Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

reply to post by pieman


well there you go, a 'variant eliminating' system built right into their lifestyles.

Did you see the ERVs video. There's some 'cracking' evidence for evolution, common ancestry specifically.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by pieman

 

well there you go, a 'variant eliminating' system built right into their lifestyles.

Did you see the ERVs video. There's some 'cracking' evidence for evolution, common ancestry specifically.

that would suggest that there are no improving mutations in the crocadilians. why would they be an exception. these things are pretty much unchanged for millions of years despite changes to predators and prey. i need a better explaination than "there you go".

things like the erv evidence is the compelling stuff. i enjoy the mental exercise. okay, shared ancestry is one explanation. i disagree with the idea that it is the only explanation.

reply to post by pieman


The variant eliminating system I was referring to was the fact that few crocs make it to adulthood so plenty of hatchlings are born. There are plently of mutations in a smaller amount of time so Natural selection works fast. This kind of system will "hone" a species rapidly into the environment, and then keep it there until there is a very significant change in environment.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by pieman


Oops, my bad. It's late and i'm tired. However, the i.d proponant's reply would be extraordinarily badly thought out. My response is valid, not the i.d 'theorist' who from that would seem to be trying to fit their response to the argument in increasing desperation.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
The variant eliminating system I was referring to was the fact that few crocs make it to adulthood. This kind of system will "hone" a species rapidly into the environment, and then keep it there until there is a very significant change in environment.

yeah i know thats what you were saying!!

given the lack of crocs that make it to adulthood it should be the case that any slight improvement in the ability to survive should translate into an evolutionary step. the infant and juvenile mortality rates suggest room for improvement in this area, yet no evolution has been seen in millions of years. why?

there have been many significant changes to the various environments in which crocs live. they survived the dinosaurs and are as yet unchanged, i believe. clearly there has been a number of changes in that time, yet the croc has not adapted, why?

the crocodile is an acceptable model but it is clearly imperfect. why don't they show signs of evolution? you have to admit it is odd. not conclusive of anything, it's just odd.

also, another one. marsupials. how did such a premature birth evolve and why is it advantageous. it's an oddball i can't logic my way out of.

birds, why did feathers evolve. in a primitive form they would be inefficient for flight. surely it would have been better to evolve membrane based wings rather than feather based.

there's loads of counterintuitive specialisations. it's all a bit inelegant.

Originally posted by Venit
reply to post by pieman

 

Oops, my bad. It's late and i'm tired. However, the i.d proponant's reply would be extraordinarily badly thought out. My response is valid, not the i.d 'theorist' who from that would seem to be trying to fit their response to the argument in increasing desperation.

yes, i know. i am not saying ID is correct. i am saying that it is not specific evidence. it is not evidence that says "the only explanation is evolution through natural selection." this doesn't exist, as far as i know.

reply to post by pieman


There are of course hundreds of species of crocodiles out there. And alligators. Adaptation has been occurring but the general overall design seems to be a 'one-size-fits-all' designs for the varied environments. Nature can be a bit fickle at times, many biologists believe that sometimes population limiters come into play which would go against simple evolution, are beneficial in the long term. It's all speculation atm.

Speaking of feathers. The first feathers according to the fossil record were very different to todays feathers. The first ones were used for insulation in the theropods. That's another interesting part of evolution, when current systems are given a new use and then natural selection adapts them to the new function. It's how fins turn into limbs and vice versa.

Originally posted by pieman

that would suggest that there are no improving mutations in the crocadilians. why would they be an exception. these things are pretty much unchanged for millions of years despite changes to predators and prey. i need a better explaination than "there you go".

sorry im late to the party ^_^

much unchanged does not mean totally unchanged

look at older crocodilian fossils

museumvictoria.com.au... Steneosaurus bollensis

cache.daylife.com...
Montealtosuchus arrudacamposi

www.happynews.com.../scientists-unveil-prehistoric-crocodile.jpg Guarinisuchus munizi

www.worsleyschool.net... Sarcosuchus

www.cryptomundo.com... Thalattosuchia

they are mostly unchanged in modern time becasue thier body shape and abilities are not taxed by the enviroment

there have been changes in crocodillians over the past few million years but the changes have been minor, more extreme changes havnt given any large advantage so they have been bred out


ID isnt a theory and as such shouldnt be taught, it is a hypothesis the first stage of becoming a theory and there fore un-teachable in its present form

when it manages to prove irreducible complexity then it has the starting block to build a workable thoery ... until then .....

Originally posted by pieman
that would suggest that there are no improving mutations in the crocadilians. why would they be an exception. these things are pretty much unchanged for millions of years despite changes to predators and prey. i need a better explaination than "there you go".

things like the erv evidence is the compelling stuff. i enjoy the mental exercise. okay, shared ancestry is one explanation. i disagree with the idea that it is the only explanation.

Err they're the perfect predator, therefore they don't need to evolve. It's very telling how so many species have ended up with the same evolutionary forms. From crocs, to various sharks, to cats.

I should also point out that the Ben Stein movie has been discounted on so many occasions it's embarassing. Go and actually watch the videos against it and you'll see. Try and view them for the science that they are, without bias, if you can do that you'll see that Ben Steins movie was horrificly incorrect.

reply to post by noobfun


Yay, noobfun's here. Well we must be about ready to get back to the topic I started this thread for.

How are you noob?

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by pieman
there is little or no quantifiable difference between the creationism belief and the various theories of creation put forward by science.

there is no physical record or verified experimental data to add proof to the evolutionary theories.

To say this, you must be poorly educated on the subject. No quantifiable difference? Perhaps that one is falsifiable and makes accurate predictions and the other can offer nothing in the way of science at all should. Genetics by it's lonesome proves evolution, there is no other explanation for just about all of genetics.

It;s obvios that you;ve fallen victim to the indoctrination and false assumptions of the modern sceintific pardigms.

I'm not even going to get into this argument beyond this because you think that there is ample evidence to support these ridiculous paradigms. I can't remember the last time I've heard someone give any evidence about any theory in modern science. I hear them talk about how all of the evidence points to this and that but if you ask them for the actual evidence they always say the same thing. "Well, just ask this guy or that guy, or listen to this statement", "all of the various sciences support each other", "They're peer reviewed".

Of course they never say that all of these so called peers aer or were taught under the same paradigms and for them to be accepted as peers, they have to agree with them before hand.

There have been soo many dissenting views that were thrown out simply because they were dissenting views it's incredible.

Hell, even the supposed atomic clock experiments can easily be shown not to necessarily support time dilation which is supposed to be the cornerstone evidence for supporting einstein's theories of relativity.

Hell, I'm not a creationist per se, but I am a realist, I'm not anti science, I'm pro science... I am, however, anti bunk science which is what most of modern paradigmical science is masquerading as science.

I'm just jumping in here, so pardon me if I repeat anything already covered here. I read quite a few posts, but they were getting off topic (as threads of this nature always do), so I will just state my stance on the topic presented in the OP.

It is undeniable that the legacy of Creationism is anti-intellectualism. To believe the myth of creation and dispell all the science that proves it wrong is the definition of anti-intellectualism. Perhaps evolution cannot be proven, which science never claimed it as a fact in the first place, it does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the creation story is just that, a story. It was a simple story created by a primitive bronze age people to explain the begining of time. To cling to that story in the modern age is just plain silly. To cling to this obvious myth makes no more sense to me than an adult still believing in Santa Claus. I have also seen that creationist's knowledge of evolution comes almost exclusively from creationist sources. Certainly no bias there.

But let's put evolution aside and go to geology. We can accurately calculate how long it has taken for Pangea to spead to the current continental configuration we see today. We can do this by measuring the continental drift. Pangea began to separate 250 million years ago. This disproves the creationist timeline. Source.

Now let's move along to cosmology. We know from the spreading of the known universe and cosmic background radiation (the echo of the Big Bang) that the universe as we know it began around 13.73 billion years ago, plus or minus .12 billion years. This disproves the creationist timeline. Source.

Now let's move along to astronomy. We can very precisely calculate the distance between stars, and their distance from earth. NGC 4414, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices is 62 million light years distant from Earth, and yet the light from this galaxy which has spent 62 million years traveling across space can be seen by the Hubble telescope. This disproves the creationist timeline. Source.

Abiogenesis readily explains how life originated on Earth and has been duplicated in the laboratory. This disproves the creationist need for a Divine Creator to explain life. Source.

Next I would point out that I have yet to see one person from the Jewish faith defending the Creation myth, and by all rights, it's their story. Now if the originators of the myth don't put any creadence into the myth, why do so many non-Jews feel the need to defend it and advocate it's propogation in place of hard science?

I would say to the hardcore creationists that science has not tried to or in any way has disproved the presence of the Divine. In fact, if anything it points to a being so much more complex and amazing than the one described in any holy book that it boggles the mind. I would say to any creationists reading this post to take the ATS motto to heart, Deny Ignorance and educate yourself to science, and you will discover a Divine Being that the Ancients could not even fathom. I would also say that if you decline, it is based on fear of what you will discover, and that just may reflect on how weak your faith is to begin with. My faith is so much stronger in the Divine because of what science has discovered and I don't require an ancient text to solidify it.

reply to post by Good Wolf

^_^ im good buddy

glad to see theres somthing to sink my teeth into its been quiet since that no proof of god proves he exists thread afew days ago

Originally posted by Masterjaden

I hear them talk about how all of the evidence points to this and that but if you ask them for the actual evidence they always say the same thing. "Well, just ask this guy or that guy, or listen to this statement", "all of the various sciences support each other", "They're peer reviewed".

anything in perticular im sure we can pull a bunch of links out

There have been soo many dissenting views that were thrown out simply because they were dissenting views it's incredible.

? examples? and were they later vindicated as more evidence became available?

Hell, I'm not a creationist per se, but I am a realist, I'm not anti science, I'm pro science... I am, however, anti bunk science which is what most of modern paradigmical science is masquerading as science.

well old science uses similar methoads of obseration hypothersis observation prediction more observation etc as modern science

if modern science is bunk then so too is all science

old thoeries have to comply to the same standards as new science

I say sometimes creationists can be anti-intellectual, but you cannot call the creation theory anti-intellectualism, because you don't know what it is. People who believe in it have their own idea of what creation is in their own mind as you do in your mind differently. They may see all the scientific proof for creationism that they need whereas you may see all the proof against it. You may say there is no proof for it, but then they will say there is no proof for evolution. Why do you think the debate is still occurring? In fact we all make our own realities inside our minds and not one of us knows all the things another knows. And these differences in experiences and points of view is what cause all the strife and fighting between creationists and evolutionists. But I say, does it really matter? Are you really so insecure in your beliefs that you think you need to defend them to keep them alive? It doesn't matter where we came from and I see no reason to fight over it. You have your ideas however unnecessary they may be and they have their unnecessary ideas as well.

reply to post by cancerian42

I say sometimes creationists can be anti-intellectual, but you cannot call the creation theory anti-intellectualism, because you don't know what it is.

I never said creationism, itself, was anti-intellectual, I was talking about the creationist agenda to suppress science and have creationism taught in schools. And FYI I know exactly what it is, I used to be a creationist.

reply to post by cancerian42


if creation theory is taught or believed as the way we got here then id say it is ani-intellectual

it uses purely belief to base its claims and denies the vast and varied evidence against it

if its taught as an analogy, they were told this as they couldnt have been able to understand how we got here then thats ok and doesnt deny other evidence based explenations

In the strict sense (New Earth, etc) Creationism is very much anti-intellectualism.

However, the idea of God the Creator is not. Mainstream science does not explore the existence of things prior to the creation of the known Universe, because it can not.

There is equal merit both for and against God the Creator. And right now it belongs mostly do the domain of philosophers and mystics.

one thing i would be curious to hear and as yet havnt come across(luckily?)

is how do the the 6 day 7-10 thousand year old earth believers explain those big burning balls of gas we call stars and the fact it takes many many thousand of years for thier light to get here

the answer would need to be a lot more complex then they are closer then we think they are