education secretary is 'crystal clear' that teaching creationism is

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Because it takes a LOOOOOOONG time.

Like i said you should be able to observe it in beacteria, bacteria only lives a short while so if observed overtime it should become more and more complex as the generations go on.



As for your Darwin quote, someone already explained why fossilization happens only under very specific circumstances. Your body for example will most likely never be a fossil.

But that is such a cop out, that is the same as saying god is invisible and that is why you can't see him. We should be finding just as many transitional life forms as we do regular fossils but we find more and more of the same thing.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by treee
On the other hand, evolution has fossils that have been carbon dated, as well as showing a trend of slow change in organisms over time. This can be backed by said fossils.

You don't carbon date anything more than about 50kyo.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkk
 




Like i said you should be able to observe it in beacteria, bacteria only lives a short while so if observed overtime it should become more and more complex as the generations go on.


It took 3.9billion years for complex life to form...and you expect it to happen while you watch? Seriously?


The bacteria/virus adapts to its surroundings...what should it turn into according to you? A horse?




But that is such a cop out, that is the same as saying god is invisible and that is why you can't see him. We should be finding just as many transitional life forms as we do regular fossils but we find more and more of the same thing.


Here's the funny thing...EVERY SINGLE SPECIES and fossil we find is a transitional species! We are constantly evolving, and so are animals/plants and other life forms. If you wait another 500k years, humans will have evolved. And those humans (if we survive that long as a species) will look at us like we look at Neanderthals.

Look at the evolution of humans for example: LINK

The changes happen at varying speeds, but are mostly very very slow compared to the lifetime of a human. For example, on average, human females are now shorter than they were a few generations ago. The change isn't drastic, and it doesn't mean your daughter will be a midget...but on average, females are shrinking. Our sense of smell is also getting worse overall compared to our ancestors.

You have to read up on evolution (not just Darwin, the new stuff too) if you seriously expect to witness a reptile turning into a bird or something like that. And it's the same with bacteria...it took BILLIONS of years for less complex lifeforms like bacteria and single celled organisms to turn into complex life. Do you expect them to suddenly make an exception for you?


You claimed DNA doesn't back up the theory, I posted a scientific article showing you that you were wrong...so do you at least acknowledge that or if not, why not?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The 5000 year story was introduced by men. No where in the real original gospels does it say the earth is 5000 years old.

Well, Bishop Usher came up with it by counting 'begats'. Good science, there...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   





posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkk
 


Evolution doesn't necessitate a movement towards complexity. It necessitates a movement towards survival. Considering that bacteria are incredibly successful on that level, why should they change?

And I'm just going to point out that changing from a bacteria to something else is like asking a human to change from an animal to something else...so you might as well be asking me to turn a person into a houseplant. Sure, it can happen, but it's really damn hard and would take a really long time to make that sort of massive change occur in an observable span even with something as short-lived as bacteria.

Please, learn some basics of biology before you keep posting on the subject.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


With DNA many things are cherry picked. An elephant shrew is closer to an elephant than a mouse, Cows are closer to dolphins than they are horses, Cows are 80% similar to humans. Then the fact that no self reproducing cell cannot exist without DNA and RNA and those both would have to appear at the same time in the same place and they would have to work together for it all to work. And homologous structures are arrived at by completely different genetic paths



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Evolution doesn't necessitate a movement towards complexity. It necessitates a movement towards survival.

How so?Since the begining life has gotten more and more complex. It only moves towards survival in our immaginations. I don't believe in creationism or ID i just think the current theory of evolution is a belief system built upon faith in universal naturalism and is every bit as dogmatic as any religion.

edit on 24-3-2011 by Darkk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkk
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Evolution doesn't necessitate a movement towards complexity. It necessitates a movement towards survival.

How so?Since the begining life has gotten more and more complex.


In what respect? Plants didn't get more complex, mammals didn't either...and humans aren't any more complex than let's say a chimp. A rat from 200mil years ago isn't any more complex than a rat today.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


Not observable minute by minute. Observable over the long term - Years - decades- centuries.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


singe cell organisims to now, yeah it has been very complex



A rat from 200mil years ago isn't any more complex than a rat today.

And it is still a rat
edit on 24-3-2011 by Darkk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkk
 


You don't seem to understand how DNA backs up evolution. Please read this for an explanation.

In short, if DNA of a chimp is 98.5% the same as that of humans, that's what it is. I'm not sure what your point is, or why you might not like that.

What you're posting is equal to saying "the sky is blue, but I don't like it...ergo, the sky isn't blue"



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkk
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


singe cell organisims to now, yeah it has been very complex



A rat from 200mil years ago isn't any more complex than a rat today.

And it is still a rat
edit on 24-3-2011 by Darkk because: (no reason given)


Well how is an elephant more complex than a mouse? They share a common ancestor, but physiologically, I'm curious why you believe they are more complex than the ancestor.

Of course the single celled organism to multicellular life step was big. But if you look at animals, they all share a ton of common traits. Take a fish for example, we share quite a few characteristics with fish. We both have hearts, stomachs, intestines, eyes...yet fish are a lot older than we are. In what way are we more complex than a fish biologically?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkk
 


Well, then you're wrong. There is no dogma in science. Nowhere in evolution, which is the change in allele frequency over successive generations (source in my sig), does it necessitate a move to further complexity, merely to a state that is more beneficial.

One could easily argue that the loss of a tail is a loss of complexity in the great apes.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
as creation/evolution arguments go, the legal argument is that the federal government cannot fund a public school program that has religious ties. its the basis for separation of church and state. all other arguments are just that: arguments. arguments that may be right, but still arguments. are you really going to be able to convince any believer of creationism that his/her god does not exist; and that his/her god did not create the earth and all of existence? every u.s. president in the last 100 yrs has professed belief in christianity. any scientific argument is really going to convince a believer to renounce his/her beliefs? really? there are many who would be willing to die for their creationist beliefs. does that make it right? no. but does that make it an argument that will satisfy the opponent into admitting his creationist ideals are myth? if this is difficult to understand, you may want to ask yourself the question why so many african americans take such offense whenever the pro gay movement talks about their cause as a civil right just like the one championed by mlk.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You should not make these kind of blanket statements. It only hurts your argument. There have been and are many scientists who believe in intellegent design. Here is a list:

bassethound.wordpress.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You should not make these kind of blanket statements. It only hurts your argument. There have been and are many scientists who believe in intellegent design. Here is a list:

bassethound.wordpress.com...



There's more scientists in the US called Steve (not Stephen, Steven, or something similar...EXACTLY Steve) than there are scientists believing in ID. Source

Now go through your list and take out all the non-earth/life scientists because they don't really have the knowledge to make an informed decision...not many remain. And of course a list doesn't prove anything, it's the content of a theory or hypothesis, and in that respect ID is failing...failing hard



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wtbengineer
You should not make these kind of blanket statements. It only hurts your argument. There have been and are many scientists who believe in intellegent design. Here is a list:

Does anyone ever actually bother to read the statement that the scientists were signing before trying to cite it as some kind of proof that evolution is wrong?


We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

I seem to have missed the part where they're saying, "evolution doesn't happen," and were the authors of the statement even aware that there’s more to the theory of evolution than Darwin’s work? I don't think there's a proponent of evolution today who wouldn’t agree that there's more to evolution than just random mutation and natural selection. For example, genetics comprises an enormous part of the theory of evolution and was unknown when Darwin conducted his research. It makes someone capable of critical thinking wonder how many people on that list are objecting to evolution as a whole or objecting to the universality of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution or were just agreeing that natural selection and random mutation by themselves don't fully account for the complexity of life. And I would fully agree that the evidence for evolution should be carefully examined… the evidence for every theory should be carefully examined.

If you want to turn the validity of evolution into a popularity contest among scientists, you’ve already lost the fight. The names on the list you’re citing represent less than one percent of the scientists in the United States. Further, a counter-movement was founded called Project Steve. It consists of nothing but scientists named Steve who signed the following statement:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate scientific debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of the public schools.

Last time I checked, the Project Steve list had over 1100 names on it as compared to your list’s tally of about 800.

But one of the great things about science is that it isn’t a popularity contest. Scientific truth is a tyranny of evidence – the evidence either backs you, or it doesn’t. And all of the evidence backs evolution.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Thing is is that evolution can be proved no more than creationism. Why then is evolution the only acceptable theory to teach?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I was only pointing out that his statement that there were no scientists that hold that view is incorrect. I made no remark about my belief or disbelief.





 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join