The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 35    Average: 3.8/5]
115 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 7874
Rating: 3.8
Category: Science
Date: 08/24/12 12:45 PM

115 Responses to Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Kids

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18829 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 12:48 pm
    Link: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Kids - Hey `Creationist Parents,` don`t force feed your crazy world view on your young children--science needs them.
  2. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    I grew up on Bill Nye.
  3. Profile photo of adamslily
    adamslily Female 13-17
    29 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    I wish I could say "my old professor, carl sagan"

    jealous.
  4. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm
    I believe in God and believe that evolution is real. there is no way that is cannot exist, period.
  5. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2316 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    Cue the indignant mob of religious whackjobs!
  6. Profile photo of SydneyBarb
    SydneyBarb Female 18-29
    36 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    want a cookie, jamie?
  7. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6704 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    Jamie76

    In my opinion ancient civilizations invented God to explain what happens when we die, why we`re here, and all the other questions they couldn`t answer. But most importantly they needed god to answer how we got here. So if you don`t have that question, why do you believe in god?
  8. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6153 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States."

    Look at that...he starts off with an incorrect statement.
  9. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    HolyGod, those questions have not even begun to be answered.
  10. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    You tell em` Bill. The sooner we get rid of the backward thinking and move forward, the better.
  11. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    And to all you guys saying that you believe in both...you can`t. They contradict each other.
  12. Profile photo of insane_ai
    insane_ai Male 30-39
    796 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    Science is only the process of discovering what God created.
  13. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    patchouly, not necessarily true. If someone said they believed everything in the bible is 100% accurate (contradictory statement right there but yeah) then yes they couldn`t realize evolution is true without contradicting their religious beliefs. But just because someone says they believe in "god" in general doesn`t mean that their actual beliefs are contradicting to science/evolution.
  14. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    "They contradict each other."

    As an athiest myself, this is so massively incorrect, the statement itself reeks of malice. God has nothing to do with what some men wrote about 2000+ years ago unless you want to believe it does. Believing in God(s) and fully accepting any and all scientific innovation is without a doubt possible.
  15. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    @LillianDulci

    That`s only if you accept that they believe in a God, other than the God of the Bible. If that`s the case, where exactly did you get this God from? This new God certainly can`t follow any of the religious dogma of any known Gods.

    My problem is, when folks see all the holes in Religion, they try to piece together their own version of religion that fits into what they know, just so they can avoid being Atheist. It`s mainly done out of fear that was taught by their original religion.

    The Bible is very specific. It`s an all or nothing sort of thing. Follow and believe 100% or roast in Hell. There is no middle ground.
  16. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    @Scuzoid

    You are incorrect. The bible states man came from the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. Evolution says that we evolved from single cell critters. The two stories do not work together at all. In fact they, as I said, contradict each other.
  17. Profile photo of Lucky2u
    Lucky2u Male 18-29
    315 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    I choose to believe in a both, even if they do contradict each other. I don`t care, I do what I want (like the honey badger).
  18. Profile photo of Matwix_2004
    Matwix_2004 Male 18-29
    2551 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    patchouly - Actually, evolution is just any measurable change in a species over time. The fact that we have been able to see a link from species to species makes it fairly plausible that it can be (or could be) traced back to single cells, however evolution doesn`t on it`s own mean that. But that`s just me being difficult. ;P

    On topic though, I don`t care if kids are grown up religious, what I don`t want however is religion to enter science classes of the school system. Really, I`d only say religious studies or whatever religious groups they have would be acceptable, but I`m fairly open and accepting of it.

    As a side note, I would love there to be God, really, I would - love there to be an afterlife and all that stuff, and I used to be `religious` (for about a week when I was 7 or 8) but haven`t ever really been able to believe it.
  19. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    god made everything around us and evolution is false.




    so that`s what it`s like to sound crazy? neat.
  20. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    The existence of a god and evolution can easily exist side by side. And if you think the Christian god contradicts it, what about another god-like entity? A force, even?

    With a hyper-literal interpretation of the Christian Bible it can`t, but I`m telling you that most people don`t believe that Eve literally came from Adam`s rib.

    Like South Park says, the Bible is kind of just a collection of stories to live your life by. It`s not meant to be literal.
  21. Profile photo of ajd121
    ajd121 Male 18-29
    625 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    Humans aren`t special, No one made us special or controls and interacts in what we do in our everyday lives. We are just the most intelligent species currently living on this planet.

    In 100 million years a new race of species could dominate the planet.
  22. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:14 pm
    @Andrew155

    That`s all fine and good, but if you aren`t getting your belief in a God from the Bible, then where did it come from? Is it just one that you made of yourself? Because, if so...dude...that`s kinda creepy.
  23. Profile photo of jimbobsthebe
    jimbobsthebe Male 18-29
    639 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    I have believed in evolution every since the day I read about it (perhaps 6 or 7 years old) and suddenly realised `Ah, so that`s why!`.

    I still went to church at this time but thought that everyone else that went was just like me and pretended to believe.

    I kept on waiting... the easter bunny isn`t real, father christmas isn`t real, the tooth fairy isn`t real... but noone ever told me God wasn`t real.

    I remember thinking, `how can grown-ups be so stupid?`.
  24. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm
    I choose to believe in a both, even if they do contradict each other.

    and

    I have believed in evolution every since the day I read about it

    Etc, etc.

    People who *believe* in evolution are, as the saying goes, doing it wrong.

    Evolution isn`t a faith, so it`s not about belief. If you think belief is relevant to evolution, you don`t understand evolution.

    Would you talk about believing in gravity? Believing in disease? Believing in wind? No? So why talk about believing in evolution? Like gravity, diseases, wind and many other things, evolution is simply a thing that is observed to happen.
  25. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    Humans have been using evolution as a tool for millenia. Many species are as they are today because humans used evolution as a tool to make them that way. That`s what selective breeding is - humans using evolution as a tool.

    It is genuinely insane to deny the existence of evolution. Not simply wrong, but insane. In order to deny the existence of evolution, you must be clinically delusional.

    It`s internally consistent to have faith that your god or gods created evolution. It`s a completely baseless belief, but it`s internally consistent. Of course, you have to reject large chunks of most organised religions to do so, because most organised religions have a creation story that requires denial of evolution and faith that your god or gods is faking evidence on an epic scale just to drat with humans for some reason. But you can believe that without being insane. You can`t believe evolution doesn`t exist without being insane.
  26. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6704 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    ANdrew155

    "The existence of a god and evolution can easily exist side by side"

    I completely agree. just like the existence of microwaves and invisible fairies can easily exist side by side. Perhaps every microwave has a fairy living in it that heats the food with magic wands. The fact that they can coexist doesn`t mean one isn`t completely ridiculous.
  27. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    HolyGod:
    "The existence of a god and evolution can easily exist side by side"

    I completely agree. just like the existence of microwaves and invisible fairies can easily exist side by side. Perhaps every microwave has a fairy living in it that heats the food with magic wands. The fact that they can coexist doesn`t mean one isn`t completely ridiculous."
    ----------

    Ba ha ha ha ha!!!

    Holy crap! Good thing I wasn`t drinking anything when I read that or I`d now be in need of a new keyboard!
  28. Profile photo of nubblins
    nubblins Female 18-29
    1743 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    The microwave fairies told me that evolution is false, HolyGod.
  29. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    Angillion: That`s what selective breeding is - humans using evolution as a tool.

    BZZZZT! Wrong!

    Selective breeding is NOT evolution. Evolution is speciation and no human has created a new species from breeding, ever.

    Nice try at deception there, but that is completely false teaching.
  30. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    CrakrJak:
    Evolution is speciation and no human has created a new species from breeding, ever.
    ------------

    Speciation is a result of evolution. The two are not the same. Speciation is not a requirement of the term evolution. A species can remain static with an "upgrade" and evolution will have still occurred.

    Also, I`d argue that domestication does warrant classifying evolution as a tool. Domestic ferrets are a very different animal than a wild ferret, for example.
  31. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    patchouly: Speciation is not a requirement of the term evolution

    BZZZT! Wrong!

    Speciation is at the heart of evolution, without speciation there is NO evolution. Adaptation, aka `upgrade`, is not evolution either.

    I don`t know who taught you guys evolutionary science, but they did a horrible job and should be fired.
  32. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    @Angilion "People who *believe* in evolution are, as the saying goes, doing it wrong."

    Round of applause on that, man. Evolution, like all true sciences (except maybe theoretical physics), has F-all to do with belief, and that applies as much to anyone who says they believe in evolution as it does to the anti- camp. If you think you either believe or don`t believe in evolution, I can guarantee you don`t understand it properly at all.

    Science is about questioning and understanding, not belief. If you "believe" in a science, stop sitting on the fence and read a bit more about it. Wouldn`t you rather understand something than just believe what you`ve been told?
  33. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    And Crakr ... where do I even begin!?!
    Trying to argue that adaptation is not evolution makes it abundantly clear that you don`t have a clue what you`re talking about. It seems clear that you`re part of this new camp of creationists who want to include all the processes of evolution in their "theories", but still deny that what they`re describing is evolution. You`re happy to allow for all manner of "adaptation", but want to maintain some sort of arbitrary limit on how far this can go ... a limit which has never been defined, nor given evidence. And as for your argument that "no human has created a new species from breeding" - yeah, you`re right. But then, humans have only been selectively breeding animals for maybe 10-50,000 years (at most), and never with any significant degree of population isolation. Come back to me when we`ve been doing it properly for a few million years (the normal timescale of speciation), and we`ll see how things stand.
  34. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm
    Oh, and one other point - I think a lot of the confusion on this subject revolves around issues with the term `species`. I don`t think *anyone* is teaching this properly.
    A species is not a rigidly defined thing - it`s a continuum, and only has the appearance of being definite because we can only have evidence from certain instances along a given developmental line. When you learn to think from a Deep Time perspective, it becomes clear that what we call a species is actually only a momentary snapshot along a line of development. Broadly speaking, it`s what X-line looked like during X-period, according to the evidence that we have. The common anti-evolution claim that we don`t see any intermediate species is therefor utterly redundant, because *every* species is an intermediate from a Deep Time perspective.
  35. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 8:31 pm
    Selective breeding is NOT evolution. Evolution is speciation and no human has created a new species from breeding, ever.

    Nice try at deception there, but that is completely false teaching.

    You are either lying, deluded or fanatically ignorant. It doesn`t really matter which of those is true (and one of them definitely is), you are utterly wrong and your attempts to con people into accepting your rubbish are underhanded and contemptible.

    You do not get to redefine words just because you don`t like reality. It doesn`t work that way.
  36. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm
    Also, I`d argue that domestication does warrant classifying evolution as a tool. Domestic ferrets are a very different animal than a wild ferret, for example.

    A more obviously extreme example that comes to mind is a wolf and a Yorkshire terrier.

    It`s true for almost every animal that`s ever been of use to humans. Cows, horses, etc.

    If evolution didn`t exist, selective breeding simply wouldn`t work. Selective breeding is evolution by relative success in breeding, just like evolution in nature. The difference is that humans are controlling the selection of which animals have more success in breeding, rather than natural processes, but it obviously wouldn`t work if the process didn`t exist.
  37. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5433 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 8:41 pm
    This poo again?
  38. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5433 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    "The Bible is very specific. It`s an all or nothing sort of thing."

    What verse is that exactly?

    I did find this one though, but I don`t see how it fits your idea about religion:

    Philippians 2:12-13

    Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
  39. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:19 pm
    Angilion: You do not get to redefine words just because you don`t like reality.

    You don`t get to define evolution as non-speciated adaptation. That IS NOT what evolution is. Human beings have adapted to nearly every climate and location on planet earth, but we are still human beings, not separate species.

    Humans did not speciate wolves or ferrets. wolves and dogs can still mate and have sexually viable offspring (as well as wild and tame ferrets).

    Evidently you have no damn idea what speciation really is. Horses and donkeys are different species, they can mate but they`ll have sterile mules for offspring. Mules are not a separate species, they are HYBRIDS.

    That is what speciation is about and you can`t give me even one legitimate example of humans ever breeding a separate species, no matter how domesticated or tamed.

    Quit lying, what I`m saying is fact, look it up.
  40. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:24 pm
    You`re just flat out wrong, CrakrJak. Speciation is NOT Evolution. Speciation can occur because of Evolution but the two are not exclusive.

    I hate quoting Wikipedia but:
    "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations."

    So, if a fish, from one region, gains the ability to walk on land, it has evolved. Even though the same species of fish from a different region, may be unable to walk on land. They are still the same species but one has an evolutionary advantage over the other do to it`s evolution.
  41. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm
    Angilion: If evolution didn`t exist, selective breeding simply wouldn`t work.

    Another lie. Individual genetic traits have bred for animals and plants for thousands of years. NOTHING humans have ever bred has ever jumped the gap and become a new species. Breeding doesn`t make evolution work or vice versa. Genetics makes breeding work not evolution.

    Another thing, Adaptation has not shown to make the speciation jump either. Just because some scientists claim a "new species" doesn`t mean it has truly speciated from it`s relatives. It`s a dishonest practice to declare a "new species" of bug or bird or plant based solely on the isolated location of that organism.

    Without speciation the theory of evolution fails, even Darwin himself admitted this weakness in his own theory. Now if Darwin admitted it, Why the hell can`t you?!
  42. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:37 pm
    patchouly: Put simply, that`s totally incorrect. A geneticist could easily give fish eggs the genes for legs and they would grow legs, That IS NOT evolution, That`s actually creation.

    Dogs have not evolved, Corn has not evolved, Bees have not evolved. They`ve all been bred, and in some cases hybridized, but genetic manipulation by breeding is NOT evolution.

    Please, get your terms straight. Speciation is the key to evolution, without it there is none, end of story.
  43. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5433 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    evolution:

    1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
    2.
    a. The process of developing.
    b. Gradual development.
    3. Biology
    a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
    b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
    4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
    5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:40 pm
    elkingo: Please note those terms "developed and diversified". There is no development without natural selection and there is no diversification without speciation, period. Adaptation is neither of those terms, neither is breeding.
  45. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5433 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm
    Dictionary
  46. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:46 pm
    elkingo: It doesn`t impress me that the meaning of words change over time, that`s the nature of language.

    When someone says that the cellphone `evolved`, do you honestly believe the phones had sex and hatched a new species of cellphone ?

    The term `evolution`, as is being used in this thread, is strictly about definition `3a` in your posting, nothing else.
  47. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5433 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 9:48 pm
    Yea, no kidding. I agree with you on this Crakr. By definition, evolution and speciation are very much linked.
  48. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm
    CrakrJak, you are continuing to claim that you have the authority to redefine evolution to suit your beliefs.

    You don`t.

    If you want to make up a new thing, feel free. But it can`t have the same name as a different thing. You`re doing that as a form of fraud, like forging a name on a cheque to get someone else`s money.

    Evolution is evolution. Speciation is speciation. They`re not the same thing, no matter how many times you say they are.

    I realise that you are utterly ignorant of evolution and that your ignorance is deliberate, but I`m not going to just stand by while you commit fraud in your devotion to suppressing knowledge.
  49. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    By definition, evolution and speciation are very much linked.

    Actually, they`re not. Find a biology textbook and look at the definitions.

    Evolution can cause speciation, but to say that they`re the same thing is like saying that heat is glass. Heat is necessary to make glass, but heat isn`t glass, glass isn`t heat and heat can exist without making glass.

    It`s also worth noting that there isn`t even a clear definition of what a species is. As Artmunki put it:

    A species is not a rigidly defined thing - it`s a continuum, and only has the appearance of being definite because we can only have evidence from certain instances along a given developmental line.

    It`s not even definite at a given time - there are numerous slightly different plants and animals that might or might not be classed as different species.

    The speciation thing is misdirection.
  50. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    Quit lying, what I`m saying is fact, look it up.

    You are utterly ignorant of what any of the relevant words mean or what any of the concepts are.

    Your ignorance is deliberate.

    I don`t share your ignorance. That isn`t lying. It`s knowledge.

    Note that I`m giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are pathologically ignorant. The alternative is that you are deliberately deceitful for the purposes of propaganda.
  51. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 10:50 pm
    There are two basic concepts underlying evolution:

    1) There can be naturally occuring variations between individual plants and animals of the same species.

    2) Some things can be inherited from one generation to the next.

    Evolution occurs because some of those naturally occuring variations can result in more successful breeding, which can cause those particular variations to be passed on to a larger number of individuals in following generations.

    That`s it. If you deny the existence of evolution, you are denying either or both of those things.

    Whether the variations result in more successful breeding because of natural pressures (evolution by natural selection) or because humans choose which traits to encourage (evolution by human selection) is irrelevant to the fact that evolution is occuring. If it wasn`t, then selective breeding wouldn`t work because the chosen traits wouldn`t be inherited.
  52. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:03 pm
    Now someone, probably CrakrJak, is going to try to redefine evolution by claiming that evolution by selection (natural or human) isn`t evolution, it`s adaptation.

    And they`ll be wrong. Casually speaking, evolution *is* adaptation (or, more accurately, a process of selected adaptations).
  53. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:05 pm
    The term "adaptation" is usually misleading in this context, though, because it implies an action, a conscious change. Which may well be why creationists insist on using it - they want to be misleading and to confuse a very simple idea.

    Say, for example, you have a type of tree that has some variation in the colour of its seeds, varying from greenish yellow to mid-green. For whatever reason, a type of bird moves into the area. The birds can see the mid-green seeds better than the yellow ones. So more of the mid-green seeds are eaten, so more of the yellow seeds grow, so over some time the trees that produce yellow seeds become much more common than the trees that produce green seeds. Did the trees adapt? No - there was no action taken by the trees. They didn`t do anything.
  54. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm
    Angilion: Definition 3a of elkingo`s dictionary posting is not a lie. If you can`t handle the fact that speciation is the heart of evolution then I suggest you save yourself further embarrassment and actually read Darwin`s own theory.

    Evolution only occurs when some organism becomes a separate species with speciation. Your ignorance of this fact is due to a lack of education.

    I don`t deny adaptation, but evolution (by speciation) has not occurred in recorded human history. The two terms, adaptation and evolution, are completely different and independent of one another.

    Evolution involves much more that just small changes, it is dependent on the diversification of speciation.
  55. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14620 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:25 pm
    If you don`t get evolution, you are no use to the world, besides the most menial of vocations.
  56. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:25 pm
    Actually, science DOESN`T need them. When I was in school, the physics department put a 3-line add in the back of Physics Today to hire an assistant professor with a PhD. They got 260 applications.

    WE need carpenters, mechanics, heavy equipment operators, electricians, truck drivers, welders, etc., and creationists can do those jobs just as well as anyone else.
  57. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2588 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:31 pm
    Just noticed something.. give that guy a big top hat and a beard... viola. Abe Lincoln.
  58. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 24, 2012 at 11:44 pm
    The danger that lies within your mistaken definition of those terms is that people in the past believed that they could `evolve` human beings into a better race. That through breeding and selecting out those deemed undesirable they could achieve a master race, not unlike breeding a thoroughbred racing horse.

    This is what the Nazis tried to do during WWII and it`s evil. That philosophy is thankfully dead, although it does rear it`s ugly head from time to time in the continuing eugenics of groups like Planned Parenthood, The Pioneer Fund, The Population Council and even The March of Dimes.

    That is the danger of confusing terms, people begin to believe those falsehoods and forget the horrors of history.
  59. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2588 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 12:22 am
    Crackr... that is the dumbest shxt I`ve ever heard.. today anyways.
  60. Profile photo of slimofswiv
    slimofswiv Male 30-39
    116 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 2:32 am
    omg, i`m shocked, i thought all americans were bible bashing idiots, he is the exception to the rule, i like this guy, he uses his brain rather than listen to the same old 5hit in some old book, i bet he feels so frustrated living in a country full of crack pots
  61. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:36 am
    Sadly, Bill Nye didn`t get the memo that science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.

    Sure we need scientists and engineers that can build stuff and solve problems. But we also need a clear spiritual compass so that the aim is not to wipe out, maim, or burden people, animals, or any other life. Or to solve problems benefiting the selfish and greedily inclined, over the problems for all of mankind. Following Love can prevent this, and God teaches us the depths of love that none other can teach. By ignoring that, the outlook for mankind is very grim.

    In a couple of centuries (hopefully less) the world-views held today of "It`s all science and science only" or "it`s all religion and religion only" will be a thing of the past. Because science and religion are both tools God gave us to harness the power of, so science without religion is lame, while religion without science is blind.

    Read Proverbs 111:2
  62. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:28 am
    keith2: You think it`s dumb because you haven`t studied history. Do some research, learn the truth about the world around you and those that wish to control it.
  63. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:29 am
    Evolution only occurs when some organism becomes a separate species with speciation. Your ignorance of this fact is due to a lack of education.

    Nope sorry Crakr you just proved Angillion`s point.
  64. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:34 am
    Humans did not speciate wolves or ferrets.

    Wrong, otherwise we wouldn`t have domesticated dogs in the first place.
  65. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:40 am
    Do some research, learn the truth about the world around you and those that wish to control it.

    Your empty statement proves that you really don`t have a case here. You rely on the opposition to make your arguments for you. Your Hitler card is also noted.
  66. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 7:48 am
    CrakrJak,
    It is possible for a creature to evolve by passing along a new feature, that then has the ability of being passed along to it`s decedents. If the change is a minor one, Evolution will have occurred without speciation occurring.

    My guess is, you are either spouting Creationist propaganda without looking into it`s validity, or you are trolling.
  67. Profile photo of narccow
    narccow Male 18-29
    3 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 7:55 am
    wow to guysmiley look back and tell me what this wars about here its all be cause the middle east says that their quran tells them if you dont believe in it u must die which isnt really what it says but thats what they say so yea wars are about religion tell me one that wasnt bout it
  68. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 10:40 am
    another anti-religion topic.. who`d a guessed?

    Does the many topics posted say, that those posters that believe in science only are insecure in their belief? Thus needing to change everyone to agree with them?
  69. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 11:02 am
    Interesting that Crakr hasn`t actually responded to any of my comments, not even the one I specifically directed at him. Let`s see if he can respond this time as I pick apart his significant logical flaws ...

    "Evolution only occurs when some organism becomes a separate species with speciation" - by your selective definition, which wouldn`t be recognised by any evolutionary biologist. Evolution occurs regardless of speciation. The evolutionary process is *how* speciation occurs, but speciation is merely a result of that process enacted upon populations of animal, most often isolated in some way from the `parent` population. Speciation cannot occur without evolution, but evolution can (and does) occur without speciation. So called `ring species` provide a perfect example of this - a continuum of populations of a single `species`, where interbreeding is possible between most neighbouring populations, but not possible between members of the `end` populations.
  70. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 11:14 am
    "evolution (by speciation) has not occurred in recorded human history" - again, only by your innaccurate definition of speciation-dependant evolution. The evolutionary process is always going on, but anyone who (unlike yourself) actually understands evolution wouldn`t expect to see a population divergence to the point of possible species distinction in the incredibly short time humans have been systematically recording our observations of the world. The scientific method has only been in operation for a few hundred years, which is an utterly insignificant instant in the context of Deep Time. Even if we`d been recording data throughout the span of humanity with significant rigour for the entirety of recorded history, we still wouldn`t expect to see definite record of speciation, because even a few thousand years is an insignificant span of time.
  71. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 11:22 am
    "I suggest you save yourself further embarrassment and actually read Darwin`s own theory" - I know this wasn`t actually directed at me, but why don`t you try the same advice. And in the (highly unlikely) event that you have already read it, read it again, but this time do so with a view to understanding what`s being said, rather than just trying to find faults.
    I have read it (several times), along with probably over a hundred other books on the subject - everything from the dinosaur books I read as a kid (the better ones would usually start with a section explaining evolution - usually badly), through various degrees of pop sccience, right up to technical textbooks on hard theory. I don`t recall ever being taught about evolution in school, but the topic has fascinated me for my entire life, which has led me to strive to understand the theory as well as I can. Indeed, my devotion to the scientific method is a direct result of my fascination with evolution.
  72. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 11:43 am
    This one`s for OutWest ...
    "another anti-religion topic.. who`d a guessed? "

    Evolutionary theory isn`t anti-religion. In fact, no science is anti-religion - the only sciences which have any interest whatsoever in religion are (broadly) anthropology and psychology, and even there the interest is in understanding the nature and development of religion, not in any way opposing it. Oppostion only arises when certain groups oppose scientific teaching or research, most often as a consequence of their desire to perpetuate outmoded beliefs. Evolutionists wouldn`t care about whatever creationists wanted to believe if the creationists were content to keep their beliefs to themselves. But creationism is a deliberate attempt to suppress and supplant evolutionary theory without any recourse to actual evidence, whereas evolutionary theory is merely an attempt to explain a certain aspect of the world around us by means of measurement, observation and testing.
  73. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    Oh, and one more for Crakr ... you do realise that citing eugenics in a conversation about evolution is exactly equivalent to bringing up Hitler in most other contexts, right? And we all know the sort of folks likely to throw Hitler into the mix, right? I`ll give you a clue - they live under bridges and have a prediliction for goats.
    Eugenics is a fancy name for selective breeding as applied to humanity. Now, you`ve gone to great pains to explain your notions (however misguided) of how selective breeding isn`t evolution, so by your own definition eugenics has nothing to do with evolution. So which is it? Either selective breeding has nothing to do with evolution (in which case neither does eugenics), or selective breeding is a human application of one facet of the evolutionary process (sexual selection), in which case eugenics is that same human application of a natural process directed back at humanity. By humans.
  74. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    Cajun247: Wolves and Dogs are NOT truly separate species because they can mate and viable offspring that are not sterile hybrids. Science may have given them different species names, but that does not make them truly different species.

    artmunki: Evolution occurs regardless of speciation
    BZZT! Wrong! Speciation has to occur or evolution does not happen. Adaptation alone cannot account for the diversity of species we have on planet earth, speciation has to occur for diversification.

    I don`t recall ever being taught about evolution in school
    That explains part of the problem right there.

    Also do you realize that confusing terms and denying historical fact is what dooms humanity to repeat it`s mistakes?

    Elkingo`s dictionary definition `3a` is 100% correct concerning Darwin`s theory and if you don`t believe that, then your ignorance has turned into willful stupidity.
  75. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    Wolves and Dogs are NOT truly separate species because they can mate and viable offspring that are not sterile hybrids

    That is a VERY superfluous (and comical) distinction drawn between species.

    Elkingo`s dictionary definition `3a` is 100% correct concerning Darwin`s theory and if you don`t believe that

    Meaning that we will EVENTUALLY see a result even if now we don`t see it. So the point is moot.
  76. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    BZZT! Wrong!

    "Dear viewers please give our show an intermission while we fix our buzzer."
  77. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 3:38 pm
    But if we were to use "coitability" per se as a yardstick for evolution, look no further than domestic sheep and mouflon.
  78. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm
    Also do you realize that confusing terms and denying historical fact is what dooms humanity to repeat it`s mistakes?

    Look who`s talking.
  79. Profile photo of Langer
    Langer Male 18-29
    394 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm
    there`s 3 points of argument against eugenics

    1) religious - god gave you a form so you shouldn`t tamper with it (though if evolution doesn`t take effect, nothing is going to happen so it`s a contradictory argument as artmunki said)
    2) sociological - it`s a gross infringement of human rights, incites discrimination, 2nd class citizens, political supporters tend to be automatically white listed, etc.
    3) genetic - selecting the `best` genes is a very dicey issue, a genius can be born from a criminal, severing vital immunities from the gene pool, in other words: genetic diversity is a good thing

    just because you can warm yourself with fire doesn`t mean you should douse yourself in petrol and light a match
  80. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    Cajun: "Ovis aries orientalis - Subspecies: The scientific classification of the mouflon is disputed..." Both are still considered "Ovis aries", not separate species.

    Domestication does NOT create a new species, no matter what name scientists give the domesticated or wild types.

    Speciation has never been demonstrated to have occurred naturally, or by breeding, in all of recorded human history. Without the diversity of speciation, evolution does not happen. Darwin knew this, the Dictionary defines this, and you`re denying it as if you have superior knowledge to them both.
  81. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:30 pm
    Darwin knew this, the Dictionary defines this, and you`re denying it as if you have superior knowledge to them both.

    Appeal to authority, and no I don`t presume to have "superior knowledge".

    Without the diversity of speciation, evolution does not happen.

    Only by your own twisted definition. Since adaptation does involve genetic changes it is evolution.
  82. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    Both are still considered "Ovis aries", not separate species.


    That is where the similarities end so either one is the ancestor OR there is another species we haven`t found yet. Either way that means the animals of either breed we see today have a common ancestor.
  83. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    Sure we need scientists and engineers that can build stuff and solve problems. But we also need a clear spiritual compass so that the aim is not to wipe out, maim, or burden people, animals, or any other life.

    Sure we need that.

    But what does that have to do with religion? Wiping out, maiming and burdening people, animals or any other life is not prevented by religion. In fact, religion makes it a lot easier because it gives people a divine mandate to do it.

    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

    I think that Steven Weinberg was overstating the case a little. Religion is the best way to get good people to do evil things, but it`s not the only way.
  84. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm
    I think a good case could be made that being religious has a strong causal relationship with pathologically low self esteem and self-loathing.

    Take, for example, the very common line of argument put forward in this case by TheGuySmiley. He has such a bad opinion of himself that he thinks it requires the almighty power of the creator of the universe to stop him, TheGuySmiley, from maiming and killing people...and he genuinely thinks that`s a *good* thing and a rational argument.

    Are you really the violent, dangerous sociopath you think you are, TheGuySmiley? Even if you are, you are very wrong to assume that everyone else is too, and that`s the crux of your argument.
  85. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    My guess is, you are either spouting Creationist propaganda without looking into it`s validity, or you are trolling.

    If I recall correctly, he`s a YEC. So he has absolute faith that his god has faked all the evidence to mess with humans for some unknown reason. He`ll contradict himself, repeatedly make untrue statements about everything with total disregard for the truth and still think he`s telling the truth, make up things and then claim scientists said them...and believe it, make up ad hoc definitions for pre-existing words...and believe they are the definitions that other people use...in short, he`ll do anything, regardless of how irrational and obviously untrue it is.
  86. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    Speciation has never been demonstrated to have occurred naturally, or by breeding, in all of recorded human history.

    According to the definition of "species" that you were using just a few posts earlier (ability to interbreed), speciation happens quite often.

    But, of course, you change definitions on an entirely ad hoc basis, in addition to making your own definitions of words already in use (like, in this thread, "evolution" and "species").

    You`re making up definitions of "speciation" on the fly in order to maintain your core definition of "speciation" as "something that can`t happen" and using that fiction to support your equally badly fabricated definition of "evolution" as "speciation", so you can fabricate a definition of "evolution" as "something that can`t happen, by definition".

    It would be ridiculous if it wasn`t for the harm th
  87. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:38 pm
    Angilion: If you live by prejudice, you can`t expect people to take you seriously. Granted people have done some very wrong things behind religion. But true religion, which consists of this (click), is what i`m referring to when i tell you that science and religion will work together.

    The things that contradict the above verse are not just in religion, but government, science, entertainment, work places, maybe even in your own family. But there`s no point in arguing it`s all religion`s fault, it`s pointless and only causes strife. Some people have done that and argued against it right up until their last breath. But the fact is no one will ever stop faith in God, because God is the author of love and our world needs love. Without love we`ll be at each other`s throats like some posts in here plainly show.
  88. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    We don`t need God to not be sociopaths TheGuySmiley. A violent act in of itself incurs an opportunity cost for a mutually beneficial relationship later on. In fact people typically want to (and will) trade for things they don`t have to begin with.
  89. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm
    Angilion: if you want to know what the problem is, it`s that mankind has the knowledge of good and evil, but continues choosing to do evil.

    Despite 1000s of years of history that teaches us to do the good and right thing, and even in this age where we have all that data at our fingertips; each and every one of us, you, me, the other posters, Bill Nye, everyone on earth at one point has chosen to do the evil thing over the good thing. Our world is plagued in sin, and that`s why it`s said that all have fallen short of the glory of God,

    Sin is what causes mankind to not live by love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and with self-control. Sin is the problem, not religion, government, science, entertainment, your boss, nor your ex.

    But in time it will no longer be among us, and we will love one another as God loves us, and will work together hand in hand with both science and religion.
  90. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    Cajun247: If we don`t need God, then what would it take for the world to have peace? Real peace in the whole world, where everyone is happy, and working together in wisdom, and living together as a fellowship of mankind? When will we realise we are all "one" and are stronger together, living with equality, love and respect? What would it take to let go of our fears and see the world out of compassion, and not worry for ourselves but about satisfying each other`s basic needs? How will leaders band together to stop fighting and learn to settle arguments in a civilised manner, agree to disagree, and form alliances of friendships?

    When we were children, we saw beauty in life and everyone believe in everything, and we believed in everyone. What is the plan for us to, in essence, evolve to that level again? What will it take? Honestly? If it`s not already drawn up, isn`t it a bit late to do it now? Which is why God has one for us.
  91. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 7:40 pm
    Cajun247: Genetic changes do not = Evolution.
    Adaptation does not = Evolution.
    Breeding does not = Evolution.

    Speciation = Evolution.
  92. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 8:41 pm
    Well done Crakr - you performed exactly as expected. And to prove this, here`s a wee prediction I made after my last posts:

    "Crakr`s tactic - if he responds at all, he`ll ignore every point I make to which he has no cogent argument, continue to assert his own (completely innaccurate) definition of evolution, and almost certainly try to use the fact that my understanding is self-taught as some sort of proof (to him) that I`m talking rubbish"

    Did I miss anything? ;P

    Oh, and thanks again Crakr ... "confusing terms and denying historical fact is what dooms humanity to repeat it`s mistakes" - yup, that`s exactly why you need to leave your narrow-minded, biased, primitive religious viewpoints the hell out of scientific progress. Thanks for understanding!
  93. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    August 25, 2012 at 10:14 pm
    Here you go CJ since you`re obviously lacking knowledge on evolution.
  94. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 12:12 am
    That`s predictable and sad, TheSmileyGuy. Your version of religion is the only true religion, people disobeying you is the only thing stopping the world being a paradise and anyone who disagrees with you is irrationally prejudiced. Blah blah blah, same old same old.

    Delusion and monumental arrogance along with playing the victim card. Predictable and sad. Par for the course for religion, obviously.
  95. Profile photo of slimofswiv
    slimofswiv Male 30-39
    116 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 12:59 am
    lets hear it for charles darwin woohoo, a man that really we know lived, now lets see who most of you yanks believe in, a hippy who there is no record of apart from a book full of stories about people on magic mushrooms, parting the sea and a burning bush? yeah right!!!!!
  96. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 1:32 am
    artmunki & Lillian: Perhaps you both should read these.

    "... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859

    "No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson 1872

    "The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word `species`." Hey 2001

    "First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require - but cannot be settled by - empirical evidence." Pigliucci 2003

    Speciation is at the very heart of evolution and even these scholars disagree on it. But the standard definition still stands. Speciation is necessary for evolution and no one on earth has yet observed it
  97. Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 2:30 am
    You idiot. The validity, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the competing *concepts* of speciation is what is controversial, not the fact that phenomena generally identified as speciation happens in nature through the mechanism of evolution.
  98. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 5:22 am
    Angilion: I understand you have unfavourable opinions of me, but I do believe your understanding of prejudice is flawed. Prejudice is like a preconceived opinion or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. It is synonymous to `bias` and `prepossess`.

    An example of this is like a rich man failing to admire the intellect and wit of a poor man because of his low social status. It`s used quite a bit by people today, because this world of sin has brought it to a level of normalacy. It can be a hard habit for people to break since many people use it, especially if they`ve exercised it since a young age. Prejudice really has no place in society of love and harmony. When prejudice is held back, language can grow to become a very powerful tool.
  99. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 7:12 am
    jkfld: The "problem" is that all scientists have done is observe conditions that already exist. They`ve never observed a species change from start to end, to the point that cross breeding would produce sterile hybrids.

    That is truly what evolution depends on, Diversification through Speciation, without it the theory falls flat on it`s face.

    We can and have diversified animals of all kinds, through breeding, but they all remain the same species. That`s not evolution and saying that it is, is a bald faced lie.
  100. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 8:05 am
    Now you`re grasping at straws CrakrJak. None of those experts have denied that all life we see today are part of a large continuum. A constantly changing one at that. In fact the experts you cite agree that the DKPCOFGS method of organizing life in the universe is an artificial and cumbersome abstraction.

    With or without God Smiley life on this planet is getting better. Crime has gone down across the globe, people are living longer, healthier, and wealthier lives. Poverty is now considered a stage in life rather than a way of life.
  101. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 8:42 am
    CJ, you quoted a bunch of people saying that the term species is hard to define (something that I already knew, btw) and come to the conclusion that they`re saying evolution = speciation? Evolution and "speciation" are not the same thing. Evolution is a combination of micro and macroevolution. Enough microevolution (change within species) and macroevolution (change from one species to another) will happen. An example, which we HAVE observed, is "ring species" as artmunki already mentioned. There`s a certain type of bird where you can observe their change over a distance. Each bird can breed with its neighbor bird. But if you take the 2 birds at the opposite ends, they can`t breed with each other. This is a prime example of evolution as well as a prime example of not being able to define what a species is. Are they two different species? But they can breed with the same birds just not with each other.
  102. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 8:45 am
    Also CJ, evolution and science in general does not work like religion. Even if Darwin ended up denouncing evolution completely before he died, that wouldn`t make it any less true. Even if an original idea about evolution turned out to be false, that doesn`t mean evolution is false.
  103. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 8:46 am
    Cajun247: It`s easy to say that things are getting better when perhaps in your country it seems that way. But it`s bordering on ignorant to think that poverty is only a stage, where in many nations, and no doubt for many people in yours, it is a way of life.

    While technologically we`ve been getting better, socially we`re likely no less barbaric, if not more so, than we were 1000 years ago. Wars, apathy, selfishness, and greed rage on, and because of this, things are likely to get worse before they get better on the sociological front. But I do share your hope that it will get better, because God will put sin under foot.

  104. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 9:51 am
    Crakr - your "response" to Lillian & myself is ... gratefully received. It`s nice to see that you do actually have something of a clue about all the points I tried to make about how vague the term `species` actually is, but it still has nothing to do with evolutionary processes. How many times do you have to be told - speciation is a result of evolution, not a part of the process. Y`know, like serving or eating a meal is the result of cooking, but not part of the cooking process. The fact that `species` is hard to define is itself another result of the process, because the process doesn`t end at some arbitrary point. This is why it`s so much more appropriate to talk about populations rather than species in evolutionary discussion.
    You`re very fond of accusing others of straw-man arguements in every other discussion on this site, but somehow it`s perfectly okay for you to set up a straw-man version of evolution for you to rail against.
  105. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 10:14 am
    But it`s bordering on ignorant to think that poverty is only a stage, where in many nations, and no doubt for many people in yours, it is a way of life.

    People in poverty are increasingly rare, so I suspect most of the time those who live that way in choose to do so.

    things are likely to get worse before they get better on the sociological front

    I doubt that very much. What I`ve said isn`t speculation, it`s based on hard empirical data. The tendancy to look for negatives is an old survival instinct.
  106. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 11:00 am
    "The "problem" is that all scientists have done is observe conditions that already exist..." - a problem to you clearly, but not for science. No scientist has ever observed the splitting of an atom, or what goes on in the heart of a star, or continental drift, or the hunting practises of prehistoric man, or any of the interactions of theoretical physics. But they can make observations of evidence related to and resulting from these phenomena, which allows for the development of theories on these interactions, and the most effecctive theories will then allow for predictions of other phenomena which can then be looked for. Darwins theory, among a great many other things, predicted genetics - quite a significant prediction, I`d say.

    And anyway, you must realise how utterly, laughably redundant it is for anyone who`s religious to argue that a theory they don`t like cannot be true if it`s never been observed.
  107. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    Angilion: I understand you have unfavourable opinions of me, but I do believe your understanding of prejudice is flawed. Prejudice is like a preconceived opinion or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. It is synonymous to `bias` and `prepossess`.

    No, really? You mean that it has the same meaning that I`ve been using for the almost 40 years that I`ve been arguing against it? Well drat me, how could I have known that?

    Hmm..."a preconceived opinion or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"...like, for example, your preconceived (and totally unsupported) opinion that you know the absolute truth and the only thing causing any and all suffering in the world is people not obeying you. Which is also ridiculous and megalomaniacal.
  108. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    Spanish Flu is increasingly rare, so obviously people are choosing that.
  109. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm
    Spanish Flu is increasingly rare, so obviously people are choosing that.

    Now that I think about it that doesn`t make a lot of sense. Since I`ve claimed that poverty is a stage in life those who ARE in poverty are there temporarily. Thus when we do get samples there will be someone claiming they`re poor.
  110. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    Angilion: don`t quit your day job.
  111. Profile photo of DaniDrkHrt
    DaniDrkHrt Female 18-29
    212 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    Am I the only person in the world that was raised with a healthy dose of both religion and science? The two don`t have to be mutually exclusive. While I shy away from organized religion, I have my own personal faith, mostly Christian with many ideals from other religions such as Buddhism. I also believe that the bible shouldn`t be taken literally. It was written by man, an imperfect and fallible creature. However, I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with accepting the fact that perhaps there is something out there that is greater than all of us. Faith, however, should not be blind. We were given free will and intelligence for a reason. We were meant to question, invent, and better ourselves. It is this search for answers (scientific and religious) that brings humanity together. Humanity can never be united until we learn to find the value in every idea, doctrine, and creed.
  112. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Crakrjak said: Genetic changes do not = Evolution.
    Which is precisely, and by definition, what evolution is.

    Face the f*cking palm. This is why I don`t argue with Crakrjak on evolution anymore. His basic (mis)understanding of evolution is summed up right there. With a cherry on top.
  113. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    DaniDrkHrt: you`re not alone
  114. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    Am I the only person in the world that was raised with a healthy dose of both religion and science?

    Everyone is raised with what someone considers a healthy dose of both. I, for example, consider it deeply unhealthy to indoctrinate a child with religion. So I`d consider no religion to be the healthy dose for a child.

    The two don`t have to be mutually exclusive.

    Yes, they do. Most religions require belief that their god(s) created humans. That`s mutually exclusive with science. Religion usually discourages thought because it places superhuman importance on obedience to the religion. Religion also places superhuman importance on faith, which is exactly the opposite mindset to science.

    It`s not impossible to be a theist and a scientist, but only if you keep them mutually exclusive. They`re totally different things and should never be confused with each other.
  115. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 26, 2012 at 9:00 pm
    However, I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with accepting the fact that perhaps there is something out there that is greater than all of us.

    "perhaps" is not a fact. It`s a possibility.

    The possibility of something somewhere that is in some way greater than humans isn`t a religion.

    It`s possible, for example, that there are people elsewhere who are all more intelligent than humans and their civilisation is more advanced than ours and their technology is more advanced than hours, so they are greater than us.

    It`s possible that somewhere there is something or things so much more advanced than humans that from a human perspective it/they would have divine power. It wouldn`t take all that much - modern humanity could easily be seen as godlike to a bronze age peasant, just from the differences in technology.

    That`s not religion. It`s acknowledging a possibility of something plausible.

Leave a Reply