| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 8:04 AM
Location: D-brane
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| baddogma wrote: | | Hit_me_up024 wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Without natural selection there is no evolution. |
i rememer learning about natural selection in biology after that i was totally convinced I had a very good teacher he was religious he said:
"what if evolution is fact, and the tool in which god made things come to be."
thats the only thing he ever said regarding god to convince religious peolpe that evolution is not something to be feared but understood |
Why would an all powerful god need a tool? |
How do you think the Virgin Mary got pregnant??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23060
Local time: 8:04 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Hit_me_up024 wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Without natural selection there is no evolution. |
i rememer learning about natural selection in biology after that i was totally convinced I had a very good teacher he was religious he said:
"what if evolution is fact, and the tool in which god made things come to be."
thats the only thing he ever said regarding god to convince religious peolpe that evolution is not something to be feared but understood |
Why would an all powerful god need a tool? |
How do you think the Virgin Mary got pregnant??? |
(or Newman's wife)
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jayveezed
Visitor
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Local time: 1:04 PM
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Equal Evidence For and Against Evolution? |
|
|
| EvilEggCracker wrote: | So, we come onto the subject of Charles Darwin and Natural Selection in Biology and all is going swimmingly. Explained fairly adequately to the class by our teacher and then...
He says that there's just enough evidence for and against Evolution.
Now. Don't get me wrong. He's a nice teacher. He told us to always question everything. But is this actually true? I always thought that Evolution was "pretty much fact". Does anyone here have anything to, well, show him up? |
It is most upsetting to think that a teacher would say such a thing in Ireland (I'm in England). I appreciate you seem to like the guy but he needs to be stopped from saying such things, and that is a fact with no evidence against it, like evolution. I doubt everyone in your class is as astute as you so even one or two people going home and accepting what your teacher has said is pretty bad by any standard of judgement eg. meant to be a teacher! I would urge you to tell someone you trust, or even the teacher himself (depending on the circumstances) to make sure such things are not told to future generations but I appreciate that could cause issues, anyway... to show him up...
I'm guessing this teacher of yours is a christian of some persuasion. So, it might be best to use the words of a fellow christian and *respected* Professor of Biology, Ken Miller. He was the key witness in the Dover Trial (to oust Intelligent Design from the science classroom) and is a devout christian himself. This link is a quick interview with him, about 3 mins 40 seconds into the interview he states clearly, as others already have, that there is NO evidence against evolution. Not a single bit of evidence against evolution in over 150 years! http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/feb/19/james.randerson.aaas
Keep in mind that this includes back up from "new" sciences that Darwin was not aware of eg. molecular biology backs up things Darwin predicted, that is how monumental the error your teacher has made in suggesting even one shred of evidence exists against evolution, let alone that the evidence is equal for and against. It may be that your teacher has been enticed by the idea of Intelligent Design, many seemingly intelligent, honest people have, if this is the case I'm afraid he has been tricked, as the first part of the linked interview shows.
For a thorough and complete refutation of what your teacher has said, to help them out(!), you may as well go to the source.... the case notes for the Dover trial destroy Intelligent Design, have a quick scan of the Ken Millers testimony, here's a good place to start - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html#day1am239 . I know it sounds boring (reading court trial notes) but it is not as bad as it sounds and Ken Miller literally annihilates the ID case and explains evolution very nicely on the way.
Oh yeah, you could just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg it's quite long though (2hrs)
Anyway, sorry for being a bit long-winded.
cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runlikehell
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
Local time: 7:04 AM
Location: Manhattan Kansas
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The main chemistry teacher at our school, who always struck me as the "priestly" type (if you know what I mean...), when talking about carbon dating, said that you can't carbon date a rock, because they are too old to use carbon- which is just fine and dandy- and then went on to say that actually, maybe you can, because he believes the rocks aren't that old. (sorry if the commas kill you)(or parenthesis)(I'm having a bad punctuation day...)
My friend banged his head on the desk. (I wasn't there)
At least this guy only teaches chemistry, not earth science, astronomy, or biology...
_________________
Blind faith is always misplaced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2542
Local time: 6:04 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evolution has, indeed, been observed:
Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in Lab | Quote: | A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
|
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ApostateLois
Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2066
Local time: 9:04 PM
Location: In space, with a traffic cone
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Human fleas, lice, and skin mites are surely a good example of fairly modern speciation. If humans became extinct suddenly, so would they, unless they could adapt in hurry to some other animal.
_________________
Kryten: Don't you believe that God exists in all things? Aren't you a Pantheist?
Lister: Yeah, I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a Fryingpantheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9181
Local time: 10:04 PM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Hit_me_up024 wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Without natural selection there is no evolution. |
i rememer learning about natural selection in biology after that i was totally convinced I had a very good teacher he was religious he said:
"what if evolution is fact, and the tool in which god made things come to be."
thats the only thing he ever said regarding god to convince religious peolpe that evolution is not something to be feared but understood |
Why would an all powerful god need a tool? |
How do you think the Virgin Mary got pregnant??? |
(or Newman's wife) |
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vyrian
Forum Leader
Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 1060
Local time: 8:04 AM
Location: K-PAX
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no evidence against Evolution. End debate.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aridiris
Sock Puppet
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 922
Local time: 11:04 PM
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runlikehell wrote: | The main chemistry teacher at our school, who always struck me as the "priestly" type (if you know what I mean...), when talking about carbon dating, said that you can't carbon date a rock, because they are too old to use carbon- which is just fine and dandy- and then went on to say that actually, maybe you can, because he believes the rocks aren't that old. (sorry if the commas kill you)(or parenthesis)(I'm having a bad punctuation day...)
My friend banged his head on the desk. (I wasn't there)
At least this guy only teaches chemistry, not earth science, astronomy, or biology... |
Now, I'm not a high school chemistry teacher (  ) so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you can't carbon date rocks, regardless of their age. The principle behind carbon dating is roughly like this (any high school chem teachers feel free to correct me)
Unstable isotopes of carbon are created regularly in the atmosphere by cosmic rays from the sun. This carbon combines with oxygen to form CO2 and is absorbed by plants. The plants are then eaten by animals. Living organisms will continually absorb this carbon throughout their lives, and when they die they will no longer receive new supplies (unless contaminated). By measuring this carbon's decay in the remains of the animal or plant, we can approximately determine when it died.
So it only really applies to dead organisms. Also, it's not accurate after a few tens of thousands of years (60,000?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaoslord2004
Logician
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 8411
Local time: 8:04 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EvilEggCracker wrote: | | But, it seemed to me that the Peppered Moth was actually an example of Natural Selection (which he does not seem to refute)? |
He probably buys into the artificial distinction between "micro" versus "macro" evolution. Hence, he might argue that dogs can breed with other dogs (and wolves) that are generally of the same species (or family in the case of dogs and wolves) however, he will doubt that if you trace dogs back millions, possibly billions of years, you get to the premortial single-celled organism (probably a bacteria).
The problem with this doubt, on the basis that only like kinds can breed with like kinds assumes the concept of "species" is well defined; it is not. It is a fuzzy concept, which we would actually expect if Darwin is correct; its predicted, since change is slowly accumulated.
_________________
An artist sees beauty in a painting. I see beauty in a logical proof.
"All error is due to extraneous factors, reason itself does not err"
~Kurt Gödel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2542
Local time: 6:04 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The term "species" might be a bit fuzzy, but what about "kinds"? What the hell are those? That word's fuzzier than Robin Williams' back!
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4603
Local time: 11:04 PM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unbeliever wrote: | | The term "species" might be a bit fuzzy, but what about "kinds"? What the hell are those? That word's fuzzier than Robin Williams' back! |
The interesting thing is that the fuzziness of "species" is to be expected if evolution is true.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaoslord2004
Logician
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 8411
Local time: 8:04 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unbeliever wrote: | | The term "species" might be a bit fuzzy, but what about "kinds"? What the hell are those? That word's fuzzier than Robin Williams' back! |
"kinds" isn't a biological term. Ironically, its a bible term.
_________________
An artist sees beauty in a painting. I see beauty in a logical proof.
"All error is due to extraneous factors, reason itself does not err"
~Kurt Gödel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rortykiller
Forum Leader
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 669
Local time: 8:04 AM
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unbeliever wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Without natural selection there is no evolution. |
Evolution was accepted as fact long before Darwin, all that was missing was a mechanism to accomplish the changes in organisms over time, and natural selection turned out to be the best idea for that mechanism that anyone had come up with prior to Darwin. No better ideas have come a long since, either, merely refinements of Darwin's theoary. |
I'll take this opportunity to introduce myself.
Also, I'll take this opportunity to remind my fellow atheists that evolution is actually based on two different and related selection pressures. The first is, of course, natural selection. The other, less emphasized pressure is sexual selection.
Let me show you what I mean:
Using the theory of Natural Selection account for over-grown antlers, peacock feathers, or the human mind.
Its impossible without considering the Darwinian theory of Sexual Selection as well. Because it emphasizes a role of female mate-selection in mammals its been widely ignored by male scientists of the past. However, in this more open culture, we're able to consider such theories without feeling insecure I guess.
Also, if you're into Game Theory at all there is a little bit to be said about Group Selection; though group selection is rarely if ever seen outside of the context of the other selection pressures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9181
Local time: 10:04 PM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rortykiller wrote: | | Unbeliever wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Without natural selection there is no evolution. |
Evolution was accepted as fact long before Darwin, all that was missing was a mechanism to accomplish the changes in organisms over time, and natural selection turned out to be the best idea for that mechanism that anyone had come up with prior to Darwin. No better ideas have come a long since, either, merely refinements of Darwin's theoary. |
I'll take this opportunity to introduce myself.
Also, I'll take this opportunity to remind my fellow atheists that evolution is actually based on two different and related selection pressures. The first is, of course, natural selection. The other, less emphasized pressure is sexual selection.
Let me show you what I mean:
Using the theory of Natural Selection account for over-grown antlers, peacock feathers, or the human mind.
Its impossible without considering the Darwinian theory of Sexual Selection as well. Because it emphasizes a role of female mate-selection in mammals its been widely ignored by male scientists of the past. However, in this more open culture, we're able to consider such theories without feeling insecure I guess.
Also, if you're into Game Theory at all there is a little bit to be said about Group Selection; though group selection is rarely if ever seen outside of the context of the other selection pressures. |
That is why humans have such predominant reproductive organs.
Well....most of us.
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
