just let them believe in creationism

Originally posted by Slothrop
those of us who are Awake understand fully what a red herring the creation vs evolution debate has become.

no sane, intelligent person can deny that some version of the evolutionary model is the best explanation for the progression of life on planet earth. but here's the thing: just let those who prefer to be Asleep believe in creationism.

it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....i really don't care if the guy who changes my oil or takes my order at quizno's believes the earth is 5000 years old and that dinosaur bones were just put inside the earth to test our faith. as long as they can change my oil and make my change, eh.

creationism v evolution is a total non-issue

ha ha ha

ha ha

ha

yeah . . . contradict yourself much?

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Thanks for the praise!

The real clincher for Christian dogma for me is why did God tell us about Heaven and Hell? Surely he should have just spelled out why it's good for us to be nice to each other, and stop there. That way truly good people would wind up in heaven, and nasty people would end up in hell. His loose lips would surely allow bad people to get into heaven just by being nice. That, to me, screams "written by man to get people to act nice, without any desire to actually make nice people". To me it's clear the bible was written by man to fill the void we now fill with law and law enforcement. They had no cops, so they went down the "scared straight" route.

But then logic doesn't come into it, as dogma is as dogma does. Religion preys on the young and the vulnerable. Once ingrained, it takes a hell of a lot of suffering (no pun intended) to break someone free from the chains. Luckily I wasn't brought up as a Christian (or anything), and I thank my parents for that.

I don't need God to be a good person. I'm only human, so I screw up quite frequently, but to me that is the ultimate punishment - knowing you screwed up.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by 1nelove

 

If DNA hadn't been discovered, you'd have a point. As it is, we can easily see the similarities in the genetic make-up of every single living creature. That make-up shows us how genes have propagated throughout the animal kingdom, and gives us massive, massive insight into our genetic background - ie the species that preceeded us. If non-human offspring of our ancestors exists (which they do), then we can easily place them in the family tree.

You seem to be arguing from 150 years ago. I'm arguing what we know today. I don't lump you in with the creationists, I lump you in with those who don't understand evolution. Sorry if that offends, but clearly you have some reading to do.

See this is what I was afraid of. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Your description of DNA and it's relation to the generic idea of how evolution dismisses creationism is non existent. You don't even know what I"m talking about.

You say I'm speaking from 150 years ago but I asked you a question about the issue raised with the EPIGENOME (are you at least looking it up now??? You have LOTS AND LOTS of reading to do and maybe that will hep you develop a better comprehension level). That a VERY recent development and understanding of our DNA.

my oh my, even with the garbage spewed across this forum, I didn't expect it to be at this level.

I'm afraid you don't even understand the context of my sentences anymore. I will move on and look for others who can potentially expand my thoughts on this issue. If you choose to actual make sure you know what you're talking about and respond to my posts relevantly, I will respond, but you will not waste my time any longer.

And yet you willingly skip over posts that explain it, and refuse to explain what exactly you think is so damning about epigenes.

Not only that, but you are condescending in an intolerable amount, by most peoples standards. If you view someone as truly childish, it's best not to patronize them, lest you make yourself appear childish as well.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Yes I care about what people believe. It is their beliefs which shape our world. Creationism/ID & Evolution are both boxes into which the system has put our minds. The time to think outside the box is long past. We are so technically advanced and yet so much of our thinking is still in the "stone age".

So DNA has been discovered. Sure, it is the pattern for every living thing in the Universe. There are also the base elements from which all these living things are composed. This still does not prove that one species ever "evolved" into another. Logically similar forms will share similar DNA & similar elements.

So bacteria have been observed to evolve?
What did they evolve into?
I'll bet they are still bacteria, aren't they?

NO scientist has ever proven that one species has "evolved" into another species.
That new species of anything have suddenly been found, does not prove that they are new, or that they "evolved" from something else.

There is no real basis to believe that present species on Earth "evolved" from the earlier forms that have been dug up. This is as much a fairy tale as the thought that there is a necessity for a "creator".

Why exactly are our minds being herded into the this versus that corral?
What about some of the fringe ideas?
Panspermia and colonization.

So bacteria have been observed to evolve?
What did they evolve into?
I'll bet they are still bacteria, aren't they?

Not only is this just a ridiculous statement, it shows me that you didn't actually read anything said in the links related to said topic. I believe the article stated that after some 31,400 or 40,000 generations, to get a mutation which allowed them to use arsenic as a source of energy. That's a long time in the lifespan of bacteria, which is why they were an excellent candidate. You also seem to have skipped over this post, where I show that a lot of the foods we eat have been domesticated through artificial selection, which is proven scientifically to work on the same methods that natural selection does. Where would we be without our ancestors all those 10's of thousands of years ago if they didn't decide to start planting and using Teosinte, which is the likely source that became the corn we use for many things today, like sugar, oil, fuel, etc.?

One small change in that length of time perfectly demonstrates the idea of evolution. Small changes over long periods of time. If you want to watch that bacteria evolve in to a recognizable-to-the-naked-eye life form, you'll have to stick around for a few billion years, I suspect. Or at least a couple million.

NO scientist has ever proven that one species has "evolved" into another species.
That new species of anything have suddenly been found, does not prove that they are new, or that they "evolved" from something else.

There is no real basis to believe that present species on Earth "evolved" from the earlier forms that have been dug up. This is as much a fairy tale as the thought that there is a necessity for a "creator".

Why exactly are our minds being herded into the this versus that corral?
What about some of the fringe ideas?
Panspermia and colonization.

You would do well to actually read up on evolution and the evidence for it and, as the motto of these forums suggest, deny ignorance.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Originally posted by OnionCloud
You can read my posts in this thread and in my post history that sufficiently describe how we are fairly certain that evolution is real.

Evolutionary theory might have to change to encompass a new discovery? Good, it better, that's what science is all about. Taking empirical evidence that has been well proven and peer reviewed, and using it to further increased the knowledge to benefit all those who use it. This isn't even an issue in science since that's what science is all about.

Don't you see the problem here? You can't just state this beautiful science without getting into it's meaning, that's all any human really cares about in the end. Philosophy will always be a higher plane of thought because it actually admits that our only concern is the relational attachment to reality.

Science is beautiful and my good friend, but NOT my God.

The real ISSUE with Epigenetics is that it accomodates evolution (the word) within a species. The extent in which our science of DNA goes, is disconnected, in physical evolutionary function, from the DNA components that reside within the species definition.
So, that can actually be a huge point in favour of Creationism, if Creationism as belief made any sense at the moment. But it doesn't because the mainstream understanding of that word is meant to confuse and it's doing exactly that to both sides of this fool's maze of an arugment.

What about mitochondrial DNA? The biggest announcement with that was the result of the extracts from Neandrathal skeletons from Africa and Germany. Does anyone know what they suggested? How many THEORIES were dismantled and dismissed as a result? How that relates to evolution greatly? You should. It was a big topic amoungst the scientific community early this decade. The mainstream media's coverage of it was short and misleading of course..but you guys aren't being directed by that mechanism are you? Is THAT what science is to you???

We don't even need to get into the fossil record because that's still a massive problem that scientists of all types are working on desperately. In fact, let's never bring it up because everytime it is, the real science and conclusions that can be made of them, are never referred to. In fact, the opposite reality is used (usually based on the image of a Neandrathal looking like us) to make an absolution or proof of something that the person can't even properly explain.

Noone, in their right mind would dismiss scientific evidence put in the right position. Creationists around the world believe in it. The vast majority of them so actually. There are only a few who actually think evolution, the word in it's definition, don't exist. I've never met one and I've met hundreds of Creationists. Maybe thousands.

You keep running around trying to show that evolution is real, but that's not the issue. Evolution, the noun, is used in an entirely different way. Confusion at it's best. The noun, incorporates ideas as to what our understandings of evolution suggest.

Yes the understanding of evolution is constantly changing and evolving, but a shame for not understanding that a lot of conclusions and absolutions that were picked up and enforced through the initial understandings now need to be questioned. Convenient how that is never raised in the evo vs creat battle. I call it a sign of the minds state of control. Both sides spend their efforts focusing on the final outcome and meaning they have planted their feet on - using ever-changing factors that have gross effect on those conclusions (which have nothing to do with science) hmmmm
Ask any real scientist - Evolution has NOTHING to say about what, where, how life's origin took place. What are you even arguing about? LMAO. All I see is pseudo-science trying to dismis a particular interpretation of something that science is nowhere near understanding at this moment.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by 1nelove]

IMAGES

Image of Evolutionist created by the Philosophical Society (Darwin's 'team'):

Believe's only in science's ability to confirm an event physically.
Thinks the idea of anything that hasn't been explained is non-existent.
Thinks the idea of anything that isn't tangible to our five senses is fantasy.
Thinks the idea of a creator, God, is make believe fantasty as well.
Justifies these ever existing traits as a result of 'wants and needs' of humans but, more specifically, dumber humans.

Image of Creationist created by the same people really:

Bible thumper who takes the word of their religion as truth.
Believes that their religion is all the evidence they need.
Dumb, primitive and often psychologically hampered individuals who are in need of guidance.
doesn't believe in science because somehow their other believes reject it.

The purpose of these images? To dismiss the religion's that were dominately practiced throughout the modern world and to make way for revolutionary change that would, as always, be headed by the same group of mysterious agnostic elite's. Divide and then conquer. Then wait for another inevitable uprising of religious nature, and rinse wash and repeat. History certainly repeats itself as long as it's the same ones in control and people are directed by their senses over their mind.

This is what the Philosophical Society's intentions were, and they didn't hide that once. This is why Darwin's grandfather originally used truth, and as usual with these SPECIFIC AGNOSTIC people (go find out what their real beliefs were, if you can open yourself to it), twisted it to achieve their agenda. Darwin then used hilariously obvious, and undeniable observations to portray a short termed, small scoped view of why Creationism never happened. It's too bad, anyone with the strong ability to consciously deny their subconscious' influence should easily laugh at the ENTIRE argument as long as the details are given to them.

The original theory is essentially just a simple observation and it was DOMINANTLY philosophical. That's what will become of it as science develops. There was nothing wrong with his approach, but any Philosopher could destroy it because it has a billion holes logically (and top scientists and philosophers did just that immediately). It's just a game and you guys are being had because the strength of science is being used against you to worship it as a God or religion. Same trick used over and over, just a different dogma. Mind control.

Originally posted by OnionCloud
And yet you willingly skip over posts that explain it, and refuse to explain what exactly you think is so damning about epigenes.

Not only that, but you are condescending in an intolerable amount, by most peoples standards. If you view someone as truly childish, it's best not to patronize them, lest you make yourself appear childish as well.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Sure buddy. Because his instanteous assumptions of me did not ignite that? I'm not a robot, and at times, will repsond outside of technical structure.

I mean, do you not realize how insulting it is from someone who isn't an Evolutionist in this thread? No really, can you not see how people would be offended? Or are these lower, dumber and lesser people that are at their own fault for being offended by scientific 'fact'? Oh an don't assume anything of me, because believe it or not, I get offended when groups of people are generalized through physicality regardless of their connection to me.

On top of the personal accounts on me, he didn't even address what I was questioning and opening up to and made conclusions that could never be logically made if he did.

I set him up and he failed.

Just like you failed on:

"willingly skip over" excuse me? DO NOT make these assumptions. What is wrong with you? I'm at work and trying me best to participate but I cannot address everything in a time that you have created to demonstrate an act of 'skipping'? Please. I apologize in advance, because I will not be on this thread and responding as timely as you just demanded indirectly.

"refuse to explain" When did I refuse? What's with these assumptions? Thinking in absolutes? Great...

I explained it on a basic level above, do you want more? I am willing to get into greatly but it MUST be an open door. dave420 doesn't have that door it seems, or refuses to open it so I said no. I'm not just going to get into something when someone can't display the ability to openly and honestly inquire or understand it.

I'm not worried about my image, but the truth and it's exposition. In fact, the moment I worry about my image, is the moment I have no bearing on the truth, especially on a forum. I'm going to try my best to not stimulate my subconcious in a discussion, so I also apologize for that in advance.

EDIT: if you think in anyway I'm actually arguing against the word evolution and what that generally applies to with life then please look back. My argument is against that generic argument of Evolutionist vs. Creationist as a whole. It's a joke and shouldn't exist, basically. Just in case, because I don't tolerate the imaged attributes of someone who questions an Evolutionist well when auto-thrown at me.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by 1nelove]

Don't you see the problem here? You can't just state this beautiful science without getting into it's meaning, that's all any human really cares about in the end.

Plenty of meaning is there. if you follow the links. I am not a babysitter of the mind, people need to take their learning under their own prerogative.

The real ISSUE with Epigenetics is that it accomodates evolution (the word) within a species. The extent in which our science of DNA goes, is disconnected, in physical evolutionary function, from the DNA components that reside within the species definition.

You're going to have to explain what you mean here. Epigenetics accommodates evolution? I read up on Epigenetics in reference to evolution, and it seems to me that there's no real conflict. Epigenetics is what controls some gene expression, depending on the stimulus and environment. If something new is discovered the theory adapts, out with the old, in with the new, that's science. If it's proven, and tested, and real, then I don't understand the issue.

What about mitochondrial DNA? The biggest announcement with that was the result of the extracts from Neandrathal skeletons from Africa and Germany. Does anyone know what they suggested? How many THEORIES were dismantled and dismissed as a result? How that relates to evolution greatly? You should. It was a big topic amoungst the scientific community early this decade. The mainstream media's coverage of it was short and misleading of course..but you guys aren't being directed by that mechanism are you? Is THAT what science is to you???

Again, you seem to be having troubles with the fact that some theories have to go by the wayside. No one claims science to be infallible, in fact, it is quite the opposite. If it were infallible, nothing could be proved or disproved, much like god. Just recently the century old Overton's Rule has been proven to be false, at least with the chemicals they used in the test.

Noone, in their right mind would dismiss scientific evidence put in the right position. Creationists around the world believe in it. The vast majority of them so actually. There are only a few who actually think evolution, the word in it's definition, don't exist. I've never met one and I've met hundreds of Creationists. Maybe thousands.

I sincerely don't believe a word you said here, because I've seen the opposite, and know people, who simply don't believe anything science says. I agree, no one in their right mind would dismiss the evidence, and yet it happens constantly.

You keep running around trying to show that evolution is real, but that's not the issue. Evolution, the noun, is used in an entirely different way. Confusion at it's best. The noun, incorporates ideas as to what our understandings of evolution suggest.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here with this "noun" and "confusion" statement. Am I to fault because people don't read up on Evolution and fail to agree with the evidence? Is it my fault that someone misunderstands something?

Yes the understanding of evolution is constantly changing and evolving, but a shame for not understanding that a lot of conclusions and absolutions that were picked up and enforced through the initial understandings now need to be questioned.

Shameful? No, since we only believed those things simply because that's what the evidence says. You can't be expected to understand something that hasn't been discovered yet, in scientific terms. I can't speak for others, but I only believe things that I see reasonable evidence for. If something hasn't been discovered yet, the only thing that a person can do is guess at it. They can't even really hypothesize because you need to have a phenomenon with a possible correlation. Humans used to believe for some reason that the sound barrier was unbreakable. I don't consider it "shameful" that we did so. We used to believe a great deal of things that we don't now, and I don't think it's shameful to have believed in them at one time, we couldn't possibly foresee them. That's why things are called discoveries.

Convenient how that is never raised in the evo vs creat battle.

The fact that we replace theories is never brought up? It most certainly is, I've encountered it already on these forums, multiple times. Unless you're referring to something else.

Ask any real scientist - Evolution has NOTHING to say about what, where, how life's origin took place.

No disagreement here on that.

What are you even arguing about? LMAO. All I see is pseudo-science trying to dismis a particular interpretation of something that science is nowhere near understanding at this moment.

You are free to have that opinion, and I am interested to see what you think I've posted in this thread is pseudoscience.

Image of Evolutionist created by the Philosophical Society (Darwin's 'team'):

Can you show where the following things you listed are explicitly said by Darwin and his so-called philosophical team?

Believe's only in science's ability to confirm an event physically.

I believe this to be true for the most part, but the term "physically" is odd. If properly set up and calibrated, photographic and video footage are good evidence, but they must be clear, original, and be operated within a set of specified parameters.

Thinks the idea of anything that hasn't been explained is non-existent.

This is pretty much not true, since science in general strives to discover the unknown, because that's what science is all about, answering questions. If anyone held the quoted idea to be true, we might as well stop researching everything right now, we're done.

Thinks the idea of anything that isn't tangible to our five senses is fantasy.

Not true, either. I certainly can't feel an atom or single molecule. Ideas for scientific projects can start with a thought that something they can't readily observe is present, much like discovering bacteria, or the first person to discover that there are planets other than our own. They weren't tangible to the five senses before they were discovered.

Thinks the idea of a creator, God, is make believe fantasty as well.

This is my personal belief, but certainly not the belief held by everyone, and I'm not sure where you get the information to make such a claim.

Justifies these ever existing traits as a result of 'wants and needs' of humans but, more specifically, dumber humans.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this information from, or if it's your own postulation, but I don't think people who believe in a god are dumb or lesser. I have friends who believe in the bible, but we don't talk about that because it is not a concern in our relationship.

Bible thumper who takes the word of their religion as truth.

There are varying levels of how literal to take the bible and other holy texts. Some religious people look at it allegorically, and some people look at it absolutely 100% literally. My view of a person who is a Bible Thumper is someone who is racist, hates gays, and doesn't tolerate anyone who won't be part of their religion, but this is only a small percentage of people because I have only heard of that kind of intolerance, not experienced it.

Believes that their religion is all the evidence they need.

Again, this comes in varying levels... I am quite curious to where you're getting this information or if you're just pulling it out of your hat.

Dumb, primitive and often psychologically hampered individuals who are in need of guidance.

One of my friends who is a Christian (he actually performs in puppet shows for his church) is in university training to become an engineer so... Yeah, I don't think he's hampered or in need of guidance. If he wants to talk about evolution I would be more than happy to talk to him about it, but if he doesn't that's fine.

doesn't believe in science because somehow their other believes reject it.

We quite often speak about scientific things, and he is not of the opinion that science can't explain some things, to my knowledge. He is more than welcome to hold that opinion, though.

The purpose of these images? To dismiss the religion's that were dominately practiced throughout the modern world and to make way for revolutionary change that would, as always, be headed by the same group of mysterious agnostic elite's. Divide and then conquer. Then wait for another inevitable uprising of religious nature, and rinse wash and repeat. History certainly repeats itself as long as it's the same ones in control and people are directed by their senses over their mind.

Is this your own theory, and do you have evidence that this "Darwin" group actually planned this out back in the day?

This is what the Philosophical Society's intentions were, and they didn't hide that once. This is why Darwin's grandfather originally used truth, and as usual with these SPECIFIC AGNOSTIC people (go find out what their real beliefs were, if you can open yourself to it), twisted it to achieve their agenda. Darwin then used hilariously obvious, and undeniable observations to portray a short termed, small scoped view of why Creationism never happened. It's too bad, anyone with the strong ability to consciously deny their subconscious' influence should easily laugh at the ENTIRE argument as long as the details are given to them.

Again, could you provide evidence for these claims?

The original theory is essentially just a simple observation and it was DOMINANTLY philosophical. That's what will become of it as science develops. There was nothing wrong with his approach, but any Philosopher could destroy it because it has a billion holes logically (and top scientists and philosophers did just that immediately). It's just a game and you guys are being had because the strength of science is being used against you to worship it as a God or religion. Same trick used over and over, just a different dogma. Mind control.

I think I'd be repeating myself at this point if I said what I said above again.

I mean, do you not realize how insulting it is from someone who isn't an Evolutionist in this thread? No really, can you not see how people would be offended? Or are these lower, dumber and lesser people that are at their own fault for being offended by scientific 'fact'? Oh an don't assume anything of me, because believe it or not, I get offended when groups of people are generalized through physicality regardless of their connection to me.

What do you want me to say? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"willingly skip over" excuse me? DO NOT make these assumptions. What is wrong with you? I'm at work and trying me best to participate but I cannot address everything in a time that you have created to demonstrate an act of 'skipping'? Please. I apologize in advance, because I will not be on this thread and responding as timely as you just demanded indirectly.

I can only assume you skipped over my post because you didn't respond to it. I have not created any "time frame" for you. My post regarding epigenetics was made on the 26th. Since then you made another post, which lead me to believe that you ignored what I said, as it's not hard to simply say "I will address this in the future, I don't have time right now." I made no demands, only a guess that you didn't feel like responding to what I said.

"refuse to explain" When did I refuse? What's with these assumptions? Thinking in absolutes? Great...

You haven't explained exactly what you are talking about in this problem you see with epigenetics regarding evolution. All you've said is:

Now, explain to me how the epigenome coincides with evolution so perfectly. You see, there's a VERY big problem raised with this development and understanding of DNA. I want to see if you have any idea what you are talking about or if you can research properly.

And much later:

You say I'm speaking from 150 years ago but I asked you a question about the issue raised with the EPIGENOME (are you at least looking it up now??? You have LOTS AND LOTS of reading to do and maybe that will hep you develop a better comprehension level). That a VERY recent development and understanding of our DNA.

This does not clearly define what you think the problem is.

I explained it on a basic level above, do you want more?

Yes, perhaps doing this at the same time, not three days after asking the question without defining the problem. If I tell a student to solve a problem and don't explain to him or her what it is, you can't expect them to solve anything.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Onioncloud, the bacteria are STILL BACTERIA!!
Domestic carrots are still carrots.
Domestic onions are still onions.
Artificial manipulation did not change the carrots into peas, nor the onions into apples.

You really, really don't understand evolution. I mean, seriously. Not one bit, and it's obvious from that post. Nothing can change drastically in one step, that's an insane thought, in my opinion. As I said previously, if you wait around a couple million or billion years, chances are you won't recognize any of those things you listed (unless humans made sure they stayed the same), and you would argue the same thing again.


Wild Carrot Root


Domestic Carrot Root


Teosinte - Wild Corn


Corn


Wild Banana


Domesticated Banana


[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

The theory of evolution is reasonable looking backward in time though it poses an importamt question. Where did all the mass originate from that the universe consists of. Scientists have traced the beginning of the universe back to the big bang event, but my question is WHO said BANG?
That is where creationism is an all encompassing explaination of existence. Creationism includes evolution in its precepts.
It is more likely and more probable that if William Shakesphere began randomnly moving his arms and legs and making sounds like a chimpansee that he would find himself swinging through a jungle on a vine, than for a chimpansee to randomnly hit keys on a keypad and type a perfect copy of Hamlet.

So now scientists are begging the question by simply stating that there is an "Intelligent Design" to the universe.
Who is the designer?
Surely that is an admission that even their intelligence fails to understand the designation of all things.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
So now scientists are begging the question by simply stating that there is an "Intelligent Design" to the universe.

Uhh, what? I didn't recall scientists were advocating ID, since there was a whole, ya know, court case where we defended evolution.

Where is your source for scientists as a populous stating that they believe in an intelligent designer?


Edit: rephrased last sentence.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

The primary problem with atheists is they refuse to believe in an intelligence greater than themselves.
You cannot contain the infinite universe in a finite mind.
Actually the entire discipline of science is an evolutionary process of course.
We do not have to look farther in the past than two-three hundred years to pity the ineptitude and stupidity of the beliefs of "Science" as it existed back then.

reply to post by fmcanarney


Nice to see you completely sidestepped my question.

The primary problem with atheists is they refuse to believe in an intelligence greater than themselves.

You do know that atheists don't believe in any supernatural creator because there is no evidence for it and it is untestable, right?

You cannot contain the infinite universe in a finite mind.

No objections here.

Actually the entire discipline of science is an evolutionary process of course.
We do not have to look farther in the past than two-three hundred years to pity the ineptitude and stupidity of the beliefs of "Science" as it existed back then.

I agree, it is in the very nature of science to change and become more accurate over time as we get better technologies and methods to explore the unknown. Out with the old and less correct methods, in with the new and more correct.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]