"Dilbert" Demonstrates Evolution

[Caffeine Socialism]

What are you talking about? I just wanted to know why he's an IDer. Stay out of things that don't concern you.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by npetreley
If you can imagine it happened, then it's true. That's all you need to know, and that's all the evidence they have.

Funny how you claim to be a scientist yet you know so little about science.

 

[Sky]

I believe in ID because it is the most logical conclusion. Life could not have started from just random evolution, it is too complex, God must have created it. And young-earth creationism is scientifically impossible, the earth is much more than 6000 years old.

 

[Morat]

 believe in ID because it is the most logical conclusion. Life could not have started from just random evolution, it is too complex, God must have created it. And young-earth creationism is scientifically impossible, the earth is much more than 6000 years old

  That's an excellent example of two logical fallacies. Strawman (evolution is not random, although mutations are) and personal incredulity (I can't believe it happened this way, therefore it didn't).

 

 

[Philosophic]

Originally posted by Sky77
I believe in ID because it is the most logical conclusion. Life could not have started from just random evolution, it is too complex, God must have created it. And young-earth creationism is scientifically impossible, the earth is much more than 6000 years old.

I'm open to the idea of ID, as I indicated in my essay HERE. But I won't actually believe it without proper scientific evidence, which has so far not appeared.

As for evolution, properly defined, evolution is a fact. I accept the way that Daniel C. Dennett treats the matter in his book "Darwin's Dangerious Idea." Darwin's idea was only that organisms mutate and are, over time, selected by the environment for optimal qualities of existence. If the environment changes, selection occurs again. The idea of "punctuated equilibrium" only means that the environment appears to remain stable for long periods of time before a change occurs and the ecosystem needs to readjust itself by forcing some (or all) organisms to evolve to a new state of optimal equilibrium within an altered fitness landscape.

Darwin said nothing about the origin of LIFE. For all Darwin knew, life really was magically placed on the face of the Earth by God. (Darwin was an agnostic.) Darwin's sole assertion was that, over a long-enough period of time, species do evolve from earlier species. That assertion appears to now be an incontestable fact. (All but the most adament creationists admit to at least micro-evolution.)

I don't care what Christians believe about the origins of life so long as they don't prohibit research into that area of knowledge and don't force their beliefs upon unbelievers or the children of unbelievers. Teach your kids about creation in church all that you care to. But don't try to get papers published in a major biology journal about how God created this or that animal on the third or fourth day.

In any case, I'm OK with Christians being skeptical of claims about the origins of life. Thats an open question for scientific inquiry. And Darwin never made any claim about the origins of life, so even creation by God would not disprove Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by npetreley
If you can imagine it happened, then it's true. That's all you need to know, and that's all the evidence they have.

Sometimes I can just swear you're actually an evolutionist doing this for giggles.

First to detect the hypocrisy in Nick's comment gets no prize whatsoever!

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Sky77
I am a Christian, I wouldn't call myself a Creationist though, I believe in Intelligent Design.

 

Where is the difference between design and creation? The disgner designed and didn´t create, the creator created but didn´t design?

 

[armageddonman]

 

God must have created it.

Why a god? Why the christian god?

 

[Sky]

Morat:

Evolution is theory, not fact. Micro evolution is fact.

Armageddonman: Because I am a Christian.

 

[Morat]

Evolution is theory, not fact. Micro evolution is fact.

  Sorta. *shrug*. Evolution is a theory. So is Atomic theory, Relativity, gravity, and a few other nifty things that are rather uncontestable.

  Speciation, which is a prediction of evolution (or evolution in action) has been observed.

   It's nice to have your theories supported so visibly.

 

 

[alexgb00]

Evolution is a theory. So is Atomic theory, Relativity, gravity, and a few other nifty things that are rather uncontestable.

What's your point?

You can add to that list alchemy, cold fusion, and the geocentrical theory. They're also theories. Oh yes, Creation is a theory also, which (by your definition) makes it just as sound as darwinism.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by alexgb00
What's your point?

You can add to that list alchemy, cold fusion, and the geocentrical theory. They're also theories. Oh yes, Creation is a theory also, which (by your definition) makes it just as sound as darwinism.

No, they aren't.  (That's the short answer) 

Surely by now it has been explained to you what constitutes a theory in regard to Science - that it is the best explanation for a collection of evidence.  Something that is so likely that it would be perverse to ignore it.

Theory does not mean guess, or hypothesis, which is what you seem to think it means.
 

What, exactly, do you think the *scientific* Theory of Creation says? 


cheers,
Prax

 

[alexgb00]

Hello, Praxiteles! Welcome...

Prax, i don't completely agree with your definition. Cold fusion is a theory, because it is theoretically possible, but most likely doesn't happen. The geocentrical theory was an accepted idea by some people at one time, but has now been disproven. Does that retire its title as a theory?

As for Creation, i have seen a lot of evidence for it which i have never seen when i was taught evolution. If evolution is a sure explanation for the world, why don't teachers take the time to disprove it in classrooms? It doesn't make sense, like they're keeping quiet about it.

God bless you, Prax!
Alex †

 

[npetreley]

Evolution isn't a theory. It's an attempt to explain our existence (or current state) from a naturalist perspective in spite of the evidence rather than because of it. My eighth grade teacher would have called it a "myth" since he defined "mythology" as man's propensity to make up stories in an attempt to explain the unexplainable.

 

[alexgb00]

That's true, Nick. It's just that the majority of the people have been taught evolution since pre-school, and at that age, kids believe anything you tell them. Afterwards, when they're older, you can keep them believing in it (even vigorously defending it) easily.

God bless you, man.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by alexgb00
As for Creation, i have seen a lot of evidence for it which i have never seen when i was taught evolution. If evolution is a sure explanation for the world, why don't teachers take the time to disprove it in classrooms? It doesn't make sense, like they're keeping quiet about it.

Alex E[/B]

 

Why do teachers not take the time to disprove creationism in the classroom? Two reasons come to my head immediatly.

One, in grades 1-12 and in basic college classes most teachers do not have the education to or the time to sit down with a class and debunk every creation story known to mankind. The time is felt better spent on trying to get students to understand how the basics of science works. As far as the higher classes, mostly they do not have to because few creationists seem to take science majors.

Two, the seperation of church and state in the lower schools helps to protect creationism since it is concidered to be a tenant of a religion. How many churches would scream if a high school science class ripped apart the bible and exposed the historical and scientific problems it has to the student body.

  

 

[alexgb00]

Maybe you're right, Lewis. I don't know. But i've been to school and haven't ever heard teachers even mention Creation.

God bless you!
Alex

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Sky77
Morat:

Evolution is theory, not fact. Micro evolution is fact.

 

It´s a fact. There are theories dealing with evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

"Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor.

 

Armageddonman: Because I am a Christian.

So the designer of a hindu would be vishnu?

 

 

[alexgb00]

AM, i'm sure evoluiton is true. It is such a broad word. I believe in the evolution of the languages and the evolution of technology, for examples. I even believe that animals change each generation (that's obvious), but i can't believe that this is an upward progression.

It's just that many people don't believe in biological/darwinian evolution, which is what Sky77 meant, i think.

God bless you, AM!

Ihrer Amerikanisher Freund,
Alex

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by alexgb00
AM, i'm sure evoluiton is true. It is such a broad word. I believe in the evolution of the languages and the evolution of technology, for examples. I even believe that animals change each generation (that's obvious), but i can't believe that this is an upward progression.

Alex

 

Well, not believing in the "ladder of evolution" is a good thing Alex, for it is not and never has been the scientific view of evolution. The ladder view was created to justify "social darwinism" and help to keep the wealthy and influencial in power and had far more to do with controling the masses than science.

 

True evolution is a short term thing, it is only about surviving ones curent environment and not much else.