The human race should be put down.

[rynnor]

Good to know that. DNA proves that we weren't. Lack of variation in the couple's DNA would have meant that we'd have died off ages ago through disease and infertility.

Well actually human DNA researchers have identified a time when there really werent many humans - the researchers suggested we got as low as 1000 individuals after some kind of natural disaster - thats why humans are not as genetically diverse as they should be for a species a couple of million years old. Perhaps its some dim ancestral memory that was the source of the flood myth (and by the way its way older than the bible).

But we sure as hell didnt start with adam n eve ;P Plus they only had sons so who did they breed with etc. ;P

If people are credulous enough to believe something that flies against common sense let alone numerous scientific studies from Darwin onwards - ignoring continental drift and the similarity of species then let em - they can believe in santa claus and the easter bunnie too but never let it become accepted as having any comparable weight to the theory of evolution.

The script from the matrix is more believable than the bible ;P

 

[Stazbumpa]

I love theological debates.

Allow me to quote:

When a particular branch of social-climbing monkeys arrived on the scene, they began to ask questions. The better the monkeys got at answering the questions, the more baffling the universe became; knowledge increases ignorance. The message they got was: Up There is very different from Down Here.
They didnt know that Down Here was a very good place for animals like them to live. Air to breathe, animals and plants to eat, water to drink, land to stand on and caves to get out of the rain and the lions. They did know that it was changeable, chaotic, unpredictable........
The didn't know that Up There - the rest of the universe - isn't like that. Most of it is vacuum - you can't breathe vacuum. Most of what isn't vacuum is huge balls of overheated plasma - you cant stand on a fireball. And most of what is vacuum, and isn't burning, is lifeless rock. You can't eat rock. What they did know that Up There was calm, ordered and predictable. You could set your stone circle by it.
This gave rise to the feeling that Up There was different from Down Here for a reason. Down Here was clearly designed for us. Equally clearly, Up There wasn't. Therefore it must be designed for somebody else. And the new humanity had given some serious thought to possible tenants ever since they had hid in caves from thunder. The Gods!!!
The Gods where Up There, looking Down. And they were clearly in charge, because humanity certainly wasn't. As a bonus it also explained a lot of complicated things Down Here, like thunderstorms, earthquakes and bees. Those were under the control of the Gods.
It was a neat package. It made us feel important. It certainly made the Priests important. And as Priests were the sort of people who could have your tongue torn out or banish you to Lion Country for disagreeing with them, it rapidly became an enormously popular theory, if only because those who had other ideas either couldn't speak or were up a tree somewhere.

That, friends, is religion in a nutshell. Sorry if its a tad long, but it does sum things up quite reasonably.

Source: The Science of the Discworld - Terry Prachett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.

 

[Chilly]

I love theological debates.

Allow me to quote:


That, friends, is religion in a nutshell. Sorry if its a tad long, but it does sum things up quite reasonably.

Source: The Science of the Discworld - Terry Prachett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.

that's a very nice way of looking at it. I tend to agree with it I think. Although I dont believe in any gods or anyhting tho.

 

[Stazbumpa]

I think it works for polytheist or monotheist religion, my point (or rather, their point) is that religion is an invention by humanity to explain a lot of things that were, at the time, unexplainable.

 

[Scouse]

To think that only the uneducated or unthinking believe in a creator is just not correct. Its as much a travesty as assuming that humans know all that there is about the life and the universe are in a position to say with certainty that we all evolved from a puddle of chemicals.

I'm not disparaging any religious beliefs or making assertions about anyones intellectual capacity. Far from it.

What I'm arguing against is the systematic assertion of some people's beliefs on a whole section of society.

Whether you believe evolution or not these kids will be denied later on in life to a wealth of experience simply because fundamentalist christians in the United States are waging a poxy crusade to enforce their values and beliefs on the young in an effort to regain numbers that have been lost to a more tangible belief set.

 

[Frizz]

Religion was a form of control. Now it funds pedophiles!

 

[Wij]

Religion or not. Evolution is fact.

Creationists play on the word 'theory' which scientists use in a very special sense. It does not mean the same as the every-day usage of the word. Evolution is a theory in the same way that the hypothesis that the Sun will rise tomorrow is a theory. If you don't believe it then take a boat into the middle of the Atlantic and look for the edge of the world. The evidence is everywhere. It's in every gene we possess.

Continue to believe in a God if you will. Evolution doesn't discount that. All it says is that the only feasible explanation for where all the species we now see around us came from is that they all evolved through natural selection from a very simple life-form billions of years ago.

That much is fact. If you can't accept that then you should be explaining the CPU in your PC as magic. Whether God exists is not the same issue though. Don't discard evolution just because you think it is incompatible with your faith. There is only need for one point in this discussion. If you want to make another start a new thread.

 

[Turamber]

The timescales in Genesis place the creation of Earth 4,004 years before the Birth of Christ

And I can quote you websites that believe humans evolved from alien lifeforms brought to the earth by meteorites. It doesn't mean, however, that most evolutionists believe that to be the case.

As I said before Genesis chapter one verse one places the creation of heavens and earth "in the beginning". The following verses discuss what happened from an earthly point of view at an indefinite point following its creation.

But, of course, you are not interested in a discussion - only about making people who disagree with you look foolish. If I were to fall to your level I could dig up references to evolutionists manufacturing their own 'proof' of evolution with fakes, or maybe question the wisdom of scientisits ... after all its not that long ago that some of them thought the moon was made of cream cheese.

 

[ECA]

Evolution is a fact.
Evolutionary pressure is a testable and proveable hypothesis.

Religion is a crutch of the weak minded.
Go back to working your 8 hour days, following by copious amounts of television.
That or opium.

 

[Turamber]

Adaptation is simply a step on the evolutionary road. .

No, adaptation is adaptation. Evolution, if you check your dictionary, is something completely different. A giraffes stomach adapts to a new environment by adapting to eating new sources of food -- over a period of time it and its offspring can eat new fruits, have a new diet. In much the same way, after eating oily dishes regularly my own stomach got used to them.

Now, from an evolutionist point of view, the giraffe itself evolved from another species. Because the only food sources were on high branches they didn't just adapt (i.e. use existing faculities in a new way) they grew their necks and underwent overwhelming physical changes so that they could eat the food from the top most branches.

For the sake of this example we can gloss over the fact that the creatures would have died before they ever evolved into another lifeform. A subject that comes under much scrutiny in Francis Hitching's "Neck of the Giraffe".

 

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

No, adaptation is adaptation. Evolution, if you check your dictionary, is something completely different. A giraffes stomach adapts to a new environment by adapting to eating new sources of food -- over a period of time it and its offspring can eat new fruits, have a new diet. In much the same way, after eating oily dishes regularly my own stomach got used to them.

Now, from an evolutionist point of view, the giraffe itself evolved from another species. Because the only food sources were on high branches they didn't just adapt (i.e. use existing faculities in a new way) they grew their necks and underwent overwhelming physical changes so that they could eat the food from the top most branches.

For the sake of this example we can gloss over the fact that the creatures would have died before they ever evolved into another lifeform. A subject that comes under much scrutiny in Francis Hitching's "Neck of the Giraffe".

I don't think you understand how evolution works.

The giraffes with the longest necks survive & breed. The offspring have long necks. Giraffes with short necks die off.

 

[Turamber]

Heading to bed to start another eight hour day of work that we limited thinkers have to endure so don't have time to explain in detail.

Just have a look here if you have the inclination... http://www.creationism.org/articles/giraffes.htm

I did a quick google to see if there are any extant fossils of ancient giraffes with different length necks. Seems there are none. It has also always struck me as strange that there are no ape-men today -- just different types of ape and humans. Surely such advanced creatures, intelligent and hardy, should have survived somewhere on the earths surface?

 

[Ch3tan]

You know why this whole argument is absolute bollocks anyway?

It ignores other religions. How can you possibly justify a teaching that stems from one religion, one that isn't even the oldest?

You can have all the belief you want in god, it doesn't mean you have to believe absolute tosh.

I believe in some higher power, but religions are created by men, and most probably for power or gain. None of them have any truth apart from giving people someway to explain away things we dont understand. Religion should be taught freely, but science and facts shouldn't be clouded or ignored because of them.

 

[Turamber]

It ignores other religions. How can you possibly justify a teaching that stems from one religion, one that isn't even the oldest?

I explain what I believe and defend the conclusions that I have come to concerning our origins and why we are here. How can I explain and defend something that I do not believe?

It would be like criticising people on this thread for not explaining and defending alternative evolution theories such as Lamarkism when they themselves do not accept or believe them.

 

[Jupitus]

... after all its not that long ago that some of them thought the moon was made of cream cheese.

Eh???? You mean....

 

[DaGaffer]

And I can quote you websites that believe humans evolved from alien lifeforms brought to the earth by meteorites. It doesn't mean, however, that most evolutionists believe that to be the case.

As I said before Genesis chapter one verse one places the creation of heavens and earth "in the beginning". The following verses discuss what happened from an earthly point of view at an indefinite point following its creation.

But, of course, you are not interested in a discussion - only about making people who disagree with you look foolish. If I were to fall to your level I could dig up references to evolutionists manufacturing their own 'proof' of evolution with fakes, or maybe question the wisdom of scientisits ... after all its not that long ago that some of them thought the moon was made of cream cheese.

The 4004BC reference is the typical age quoted by 'young Earth' Creationists, the very people pushing the ID debate. The figure itself comes from Bishop Usher who worked it out from Genesis about 300 years ago. It should also be pointed out that as most of us have a read a translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of the Bible, Then the phrase "In The Beginning" is moot. I've just looked at King James again and in that version the Earth is created before the stars. So much for cosmology.

As for your quote about scientists who believe in meteorite-bearing bacteria, so what? Their hypothesis (Panspermia) is subject to scientific rigour and can be tested. A body of evidence can be built to reinforce or dismiss the theory. Intelligent Design doesn't allow this, which is why it shouldn't be placed alongside Evolution in classrooms!

I certainly am interested in discussion, but how can you have a debate about something when the ultimate weapon of the person you're debating with is that God is unknowable? I can throw evolution evidence at you until the cows come home, including evidence of evolutionary jumps, intermediate and transitional forms from the fossil record, but its just not as comforting as Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam is it?

 

[Panda On Smack]

Heh, this is the problems with Forums. Everyone is right as far as they are concerned (they may well be) so nobody listens to anyone else and it becomes a stupid argument (likes this thread). We're all so intent of breaking down someone's post and pointing out what we think are errors.

DaGaffer you do seem to talk to others like you are right and they're stupid for having a different viewpoint. Perhaps not your intention but thats how it comes over.

I dont even know what this thread is about anymore (What's ID?) I dont really care what is taught in schools about the creation of the earth because if and when i have children i will teach them what i believe (God created the heavens and the earth etc) and show them the alternatives so they can make a choice.

 

[Louster]

But what you're complaining about is exactly what the problem with religion is: asking questions is Bad. The point of science is that, whether or not you "choose to believe" it without questioning, if you're so inclined you can look up and test everything that's lead people to the conclusions they have. And if there are valid holes, then they'll be recognised and examined. Religion, in itself, has no capacity for anything like this at all, and hence arguments between science and religion are going to be composed of people banging their heads against brick walls.

 

[throdgrain]

Heh, this is the problems with Forums. Everyone is right as far as they are concerned (they may well be) so nobody listens to anyone else and it becomes a stupid argument (likes this thread). We're all so intent of breaking down someone's post and pointing out what we think are errors.

Absolutely 100% correct imo

 

[Lester]

Absolutely 100% correct imo

I disagree.

 

[Will]

I think you are all Nazis.

 

[Whipped]

I think someone earlier said something about keeping the creation idea to the RE portion of the classroom.

This is something I wholely agree with. Sure, teach Creationism in American schools, but not in the Science Classroom. Keep it to Religous Education as that is fundamentally what it is. There is no scientific proof to creationism or Intelligent Design other than poking holes in Evolution without testing those holes.

I'm not sure what the Mulsim faith has to say about the creation of the world, but I can guarentee you that if a Muslim Cleric stood up in congress and demanded that their idea of how the world was created was taught in American Science classes, he'd be shipped off to Camp X-Ray before you could say "boo".

This is what should have happened as soon as the bill was proposed to start teaching creationism in schools science classes.

 

[Whipped]

I think you are all Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[DaGaffer]

Heh, this is the problems with Forums. Everyone is right as far as they are concerned (they may well be) so nobody listens to anyone else and it becomes a stupid argument (likes this thread). We're all so intent of breaking down someone's post and pointing out what we think are errors.

DaGaffer you do seem to talk to others like you are right and they're stupid for having a different viewpoint. Perhaps not your intention but thats how it comes over.

I dont even know what this thread is about anymore (What's ID?) I dont really care what is taught in schools about the creation of the earth because if and when i have children i will teach them what i believe (God created the heavens and the earth etc) and show them the alternatives so they can make a choice.

We have a body of evidence to support a theory, you've got faith. I don't think you're stupid (unless you believe the Bible is a literal text, in which case, sorry, but I DO think you're stupid), and you're entitled to your beliefs, but without a way of validating those beliefs, they shouldn't be taught as part of a science cirriculum, which is what this whole thread is about.

 

[Will]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I knew someone would get it.

Also, US schools don't teach RE. It isn't allowed. Hence the whole "teach ID as a science" arguement.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

Evolution is not a theory.
Evidence is dug up everyday, where there are seams in the planet change over time can be clearly seen. I don't believe in any kind of God but believe it is an individuals choice to hold those beliefs. I also think that religion in it's many forms is responsible for most of the conflict that has and is occurring on this planet. Only yesterday a wedding party was blown apart in Jordan, in the name of Islam.
One side of my family was Liverpool/Irish catholic, always saying don't do that it's a sin etc. They never went to church mind you, not that imo that matters. When it came to funerals there was never any mention of the life and times of the deceased rarely was their name even mentioned, it was all just God this, Holy Mary that. I even got physically threatened at one catholic funeral by one prick (family issues), actually at the graveside, nice way to respect the dead.

But to say, whatever your religious beliefs, that we have not evolved from green gloop is like.....

 

[Whipped]

In popular mythology, the ostrich is famous for hiding its head in the sand at the first sign of danger. The Roman writer Pliny the Elder is noted for his descriptions of the ostrich in his Naturalis Historia, where he describes the ostrich and the fact that it hides its head in a bush. There have been no recorded observations of this behavior. A common counter-argument is that a species that displayed this behavior would not likely survive very long. The myth may have resulted from the fact that, from a distance, when ostriches feed they appear to be burying their head in the sand because they deliberately swallow sand/pebbles to help grind up their food. When lying down and hiding from predators, the birds are known to lay their head and neck flat on the ground. When threatened, ostriches run away, but they can also seriously injure with kicks from their powerful legs.

 

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

Heading to bed to start another eight hour day of work that we limited thinkers have to endure so don't have time to explain in detail.

Just have a look here if you have the inclination... http://www.creationism.org/articles/giraffes.htm

I did a quick google to see if there are any extant fossils of ancient giraffes with different length necks. Seems there are none.

Because they were't giraffes then. Look at Giraffes, cammels, horses, zebra. Look at the shape of their bodies. Legs, Bakcbone and most obviously skull. These all evolved from the same creature. And fossils do exist and some "short necked" giraffes still exist today. (Which share the same ancestor as modern giraffes.) They're called Okapia johnstoni. Both these and Giraffe's evolved from a species called Samotherium.

It has also always struck me as strange that there are no ape-men today -- just different types of ape and humans. Surely such advanced creatures, intelligent and hardy, should have survived somewhere on the earths surface?

Humans and apes share a common ancestor we did not evolve directly from apes. Humans have a habit of wiping out species. There were once other 'ape-men'. Neanderthals. Except they we're made extinct. Probably by modern humans.

 

[TdC]

There were once other 'ape-men'. Neanderthals. Except they we're made extinct. Probably by modern humans.

and to just jump on this one: we can't prove anything from them because for some odd reason there is very little Neanderthal (and earlier) fossil evidence. in fact, so little you'd be amazed, considering the millions that must have walked the earth.

 

[Will]

There is evidence for a tiny little hobit-man, who lived on an island which began with the letter F.

Flores.