quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

Whoa, I didn't know that Evolution was such a "sacred cow" for you guys, that the mere asking a few questions about it would stir up such reactions and no answers.

I didn't even react that way, when I was called a "serial" killer of homosexuals and just answered the questions.

Perhaps when you guys settle down from my questioning your "sacred cow", you can just answers the questions.
;-)

I don't think Evolution is viewed as a Sacred Cow, although there might be those who view science and scholarship as something valuable and worthwhile for the advancement and progression of humanity.

It's true that science doesn't have all the answers. As an analogous example, there are scientists who study cancer and working to find a cure. They don't know everything that there is to know, but they know more than they did 40-50 years ago, and they're ostensibly making an honest effort of it (although every profession has its share of bad apples).

I don't think there are any Sacred Cows in science. It's a matter of observation, examination, and experimentation - trying to plow through tons of evidence and figuring out how shit works in this Universe. It's actually pretty hard work, and clearly takes a great deal of patience and perseverance.

Even if science did have any Sacred Cows, I think there would more likely be challenges from within the scientific community more than any other field of study or thought. A good scientist welcomes and encourages challenges, especially from other scientists. There might be a bit of academic confidence and even some arrogance involved, but it goes with the territory. But as long as there is freedom of thought and the right to challenge Sacred Cows, then I think scientists would be cool with that.

And no one is really required to believe what scientists say about Evolution or anything else. I don't know of anyone going to jail if they didn't believe in or worship the Sacred Cow. If anyone wants to challenge it, that's cool, but I think it's fair to ask that it be challenged on a scientific basis, using the scientific method.

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.

The problem with some people isn't that evolution (and science in general) disproves the concept of a creative intelligence (that, for lack of a better term we can label "God") because it doesn't. The problem, for some, is that evolution disproves a particular notion of "God."
Namely their god - Yahweh - the god of the Bible. Science has clearly demonstrated that he is a fiction (the idiot doesn't even understand the biology and geography that he supposedly created . . . and don't even get me started on his hypocrisy and sadism).
Some people just lack the courage and honesty to accept that. Faith is the willing use of blinders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I don't even see why there has to be any dispute between Evolution and Creationism anyway. Many Christians and believers in other religions subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and simply say "God did it" without questioning science's findings and observations about how the process takes place.

The problem with some people isn't that evolution (and science in general) disproves the concept of a creative intelligence (that, for lack of a better term we can label "God") because it doesn't. The problem, for some, is that evolution disproves a particular notion of "God."
Namely their god - Yahweh - the god of the Bible. Science has clearly demonstrated that he is a fiction (the idiot doesn't even understand the biology and geography that he supposedly created . . . and don't even get me started on his hypocrisy and sadism).
Some people just lack the courage and honesty to accept that. Faith is the willing use of blinders.

Still, it's hard to fathom how one has anything to do with the other. If we accept the idea that "God" created the Heaven and Earth - as if he's some kind of Ultimate Magician, does it offend the faithful if scientists are trying to discover the Magician's secrets? Is that what it's all about?

The Bible also said that God said "Let there be light," and there was light. Would Creationists reject teaching that light travels at 186,000 miles per second as violating their religious beliefs? Or even the configuration of our Solar System, which seemed to raise a few religious hackles a few centuries back. Why would that not shake their faith, but Evolution does?

I can't say that I actually "believe in" Evolution any more than I can say that I "believe in" biology or chemistry. It's a field of study which is ongoing, and there's really nothing to "believe in." Science is what it is, for better or worse. Nobody is even forced to believe in it anyway. The only real bone of contention is that there are still some areas of the country which resist even the study of Evolution in the schools.

Even if there are holes in the theory or flaws somewhere, then that will likely come out with further scientific research and study. Let the scientists do their work, and encourage a well-rounded science education in our schools. It's not a reason to not to study something. If there are still gaps in our knowledge, then we have to keep plugging away and study. But when people say "We don't want to know more; we already know all we need to know," I just don't understand that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The 'Dark Ages' is a term often used synonymously with the 'Middle Ages.'

No it isn't. The middle ages is a blanket term for the period after the dark ages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Forgive me for chiming into this discussion a bit late but how is evolution even questioned at this point since the "theory" has evolved in the scientific realm from the Hardy-Weinberg theory to the understanding of the epigenome, mitochondrial and fossilized evidence and RNAi technology? :)

Well, the mere fact that the "theory" has evolved shows that someone has been questioning it.
;-)

You'll find that's the difference between science and superstition: science is based on research and evidence, rather than blind faith and "sacred cows".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Still, it's hard to fathom how one has anything to do with the other. If we accept the idea that "God" created the Heaven and Earth - as if he's some kind of Ultimate Magician, does it offend the faithful if scientists are trying to discover the Magician's secrets? Is that what it's all about?

quote:

The Bible also said that God said "Let there be light," and there was light. Would Creationists reject teaching that light travels at 186,000 miles per second as violating their religious beliefs? Or even the configuration of our Solar System, which seemed to raise a few religious hackles a few centuries back. Why would that not shake their faith, but Evolution does?

quote:

I can't say that I actually "believe in" Evolution any more than I can say that I "believe in" biology or chemistry. It's a field of study which is ongoing, and there's really nothing to "believe in."

quote:

Science is what it is, for better or worse. Nobody is even forced to believe in it anyway.

quote:

The only real bone of contention is that there are still some areas of the country which resist even the study of Evolution in the schools.

quote:

Even if there are holes in the theory or flaws somewhere, then that will likely come out with further scientific research and study.

quote:

Let the scientists do their work, and encourage a well-rounded science education in our schools.

quote:

It's not a reason to not to study something.

quote:

If there are still gaps in our knowledge, then we have to keep plugging away and study.

quote:

But when people say "We don't want to know more; we already know all we need to know," I just don't understand that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The speed of light and the configuration of our Solar System don't bother me in the least and all the science behind Evolution doesn't bother me, in fact I believe that in this thread I have said that I even embrace that very science. As for Evolution itself, it only bothers me because it seems to be a poorly conceived and badly flawed model of the world we live in.

quote:

Nicely phrased but perhaps you noticed that a number of those who have commented in this thread have stated that Evolution is a "fact". That seems to be more of a belief than a "field of study which is ongoing".

quote:

Then you were indeed fortunate, I seem to recall that in school you had to pretty much give the answers teachers were looking for, even if you knew that those answers were incorrect.

quote:

I don't have any desire to have "Creationism" taught in schools and believe strongly in separation of church and state. I don't even mind that Evolution is taught in schools and think that is probably a good thing that it is taught in schools. I would prefer though that it be taught as what it is, the best model that science has come up with and not something we need to believe in as a fact.

quote:

I agree, I just think Evolution should be taught the way atomic shell theory was taught in school, that it is a imperfect model that can help us to understand some things on the atomic level but it will never be able to explain everything and that better models are on the way. Not that it is a "fact" and because of that, we shouldn't ask any questions about it, thus stifling intellectual curiosity, instead of encouraging it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
So, your complaints about Evolution are not really religious in nature, but you're just saying that Evolution is bad science?

quote:

If it is bad science, then I would submit that there are honorable mechanisms within the scientific community to amend or correct anything passed off as bad science.

quote:

Religion doesn't have any such internal correction mechanisms, and as someone mentioned upthread, any challenges to religion used to be met with burning people alive.

quote:

I've noticed that the words "fact" and "theory" tend to be tossed around by both sides of the debate, but each side seems to have their own conception of what those terms actually mean and what they entail. However, this aspect of the debate should be easily resolved by simply going over the definitions of words and phrases and how they're used in this particular context.

I'll admit that it confused me when I first encountered the terms "fact" and "theory" as defined in a scientific context. I've observed that some who take the Evolution side in debates tend to gloss over this aspect and fail to recognize that this might be a source of confusion for a lot of people.

quote:

Yes, sometimes it's like that in school. However, I've had some teachers that would give you credit for a right answer provided you could defend and support it. A good teacher is one who will teach a student how to find the answers on their own, rather than one who just spoon feeds a bunch of facts to regurgitate on an exam.

quote:

But either way, I don't really see it as any kind of force involved. I'm reminded of a time when I was in science class and we had a rock identification quiz. I didn't share the teacher's enthusiasm for studying and classifying rocks, and I recall that I pretty much bombed the test. He wasn't interested in my opinion of what I thought each rock should be called, nor did he believe that my statement of "it's a rock" was sufficient to identify what the thing was.

quote:

I think it's primarily a matter of getting a good, well-rounded education which at least touches upon the main subjects. Beyond that, it's a matter of individual choice and aptitude as to which area of study one wishes to delve into. Evolutionary Biology, as with any other field of study, requires years of education and research within that one specific area. That's a matter of personal choice, depending on which vocation someone wants to take. Nobody really needs to believe in it as a fact or anything else. One can manage to get through life without believing in Evolution or knowing the scientific names of rocks or plants.

quote:

One has the freedom to believe that God created all of this, and no one will try to torture anyone or burn them at the stake for not believing in Evolution. The worst thing that might happen is someone will tell you that you haven't studied the subject to a sufficient degree to be able to make an informed judgment of its validity.

quote:

If anyone in the field of education at any level is saying that we shouldn't ask questions about it or stifle intellectual curiosity in any way, then that should be exposed (which it usually is). I've found that any group of humans is going to have its share of screw-ups, petty tyrants, jerks, and even a few nutcases to liven things up. I don't deny that there are serious problems within our educational system that badly need to be addressed, although the fight over Creationism vs. Evolution doesn't really help anything. The school's primary function is education, and that's a hard enough job as it is. But it seems as if it's getting used as a political football field for adults to resolve political/religious disputes that they seem incapable of resolving on an adult level. So, they drag their kids into the fray, almost like they're using them as symbolic human shields.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The 'Dark Ages' is a term often used synonymously with the 'Middle Ages.'

No it isn't. The middle ages is a blanket term for the period after the dark ages.

Great, another person with reading comprehension problems heard from.
Try reading the first paragraph here; http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-dark-ages-definition-history-timeline.html#lesson, very slowly and if you still think you are correct, write a correction letter to that website. You might want to include some footnotes that show you are not just some numb nut trying to spread your ignorance around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
So now let's see if we can get rid of that of that "strawman", and let you explain Evolution to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
the transition from reptile to bird involved a population of climbing reptiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
the transition from reptile to bird involved a population of climbing reptiles

Um, that is not a fact, but a hypothesis. And rather doubtful at that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
You're correct, I am just saying Evolution is bad science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

It should be pretty straight forward to picture that some of the tree climbing ancestors of the sugar glider had skin that was a bit looser than others. The increased surface area made those rodents a bit less likely to fall to their deaths while leaping around and therefore a bit more likely to spread their genes. Therefore over time more and more of those rodents had looser skin between their limbs. This cycle then repeated and repeated and repeated causing a larger and larger gliding surface.

What happens from there, well check out this video on flying squirrel, see how they're controlling their gliding? Subsequent generations progressively getting better and better at that skill leads to being able to produce thrust until you end up with something like the bat:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Religion doesn't have any such internal correction mechanisms, and as someone mentioned upthread, any challenges to religion used to be met with burning people alive.

As for "religion" having "internal correction mechanisms", not as a whole but there are a few that have some very effective "internal correction mechanisms" but for the most part "religions" depend mostly on a external correction mechanism, God.

quote:



But since God isn't doing this "external correction" things is prone to getting weird real fast and the external correction which religions actually end up depending on is a broader secular society not putting up with their crazy ideas.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Archaeopteryx seems to argue for the ground up hypothesis.