Creationism VS Public schools

[Psudopod]

LOL.
No, it actually doesn't. It's just the vicious nature of the attacks I've noted in this thread. It's amusing.

Please show me some of these vicious attacks, because I must have missed them.

 

[atomweaver]

Creationism is not "on the verge" of being taught in public schools. Our moronic friends at the ACLU will never let that happen, nor will the liberals or the radical left. They will never let such a good thing happen.

Nor will moderates like myself. Nor should anyone who would prefer not to relinquish to the government their right to teach their children religious beliefs of their own choosing. Talk about your moronic liberals... when you advocate for putting some of the most critical decisions of child-raising into the hands of government, you become the moronic liberal.

And I know enough about evolution to know that Biblical creation makes a whole lot more sense and takes a whole lot less faith to believe in.

You haven't demonstrated enough accurate knowledge of evolution to answer that question sufficiently. At best, you have chosen Creationism over Creationism's distortion of evolution. Its a false choice, but in light of the false options you've been given thus far, your choice of Creationism is understandable...

I like that you embodied Creationism in the form of me.

Actually he embodied Ignorance of Evolution in the form of you. You just applied a common false dichotomy, and equated that with Creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

LOL.
No, it actually doesn't. It's just the vicious nature of the attacks I've noted in this thread. It's amusing.

Creationism is not "on the verge" of being taught in public schools. Our moronic friends at the ACLU will never let that happen, nor will the liberals or the radical left.

Does the work Hypocrisy mean anything to you?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

And I know enough about evolution to know that Biblical creation makes a whole lot more sense and takes a whole lot less faith to believe in.

Quite clearly then you know little about biology and even less about geology. Most creationists like attacking evolution as if they are standing on some moral high ground, but were creationists really are is in the dark pit of ignorance looking up at the bright light above.

The one thing that seems to elude creationists is that the science that does the most damage to creationism and in fact totally destroys it, is GEOLOGY.

The only place creationism make sense is in the minds of ignorant and indoctrinated fools.

 

[Dogbean]

Quite clearly then you know little about biology and even less about geology. Most creationists like attacking evolution as if they are standing on some moral high ground, but were creationists really are is in the dark pit of ignorance looking up at the bright light above.

The one thing that seems to elude creationists is that the science that does the most damage to creationism and in fact totally destroys it, is GEOLOGY.

The only place creationism make sense is in the minds of ignorant and indoctrinated fools.

Ok then. Let's have it. Prove evolution. And I mean "macroevolution," not "microevolution." Prove that species change into other species. Show me uncontestable proof in the fossil record of such changes, and prove to me the existance of intermediate forms. This should be entertaining. If you can convince me, then I'll become an evolutionist and I'll reject creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quite clearly then you know little about biology and even less about geology.

Good --- my mind is clear enough then to tell biologists and geologists to take a hike. In fact, if you look inside my mind, you won't find a thing.

Most creationists like attacking evolution as if they are standing on some moral high ground, but were creationists really are is in the dark pit of ignorance looking up at the bright light above.

This creationist has a neat-o way of putting it:

• Genesis 1 pwns evolution; Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.

The one thing that seems to elude creationists is that the science that does the most damage to creationism and in fact totally destroys it, is GEOLOGY.

Hmmm --- I think the ROCK OF AGES might have the last Word on that, eh?

The only place creationism make sense is in the minds of ignorant and indoctrinated fools.

I wasn't aware creationism made sense to atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok then. Let's have it. Prove evolution.

You opened a can of worms with that word, bro. Now you're gonna get a lecture on "proof."

 

[AV1611VET]

Tackleberry --- off the record --- nice profile.

Do you play in the Armed Forces Chess Tournament, by any chance?

(If they still have it.)

 

[atomweaver]

Ok then. Let's have it. Prove evolution.

You first, Tackleberry. Prove Creationism.

 

[Psudopod]

Ok then. Let's have it. Prove evolution. And I mean "macroevolution," not "microevolution." Prove that species change into other species. Show me uncontestable proof in the fossil record of such changes, and prove to me the existance of intermediate forms. This should be entertaining. If you can convince me, then I'll become an evolutionist and I'll reject creation.

Before that, can you do a cople of things. Define macro evolution. Are you looking at speciation?

Also, what you expect a transitional fossil to look like?

I want to know what you are expecting, so that I can tell you if it can be provided. Some people think transitionals should have "half a wing" or a "nub becoming a leg". Obviously this isn't the way evolution works, but some people will ask for this and then claim evolution is false based on this strawman.

 

[Cabal]

You opened a can of worms with that word, bro. Now you're gonna get a lecture on "proof."

Along with many other basics too, no doubt, including a hopefully-not-futile lesson in goal-post shifting.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In fact, if you look inside my mind, you won't find a thing.

QFT.

 

[Dogbean]

Tackleberry --- off the record --- nice profile.

Do you play in the Armed Forces Chess Tournament, by any chance?

(If they still have it.)

When I was in the Air Force, I played in my base's chess tournament, and I would have advanced to the Air Force chess tournament but I lost. I had to play against last year's defending base champion. It took him a mere ten minutes to beat me.

 

[Dogbean]

You first, Tackleberry. Prove Creationism.

Thank you. You have just validated my point.

[/color][/font][/i][/b]

Before that, can you do a cople of things. Define macro evolution. Are you looking at speciation?

Also, what you expect a transitional fossil to look like?

I want to know what you are expecting, so that I can tell you if it can be provided. Some people think transitionals should have "half a wing" or a "nub becoming a leg". Obviously this isn't the way evolution works, but some people will ask for this and then claim evolution is false based on this strawman.

By macroevolution, I mean one species changing into another through a series of intermediate forms. Evolutionary theory states that all life ultimately evolved from single celled organisms that lived in the water. If that is the case, everything evolved from something else, and there would have to be millions of transitions, yet there is not a single transitional form to back this idea up. There is no example of a fish that started growing legs, no example of fish that developed wings and became birds, etc.

Another thing...
Why do things evolve? To get better, stronger, more resistant to predators, etc. So it's based on survival of the fittest. If one species developed into a better species, why are all these old species still around? If fish developed into birds, and birds into dinosaurs, and ultimately into primates and then humans, why are there still fish? Why are there still single celled organisms? That just does not make sense.

 

[Tomk80]

By macroevolution, I mean one species changing into another through a series of intermediate forms. Evolutionary theory states that all life ultimately evolved from single celled organisms that lived in the water. If that is the case, everything evolved from something else, and there would have to be millions of transitions, yet there is not a single transitional form to back this idea up. There is no example of a fish that started growing legs, no example of fish that developed wings and became birds, etc.

Another thing...

You do realize that "fish deloping legs" and one species changing into another are different things, do you? What is your definition of a species?

Why do things evolve? To get better, stronger, more resistant to predators, etc. So it's based on survival of the fittest.

Almost, but not quite. Evolution is based on who gets the most offspring. Even more so, on whoms offspring get the most offspring. There are other ways to get most offspring than to survive the longest, being better/stronger etc. You could for example be weaker but work together.

If one species developed into a better species, why are all these old species still around? If fish developed into birds, and birds into dinosaurs, and ultimately into primates and then humans, why are there still fish? Why are there still single celled organisms? That just does not make sense.

Because different species develop for different places in the eco-system. To take the example of anti-biotic resistance, in a place where anti-biotics are used very often, a resistant strain can evolve and have the benefit. However, in a different place on earth where no anti-biotics are used at the same time, the old species can still be in place, because there was never a "need" for anti-biotic resistence to evolve. It makes perfect sense as long as you recognize that nature has an almost endless amount of "best spots", where one thing will work better here, while another will work better there.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
Because different species develop for different places in the eco-system. To take the example of anti-biotic resistance, in a place where anti-biotics are used very often, a resistant strain can evolve and have the benefit. However, in a different place on earth where no anti-biotics are used at the same time, the old species can still be in place, because there was never a "need" for anti-biotic resistence to evolve. It makes perfect sense as long as you recognize that nature has an almost endless amount of "best spots", where one thing will work better here, while another will work better there.

an even better example might be the same strain in two different locations being exposed to two different antibiotics, and developing two different strains from it.

 

[atomweaver]

Thank you. You have just validated my point.

Only if your point was "proof is for math and alcohol, not science and religion." Although, there are different reasons why "proof" is an invalid concept for science, than for religion. For science, its because future facts and observations can modify or overturn prior theories. For religion, its because of a lack of material evidence for the supernatural.

 

[Vene]

Creationism is not "on the verge" of being taught in public schools. Our moronic friends at the ACLU will never let that happen, nor will the liberals or the radical left. They will never let such a good thing happen.

And I know enough about evolution to know that Biblical creation makes a whole lot more sense and takes a whole lot less faith to believe in.

I like that you embodied Creationism in the form of me. I'll take that as a compliment, because I believe it and I'm proud of it.

So, I guess you think John E. Jones III was a liberal member of the ACLU. He was the judge that presided over the Dover trial (over whether intelligent design can be taught in public schools). He was appointed by the liberal George W. Bush and is a member of the liberal Republican party. Damn liberals.

As for one species turning into another, easy. There's a list over here of speciation events complete with references to the journals where it was first published. Some more are over here. An example would be the Faeroe Island house mouse and the paper Macroevolution: Pattern and Process was published in 1979. It's not like this is anything new. If you had taken any time to research the subject your would know that you are making it too easy.

So, now it's your turn. Provide a piece of evidence (not a PRATT) for creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

By macroevolution, I mean one species changing into another through a series of intermediate forms. Evolutionary theory states that all life ultimately evolved from single celled organisms that lived in the water. If that is the case, everything evolved from something else, and there would have to be millions of transitions, yet there is not a single transitional form to back this idea up. There is no example of a fish that started growing legs, no example of fish that developed wings and became birds, etc.

Here are some examples of tranistionals between fish and tetrapods... just what you asked for. Tetrapods evolved from certain types of lobe-finned fish during the Devonian Period. We know of more than a dozen fossil species, so far. There are plenty of links for you to click on to see fossils, recontructions, etc.
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html

Enjoy!

Another thing...
Why do things evolve? To get better, stronger, more resistant to predators, etc. So it's based on survival of the fittest. If one species developed into a better species, why are all these old species still around? If fish developed into birds, and birds into dinosaurs, and ultimately into primates and then humans, why are there still fish? Why are there still single celled organisms? That just does not make sense.

It is not always about a new species being better than the old species. It is very often about a population taking advantage of a new or newly vacated ecological niche. This is why mass extinction events are always followed by a vast amount of adaptive radiations. The mammalian conquest of the land following the K-T event and the demise of non-avian dinosaurs is a classic example of this. Another think to remember is that every species around today is evolved compared to its ancestors. Their course of evolution may not be as dramatic as others' but they are still different from their ancestors. For example, bacteria still fill many ecological roles that their ancestors did back in the Precambrian, but the species and many higher taxa a different.

 

[Danyc]

Tacklebery, I am glad you have showed a vested interest in learning; if you are willing to learn has yet to be shown. But please read what we have to say, and do not dismiss things offhand. You need to look at the facts and look at them carefully. I will now address this set of questions, please read these answers I'm giving you.

Another thing...
Why do things evolve? To get better, stronger, more resistant to predators, etc.

A common misunderstanding, I won't harp on you for it. Ok, first things first:

There is no 'why' in evolution. Why do things evolve? They simply do. It is not a why question. This is really important, remember this.

Right now we are trying to help you better understand was evolution actually is.

Theology has the final say on the 'why' question. Science says 'how'.

So it's based on survival of the fittest.

Sort of. But you mustn't misunderstand what the word 'fittest' means. 'Fittest' is used in context to a specific creatures' environment.

Can you tell me which animal is more fit, a tortoise, or a hare?

Well, say these two animals lived in a desert environment. Now, introduce birds of prey into this desert environment.

The hare is now hunted by these birds. The hare is now less fit for its environment, that is, it is less likely to reproduce than the tortoise, because the tortoise will not be hunted by these birds. They cannot take down a tortoise. But, they can attack and kill the hares.

The hare is now less fit than the tortoise, and the tortoise is now more fit for the environment then the hare is.

Do you now understand what 'survival of the fittest' means?

If one species developed into a better species, why are all these old species still around? If fish developed into birds, and birds into dinosaurs, and ultimately into primates and then humans, why are there still fish? Why are there still single celled organisms? That just does not make sense.

You're question is a common one, and I'm not surprised, it seems an obvious problem for evolution if you do not fully understand the implications of the question you are asking.

Ok, think about this:

The U.S. is here. The U.S. exists. It is a country across the sea from Britain.

Now...Was not the U.S. started by British people?

Why are British people still in existance if they became American people?

The simple answer to this question and yours is, not every British person became an American. The majority stayed back in Britain.

In the same way, not every member of a species undergoes the same evolutionary stages.

To give an example, if a group of black insects lived in the forest, and one of them, when born, was green, would not this green insect have a higher chance of reproduction than its brothers? After all, it can hide amongst the green leaves of the forest. Its brothers cannot. It would be less vulnerable to predators.

Now, this one insect is still green. But, it and its offspring and its offspring's offspring are the only green ones; the black insects still exist. They may or may not die off, but if they live on, there are now two colours of insects.

And you would be asking, if the green insects evolved from the black insects, why are black insects still around?


Many of the questions you are asking show a basic misunderstanding of what evolution actually is and what it entails. But its not a problem; we're always learning. Hopefully you learned something today as well.


Please read everything abovea few times over to really try and understand it. It is actually quite simple.