you have no intention of visiting very soon. It's out there but you haven't yet verified its existence yourself.




There won't be definitive proof, as even experiments consistently showing that evolution happens (and those experiments are done often and have been mainstream for decades) will not prove that this is what happened in nature.

Evolution is not supposed to be true, it just serves as a useful explanation for what it attempts to explain. That's what a scientific theory is.

Newton's theory of gravity is quite useful, although we now know that it wasn't complete. Perhaps we will learn more about the world and one day we will see that Darwinian evolution is not the complete explanation or that it is wrong.

My point is that IF we lern more about the world and IF we then reject Darwinism for a better theory, we will reject Darwinism and not a caricature of Darwinism.

Darwinism is not wrong because it's "atheism" or because it teaches that "one species turns into another", because it simply doesn't do either of these things. But that's what the Creationists are telling us. They are telling us that Darwinism is wrong based on lies about what Darwinism is. And that is unacceptable.

My point is that IF we lern more about the world and IF we then reject Darwinism for a better theory, we will reject Darwinism and not a caricature of Darwinism.

I think the key, for everyone, evolutionists, and creasionists alike, is having the ability to keep an open mind.  Taking one explaination, of anything, and basing your entire philosophy, or system of beliefs, on that, and that alone, and never being open to the possibility of more, is extremely short-sighted.

 

 

you confuse creationists with people who promote the beleif that god created man. The movement that calls itself creationsts are concerned with lying about evolution to discredit it because they beleive it leads to atheism which leads to evil.

Just like "scientology" has nothing to do with "Science", so does "creationism" has nothing to do with "god created humans"

If there is a misconception, then why don't you start a thread which details exactly what evolution actually is and enlighten us all?

there is no "misconception", there are only intentional lies.

Okay, well considering I'm one of those "intentional liars" I sure don't have much of an idea which parts are lies.

Again, enlighten me.

Evolution---scientific fact or fiction?

Darwin's Evolution Theory...theory still being scientifically explored or atheistic philosophical worldview?

This debate will go on interminably until you all decide to agree upon a definition of Evolution, what evolution is/does and how that's accomplished and the same with the definition of Darwin's Evolution theory.

Lula is correct in the sense that the burden of proof always rests with a theory's proponents.  Such is always the case when dealing with science.  The problem, as I see it, is that this particular 'debate' is not between two competing scientific theories, both with biological or scientific plausibility.  Rather, one is a scientifically valid, testable* theory.  The other is not.

Lula's completely wrong that this 'debate will go on interminably until you all decide to agree upon a definition of Evolution' - it will go on interminably simply because those who hold Lula's position cannot accept any alternative to their beliefs.  Doesn't matter what 'you all' decides, there can be no alternative to the Word of God in their view (ignoring all the secondary debates about the validity of the Word).  No matter how much the theory's proponents may indulge these particular opponents with evidence, it won't matter - it is a false debate, with one side unwilling to even agree to the rules, much less accept the weight of any offered evidence.

*By that I mean the ability to test a theory against the observed evidence, not the ability to turn a cat into a dog.

Daiwa proves my point!

I wrote a dozen articles about that, the last one three days ago.

Why don't you check the forums first and THEN ask why someone didn't write something?

 

Scientists already agree on the definition, but the liars don't.

I think it is up to you to "decide" to stop lying about evolution if you are so worried about the "different" definition.

 

Phew...you need to take some "chill out" time.

 Bye.

Yes, but that was never questioned by anybody. The discussion here is whether making up a fake story about a theory and then pretending to "test" that fake version constitutes "testing the theory".

 

True.

 

When faced with the choice between being honest and running away...

 

Nice try, Lula.  But you fail.

Unless, if by proving your point, you mean that I've confirmed you are incapable of understanding my point, then you've succeeded.

People holding Lula's position are forever answering questions that were never asked & citing the answers as evidence.  Part of the reason that debating them is a pointless endeavor.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution

Evolution is an overused term, it is used to describe an entire scientific field, the theories within that field, and the facts within that field...

As a scientific field: Evolution is a scientific field that deals with how species change. It does NOT deal with the following:

1. big bang

2. creation of galaxies

3. creation of planets

4. age of the earth

5. creation of life (it does not, in fact, claim that "life evolved from a rock")

 

Darwin postulated a "theory of evolution" that spawned an entire scientific field... we do not "beleive" in "darwin's theory" because we are not religious, his theory has been the foundation of modern field of evolution but is not taken verbatim... what is the field of evolution?

At the core of evolution is the OBSERVATION (which is as factual as the observation of the existance of gravity) that:

1. observation: creatures inherit their parent's traits: later discovered to be caused by DNA

2. observation: sometimes minor alterations are made: DNA can be copies incorrectly, if you do not beleive in that then you do not beleive in CANCER. (or in observable mutations in DNA) cancer exists, mutations exists. (which creationists sometimes claim, when they say that evolution only allows deletion and not creation, therefore it only allows micro and not macro evolution, terms they invented and sound incredibly stupid to anyone who knows what cancer is)

3. Logical statement (Math: statistics): traits (and DNA) more suited for survival or reproduction in a certain environment are much more likely to propegate (reproduce and survive)

All these observations come together in the following conclusions

Conclusion: Species are most likely to change to fit their current environment, barring that they are likely to die out. We call this process "evolution"... It is POSSIBLE but rare for an unsuited species or trait to survive, and realistically only happens in the "short term". (since eventually their shortcomings will catch up with them).

 

The conclusion is the ONLY possible conclusion based on those factual OBSERVATIONS, this leads to actual THEORIES. theories such as "these creatures evolved from these common ancestors" and and "humans evolved from a common ancestor as the great apes", and so on. While those theories assume the existance of evolution (a fact), they are actually focusing on the individual history of a species, which are theoretical and hard to prove, but are backed up by evidence such as the remains of ancient humans, their dna, the dna similarities with apes, and so on.

The field of evolution can include eugenics, genetic engineering, observable evolution of all individual species, etc. It is a growing field with new information, but the new information does not. Invalidate the core observation that there is a process of evolution (just like new information in physics does not invalidate the existance of gravity... we might change the explanation as to why or how, but we can observe it is there).

 

A perfect example of a creature that is surviving DESPITE having unsuitable traits are pandas.

Pandas are on the cusp of extinction because they are such failures, their traits make it hard for them to survive, and so far they are, with human assistance, but they are declining.

1. Pandas have a carnivore digestive track retooled to eat ONLY bamboo. meaning they get less than 1% efficiency of digestion.

2. Bamboo all flowers at once every decade and then dies out (in an area of a small country), it takes a year for new bamboo to grow, all pandas in that region die when that happens.

3. Bamboo is low in energy

4. Pandas always give birth to twins

5. Pandas always give birth prematurely due to lack of food (made worse by giving birth to twins)

6. due to lack of nutrients pandas ALWAYS abandon one of the two babies because they cannot produce enough milk to feed both.

7. the premature panda babies are so underdeveloped they cannot even piss or shit, the parent has to sqeeze it out of the with her tongue, carefully, or they will die.

8. etc.

 

While some say "ha, there is proof evolution does not work" they would be wrong. Evolution does not dictate improvement, evolution is not a sentient force but an observation. the pandas have beaten the odds, but that is a rare thing to do, just like evolution predicts, furthermore, there are no "bad genes" or "good genes" and there is no notion of "improvement", only of change to fit conditions... sometimes the change goes back and forth with a trait being disadventageous at one point and disappearing, later becomes advantageous and comes back.

Evolution (the concept) and the various theories of specific evolution (species X came from ancestor Y) are meant solely to further our understanding and explain HOW species changes (based on the factual observation that they do change, one repeatable in a laboratory), it is not some god replacement that is consciously directing us to improve as caricaturized by creationists.

Leauki,

I just want to let you know that regarding your blog, Judaism before and after Jesus, I cannot get pass the Peoples Party #109 post. Very wierd indeed. When I open that blog, I get a notice at the top of my page that it requires an microsoft add-on and it locks up.

Could you check out #109 and see if that's causing the problem? Thanks. 

JU has a bug that occasionally screws up the formatting of a page. I sometimes can get by by using Internet Explorer if the page doesn't work in Firefox.

At some point a JU official comes by, notices it, and fixes it. I was looking for the "problems" thread in the forum but couldn't find it any more. We'll have to wait...

Thank you....wait is the watchword.  In the meantime, I can't post comments as page 8 ends with reply 109 which seems to have some kind of an add on. I use Explorer and everything else with JU seems to be working fine. I'll keep checking in though.

Try the next page.

I've tried every which way to get pass ThePeoplesParty post #109 which is on page 5 right? From the opening page on JU I  see there are 118 comments and perhaps when it goes to the next page, I'll be able to get past #109.

There is something in #109 which requires me to run an add-on, microsoft office XP from microsoft Corp. It says if I trust the website and the addon and want to allow it to click on it...but when I checked it out , the warnings said it could potentially shut down my computer....

So...next, I think I'll report it to JU.

In the meantime there are 9 comments that I haven't been able to read.