Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[danielsangeo]

But you have not proven that given the same circumstances for both sub-species, that they wouldn't return to the same species...

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. It's not a sub-species. It's a NEW species. As in, the new species will not mate with the old species. A horse will not be able to mate with a duck. They're two different species.

 

What, exactly, are you looking for, BTG? A horse giving birth to a duck? Because that's not what the theory of evolution says and would, in fact, falsify the theory of evolution.

[Doom Shepherd]

But you have not proven that given the same circumstances for both sub-species, that they wouldn't return to the same species...

 

Until that is done, it is still adaptation... (every animal/person on the planet adapts to their surroundings, and 99% of the population adapts similarly when provided the same environment)

 

The very fact that species exist on this planet in such amazing diversity is incontrovertible evidence that this is not right.

 

Take convergent evolution. Two animals, existing in very similar environments, but on different continents, will adapt in similar ways and even grow to look similar.

 

For example, the anteater, pangolin, and aardvark all have powerful fore claws and long, sticky tongues that allow them to open the homes of ants and termites and eat them.

 

Or the pronghorn antelope of North America vs, the "true" antelopes of Africa.

 

But they can't ever interbreed. Evolution does not happen in "reverse," and species of two distinct genera, even if they evolve to become very similar, cannot merge to become one species.

 

*This is a completely distinct phenomenon than the ability to create "hybrids" using animals of species within the same genus. Which, while it can happen on occasion (usually with substantial human intervention), does not result in the creation of new species, because such hybrids are rare, usually of one sex, and almost always sterile, so a breeding population cannot be created even in a large population of parent animals.

 

**The lines between species and subspecies are actually a lot fuzzier than textbooks written for "laymen" generally state. This actually supports Evolutionary theory, because if "a wizard did it" there would be no such need for fuzzy areas.

[BTGBullseye]

But they can't ever interbreed. Evolution does not happen in "reverse," and species of two distinct genera, even if they evolve to become very similar, cannot merge to become one species.

What proof do you have of that?

 

*This is a completely distinct phenomenon than the ability to create "hybrids" using animals of species within the same genus. Which, while it can happen on occasion (usually with substantial human intervention), does not result in the creation of new species, because such hybrids are rare, usually of one sex, and almost always sterile, so a breeding population cannot be created even in a large population of parent animals.

Where is your proof of this?

 

**The lines between species and subspecies are actually a lot fuzzier than textbooks written for "laymen" generally state. This actually supports Evolutionary theory, because if "a wizard did it" there would be no such need for fuzzy areas.

What makes you think that species have to be entirely different in every way to be even the slightest supportive of Creation?

[danielsangeo]

But they can't ever interbreed. Evolution does not happen in "reverse," and species of two distinct genera, even if they evolve to become very similar, cannot merge to become one species.

What proof do you have of that?

 

Because that would be the antithesis of the theory of evolution. If you could find two distinct genera merging into one species, that would falsify the theory of evolution. It just doesn't happen like a man doesn't become a wolf under the light of the full moon.

 

It just doesn't happen.

 

And no, we don't have to prove a negative.

[BTGBullseye]

Because that would be the antithesis of the theory of evolution. If you could find two distinct genera merging into one species, that would falsify the theory of evolution. It just doesn't happen like a man doesn't become a wolf under the light of the full moon.

So you're saying that because it goes against Evolution it can't happen?

 

It just doesn't happen.

 

And no, we don't have to prove a negative.

Yes you do... You made the claim that it cannot happen.

[danielsangeo]

Because that would be the antithesis of the theory of evolution. If you could find two distinct genera merging into one species, that would falsify the theory of evolution. It just doesn't happen like a man doesn't become a wolf under the light of the full moon.

So you're saying that because it goes against Evolution it can't happen?

 

No, I'm saying that it goes against reality. Now, if you have evidence of it happening....

 

It just doesn't happen.

 

And no, we don't have to prove a negative.

Yes you do... You made the claim that it cannot happen.

 

That is a negative. See the word "not"?

[BTGBullseye]

No, I'm saying that it goes against reality.

Oh, so you're omniscient then?

 

That is a negative. See the word "not"?

So? You have to prove that it's impossible for it to occur, or you have no supporting evidence for that aspect of your theory.

[danielsangeo]

No, I'm saying that it goes against reality.

Oh, so you're omniscient then?

 

Nope. But, like werewolves, unless you have evidence....

 

That is a negative. See the word "not"?

So? You have to prove that it's impossible for it to occur, or you have no supporting evidence for that aspect of your theory.

 

No. I did not make a claim. I made a disclaim. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the disclaimant.

 

I have already proved evolution. It is a fact. Plain and simple. And I can prove it again and again and again.

 

You want evidence of evolution? Look in a mirror.

You want to see what a transitional species looks like? Look in a mirror.

 

Adaptation is the way evolution happens. Without adaptation, evolution could not happen. With adaptations of adaptations of adaptation, evolution happens.

 

That's just reality. Like heat conductivity, gravity, and germs, evolution exists. Now, teach it in science class.

 

Next up: More excuses why no evidence is going to be provided for creationism.

[BTGBullseye]

No, I'm saying that it goes against reality.

Oh, so you're omniscient then?

 

Nope. But, like werewolves, unless you have evidence....

What do werewolves have to do with anything? You're claiming that it goes against reality, but you have yet to prove that reality conforms to your idea of it.

 

That is a negative. See the word "not"?

So? You have to prove that it's impossible for it to occur, or you have no supporting evidence for that aspect of your theory.

 

No. I did not make a claim. I made a disclaim. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the disclaimant.

You made the claim that it was impossible. No different of a claim than claiming that something is possible. Burden of proof is on those that wish to disprove something. So prove that it is impossible.

 

I have already proved evolution. It is a fact. Plain and simple. And I can prove it again and again and again.

 

You want evidence of evolution? Look in a mirror.

You want to see what a transitional species looks like? Look in a mirror.

Already told you, that is inaccurate. Prove that that is a valid reference.

 

Adaptation is the way evolution happens. Without adaptation, evolution could not happen. With adaptations of adaptations of adaptation, evolution happens.

Adaptation is proven, Evolution a theory that multiple adaptations might produce another species if the adaptations are permanent... They rarely (if ever) are permanent.

 

That's just reality. Like heat conductivity, gravity, and germs, evolution exists. Now, teach it in science class.

You still haven't proven it.

 

Next up: More excuses why no evidence is going to be provided for creationism.

Bible, 6000 years of history stored there. The most resourced book in history. Contains more history facts for the covered eras supported by outside documents than any other book.

 

Disprove the Bible, (not just a small little verse/book or two) and you might have the start of an anti-creation argument.

[Axeldeath]

Why don't you disprove all the other holy books.

[BTGBullseye]

Because their books are historical as well for the most part, just not as complete, or as well backed by outside sources.

[Axeldeath]

Because their books are historical as well for the most part, just not as complete, or as well backed by outside sources.

 

None of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are backed up by outside sources.

[Blue]

Because their books are historical as well for the most part, just not as complete, or as well backed by outside sources.

 

None of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are backed up by outside sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ

 

It is a miracle in of itself that Christianity became the single-most persecuted religion that existed during the Roman Empire, and the religion supplanted the very Empire that wished to destroy it in its infancy.

 

I believe this may be the part where people who argue against Christianity complain that it's only one citation, without considering the ramifications of the ignoring of the simple fact I just stated.

[Song]

None of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are backed up by outside sources.

 

Well to say it with some elven words from Lord of the Rings:

'History became legend. Legend became myth.'

 

I think (for myself only) many things of the bible simply got exaggerated over

time and gone through to many hands and languages to be still the same stories

that once might have happened.

Especially since mostly only the history of the winner is kept alive.

[Blue]

None of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are backed up by outside sources.

 

Well to say it with some elven words from Lord of the Rings:

'History became legend. Legend became myth.'

 

I think (for myself only) many things of the bible simply got exaggerated over

time and gone through to many hands and languages to be still the same stories

that once might have happened.

Especially since mostly only the history of the winner is kept alive.

If I wrote a book about my time at the British Columbia Institute of Technology twenty years from now, and said on a specific date that there was a student protest that got violent, and five people died- that book would not last. Critics would say "That's innacurate." and people who were actually there would call me out. The book wouldn't last one year for credibility.

 

And yet in testaments and public historical documents written by the Apostles, Jesus Christ died and came back to life, and ascended to heavan in front of many people, within twenty years of the event, and highly learned credible people have held it as a true document, for over two thousand years. If there was exaggeration or conjecture, it would not have stood the test of time, it would have been gleaned out by centuries of highly critical scholars, historians and researchers. It is either the most competent conspiracy ever instated by mankind, or true.

 

If you wish to read about the more fantastical tales of Jesus that may have actually been made up, there is a book of that. It's called the Apocrypha.

[Song]

it would not have stood the test of time, it would have been gleaned out by centuries of highly critical scholars, historians and researchers

 

Well yes, but for centuries too, the bible was widely only known to those who made

shitloads of wealth out of the whole mystery around it.

Or was it not like that? Can't remember, it is a long time ago I 'studied' religions.

 

But don't get me wrong!

I do believe that great minds like jesus or buddha were more then just 'normal

humans' like you and me and that supernatural events, miracles or whatever you

prefer to call it are possible.

 

But I don't particular believe in something that was written in a completely

different language such a long time ago (at least long in comparison to a human

lifetime) and which went through countless generations with every single one maybe

changing something on it...

 

And as I said, it is only my personal thinking, doesn't necesserily have/has(?) to

be right.

[danielsangeo]

Nope. But, like werewolves, unless you have evidence....

What do werewolves have to do with anything? You're claiming that it goes against reality, but you have yet to prove that reality conforms to your idea of it.

 

I bring up werewolves because it goes against reality like a horse giving birth to a duck, which is evidently what you want.

 

So? You have to prove that it's impossible--

 

Nope. Don't have to prove it's impossible. You have to prove it's possible.

 

You want evidence of evolution? Look in a mirror.

You want to see what a transitional species looks like? Look in a mirror.

Already told you, that is inaccurate. Prove that that is a valid reference.

 

Did you want me to school you in elementary school biology?

 

Adaptation is the way evolution happens. Without adaptation, evolution could not happen. With adaptations of adaptations of adaptation, evolution happens.

Adaptation is proven, Evolution a theory that multiple adaptations might produce another species if the adaptations are permanent... They rarely (if ever) are permanent.

 

Prove it.

 

That's just reality. Like heat conductivity, gravity, and germs, evolution exists. Now, teach it in science class.

You still haven't proven it.

 

What, precisely, would you like?

 

Next up: More excuses why no evidence is going to be provided for creationism.

Bible, 6000 years of history stored there. The most resourced book in history. Contains more history facts for the covered eras supported by outside documents than any other book.

 

[citation needed]

[Doom Shepherd]

None of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are backed up by outside sources.

 

Well to say it with some elven words from Lord of the Rings:

'History became legend. Legend became myth.'

 

I think (for myself only) many things of the bible simply got exaggerated over

time and gone through to many hands and languages to be still the same stories

that once might have happened.

Especially since mostly only the history of the winner is kept alive.

If I wrote a book about my time at the British Columbia Institute of Technology twenty years from now, and said on a specific date that there was a student protest that got violent, and five people died- that book would not last. Critics would say "That's innacurate." and people who were actually there would call me out. The book wouldn't last one year for credibility.

 

And yet in testaments and public historical documents written by the Apostles, Jesus Christ died and came back to life, and ascended to heavan in front of many people, within twenty years of the event, and highly learned credible people have held it as a true document, for over two thousand years. If there was exaggeration or conjecture, it would not have stood the test of time, it would have been gleaned out by centuries of highly critical scholars, historians and researchers. It is either the most competent conspiracy ever instated by mankind, or true.

 

If you wish to read about the more fantastical tales of Jesus that may have actually been made up, there is a book of that. It's called the Apocrypha.

 

Here's a few problems with the above statements...

 

1. The accounts of the Gospels are not actually contemporary. The earliest verifiable copies of the cospels date from considerably after the events. For example, the earliest known Gospel of Luke dates to about 200 AD.

 

2. During the "Dark Ages," all scholarly works, indeed essentially all writing, was copied and passed down through the years by ONE group of people: the Priestly class. This means that they could add and delete whatever references (or "historical accounts") they chose to bolster their particular viewpoints. Works that the priest class disagreed with were lost to history, often intentionally destroyed: see the story of the Library at Alexandria, of Hypatia, and of the thug who ended up becoming "Saint" Cyril. (And later, what happened to the books of the Native American cultures first encountered by the same Priestly class.)

 

3. We haven't actually HAD "centuries of highly critical scholars." What we've had for most of our history was a priestly class comparable in power to the religious police of Saudi Arabia or the Taliban, where questioning the "inerrancy" of Scripture could get one burnt at the stake or worse. It's only in the last couple of hundred years that people have been ALLOWED to doubt without risking their necks.

 

And doubt they did... there's a reason that the edition of the Bible edited by the man generally considered the smartest US President (Jefferson) contains no references to miracles or the divinity of Jesus.

[Song]

It's only in the last couple of hundred years that people have been ALLOWED to doubt without risking their necks.

 

Well, don't get mad at me, but I think it is still the same today. There are just

different topics allowed and disallowed to doubt then before.

You might not risk your neck today though, but your job, reputation and

consequently your life.

 

Nevertheless your post is what I meant too, just better phrased I guess.

[Michael Archer]

This thread makes me sad; both sides, make me sad.

 

Bullseye and the rest of the creationists make me said for proposing arbitrary, metaphysically impossible, and epistemological invalid claims. The other side makes me sad for entertaining such claims. I shall now attempt to end this thread; I do not expect to succeed.

 

Bullseye, your claims that there is a supernatural creator is arbitrary i.e. the claim has no evidence provided and is not a result of a direct observation. The theory is neither right nor is it wrong: it's simply arbitrary and has no epistemological status or place in human cognition. Evolution is supported by many facts, observations, physical evidence and research; evolution has no theory opposing it. Something is considered "knowledge" when all facts point to it and there is are no theories or evidence opposing it (arbitrary theories don't count). If you're not satisfied with the theory of evolution: propose your own theory, do your own research and come up with a better model that's supported with better evidence. Knowledge is contextual and in this context, evolution is a fact.

 

To the rest of you: next time you're presented with an arbitrary claim, don't try to consider whether it's right or wrong: simply identify it as arbitrary, dismiss it, and continue talking as though it's never come up.