Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[ProHypster]

Very interesting.

 

One thing I found though is that none of the evidence makes a species change so much it can't multiply with it's ancestor.

 

Couldn't it be possible that is just the beauty of the defence of the species, they always adapt very small changes to the environment like us, but they will never ultimately change into another species.

 

Untill I see evidence of that I cannot believe in evolution. Yes, I said, believe.

 

We have been providing evidence for evolution up and down this thread. What exactly do you want? Specifics. Don't just say "conjectureless evidence". Provide an example of what you mean by this.

 

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT.

 

I stated that a long time ago, that evolution shouldn't be tought to children as a fact and that a scientific theory should be properly explained in schools.

 

Wait, if you are talking about providing evidence I need, you need it twicefold, disprove God and provide a scientific lab example of a species turning into another species.

[Koockaburra101]

It's not possible to prove a negative. No one can prove the non-existence of god just as you can't prove the non-existence of Zeus, Isis, Thor, the easter bunny or santa clause. I assume you don't believe in any (or at least most) of the things I mentioned even though we can't prov that they aren't real.

 

Unless of course you're coming at it from a more personal perspective. Just out of curiosity, what would be the kind of thing that would convince you that there is no god?

[danielsangeo]

Science lab example of a species turning into another species? Why do you need that? A lot of of science isn't done in white-walled clean rooms with doctors in white labcoats and centrifuges and microscopes. That's TV.

 

We have scores of evidence of species turning into other species. Speciation evidence usually comes from outside the lab and in nature.

 

For example:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23103/

[Eedo Baba]

Eedobaba's thinking: Computers, Faster scientific research, TV = People getting smarter

 

Yeah, I was going to leave this thread (and still am), but you're misrepresenting my opinion. I wasn't saying that people are getting smarter. I was saying that using the fact that they haven't in 2000 years as an argument is idiotic. Ok, bye all!

[ProHypster]

It's not possible to prove a negative. No one can prove the non-existence of god just as you can't prove the non-existence of Zeus, Isis, Thor, the easter bunny or santa clause. I assume you don't believe in any (or at least most) of the things I mentioned even though we can't prov that they aren't real.

 

Unless of course you're coming at it from a more personal perspective. Just out of curiosity, what would be the kind of thing that would convince you that there is no god?

 

You don't need to prove that he doesn't exist, but convince so.

There is many ways you would be able to convince me.

One way to convince me that there is no God you must prove or at least show in favour of the theory that either intelligence cannot make matter or that matter can turn into intelligence.

[ProHypster]

When I see God in my vision I see infinite intelligence not a huge human with beard and with halo deity.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I see a being beyond our comprehension, infinite in wisdom and intelligence, beyond our dimension and our level of existence. In many ways, I don't see God as a person, but as a force. It's no coincidence that in the bible he is described as a ghost or a spirit because that's what he is. He's not of our existence.

 

Like in the movie Prince of Egypt, you just see him represented as a glowing foggy light and when he speaks, it's the voice of who he's speaking to. That's what I consider the most likely representation of God.

[ProHypster]

We have scores of evidence of species turning into other species. Speciation evidence usually comes from outside the lab and in nature.

 

For example:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23103/

 

I cannot accept that! 6.9 million years ago means outdated, vague carbon dating/fossil dating technology.

 

I've studied how inaccurate those measures are.

[Doom Shepherd]

We have scores of evidence of species turning into other species. Speciation evidence usually comes from outside the lab and in nature.

 

For example:

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23103/

 

I cannot accept that! 6.9 million years ago means outdated' date=' vague carbon dating/fossil dating technology.

 

I've studied how inaccurate those measures are.[/quote']

 

As danielsanger said, there ARE examples of humans witnessing species evolving into other species. I posted a link to a list of many of these instances a few pages back. It generally is observed in plants and animals that have short lifespans and reproduction cycles, so that many generations can be observed in a relatively short period of time. For example, fruit flies, worms, bacteria, mice and fish.

 

Another link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

Have you heard of MRSA? It's one of the most obvious examples. A species of streptococcus that evolved as a result of human activity (our over-use of antibiotics) is now a genuine threat to people in hospitals.

 

As for radioactive dating, it's fuzzy, but you know it has to be real, because everything that has to do with measuring atomic decay is all based on the same principles. If those principles are even slightly wrong, then anything based on them would not work. This woud include things like nuclear power plants and atom bombs.

 

(Flash Fact: They work, therefore the principles they are based on are sound.)

 

I used to know a guy who made claims about how we date the age of the universe. He claimed that the dating using the speed of light was wrong because the speed of light was slowing down. He had to shut up after I pointed out that light was just one kind of electromagnetic radiation, and that if it changed the way he was asserting, nothing from radios to microwaves to our own eyes would work.

[Doom Shepherd]

When I see God in my vision I see infinite intelligence

 

So tell me, is "infinite" intelligence consistent with a being who can be surprised and upset?

Is it consistent with a universe that is allegedly made for man, but which is in fact extremely inimical to human life?

Is it consistent with even a world that is allegedly made for man, even though only a small part of its surface is easily habitable?

Is it consistent with personally attempting to kill Moses because his son wasn't circumsized? (Exodus 4:24–26)

...and FAILING??

 

Is infinite intelligence in any way consistent with creating two completely ignorant people, while also creating what is said to be the greatest liar and human-hater of all time, and then allowing them to interact? (The story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent)

 

You see, once you attempt to define something, even god, you open it up to the possibility of "disproving" it by pointing out that the definition is inconsistent with observed reality.

 

A definition of God is a "God hypotheses." If the hypothesis does not fit the collected data, it needs must be discarded.

[Bjossi]

The bible thumpers got their ass covered there: God's ways are unpredictable and we shouldn't question them.

 

And by the way, is infinity really any thing else than a mathematical playtoy used by people who want to cover up their inability to comprehend or discuss a difficult problem? I can not think of one thing that is proven to be infinite, in other words, not having a starting point but existing none the less. It makes no sense to me that some thing can exist for infinite amount of time, taking infinite amount of time to reach the current point of existence. As far as I know the best grip we have on infinity right now is to emulate it through the lim function. Any math nut feel free to correct and enlighten me.

[Doom Shepherd]

The bible thumpers got their ass covered there: God's ways are unpredictable and we shouldn't question them.

 

Then He shouldn't have designed me to do just that.

Also, if God's mind and ways unpredictable and incomprehensible, what's prayer for? Exercise?

[Bjossi]

Prayer is for a manual squeeze of serotonin. If you sincerely believed Santa was God and prayed to him you'd get the exact same effect. Human sensory and emotions are very easy to exploit.

[ProHypster]

Wait actually, Bjossi, you think the universe had a starting point and will have an ending point?

[Bjossi]

Yes. The expansion of the universe has been observed. Whether the expansion is a perfect bubble, elliptic or imperfect like the surface of the earth I don't know but for something to expand at all there needs to be a starting force, and that is where the rather inadequate big bang theory comes in. If we go by this then the observable universe is only a part of the whole thing. If we imagine earth is 13 billion light years from the centre then there are 13 billion lightyears of space on the other side. This is not even taking into account the possibility/fact that the expansion is accelerating.

 

But then again the borders of the universe are not like the inner surface of a physical object, we are talking about the spacetime realm itself. If I could study and actually understand high level theoretical physics I could most likely fine tune my thoughts but this is what I got.

[ProHypster]

Yes. The expansion of the universe has been observed. Whether the expansion is a perfect bubble, elliptic or imperfect like the surface of the earth I don't know but for something to expand at all there needs to be a starting force, and that is where the rather inadequate big bang theory comes in. If we go by this then the observable universe is only a part of the whole thing. If we imagine earth is 13 billion light years from the centre then there are 13 billion lightyears of space on the other side. This is not even taking into account the possibility/fact that the expansion is accelerating.

 

But then again the borders of the universe are not like the inner surface of a physical object, we are talking about the spacetime realm itself. If I could study and actually understand high level theoretical physics I could most likely fine tune my thoughts but this is what I got.

 

Ok. Just wanted to know.

[The Hamburglar]

Evolution is just a theory, and Creationism is just something in a book.

 

Honestly, I doubt both of them.

[danielsangeo]

It's not possible to prove a negative. No one can prove the non-existence of god just as you can't prove the non-existence of Zeus, Isis, Thor, the easter bunny or santa clause. I assume you don't believe in any (or at least most) of the things I mentioned even though we can't prov that they aren't real.

 

Unless of course you're coming at it from a more personal perspective. Just out of curiosity, what would be the kind of thing that would convince you that there is no god?

 

You don't need to prove that he doesn't exist, but convince so.

There is many ways you would be able to convince me.

One way to convince me that there is no God you must prove or at least show in favour of the theory that either intelligence cannot make matter or that matter can turn into intelligence.

 

Not trying to prove anything but can you tell me what "intelligence" is and how you distinguish it from "non-intelligence"? Is a person dodging an on-coming car intelligence? Is a dog yelping if you step on his tail intelligence? Is a plant bending towards the source of light intelligence? Is a magnet being attracted to metal intelligence?

[ProHypster]

Not trying to prove anything but can you tell me what "intelligence" is and how you distinguish it from "non-intelligence"? Is a person dodging an on-coming car intelligence? Is a dog yelping if you step on his tail intelligence? Is a plant bending towards the source of light intelligence? Is a magnet being attracted to metal intelligence?

 

Welcome to basic philosophy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem

 

*Note Plato's theory.

[danielsangeo]

I don't see any evidence of a "soul" so we must go by what we have evidence for. I'm still not getting an answer to what "intelligence" is versus "non-intelligence". Are plants intelligent? They respond to external stimuli just like us and we're called "intelligent" for it. Are plants intelligent? They're able to adapt to their environment and some plants even eat meat (pitcher plants, venus fly traps, etc).

 

Is intelligence a gradient? Are magnets only vaguely intelligent because they're able to respond to external stimuli? If so, are magnets alive?

 

When you ask a question like whether matter can turn into intelligence, you need to define what you mean before we can continue. Not philosophy, just basic facts.

 

The answer to what makes something blue is that it takes light and absorbs all but the blue spectrum back. What is blue? Blue is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths roughly between 440–490 nm in width.