Evolution As Science? Really...?

Donkeytron · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
You can explain any given process or reaction without ever getting into evolution and as far as any evolutionary teaching goes in schools you can opt not to be a participant in those teachings and still pass ... Go figure.

Whaa?

Loudmouth · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
You can explain any given process or reaction without ever getting into evolution and as far as any evolutionary teaching goes in schools you can opt not to be a participant in those teachings and still pass ... Go figure.

Answer the question. Did you ever explain the results of an experiment with "God Did It"?

Morallyangelic · Dec 2, 2005

cerad said:
So you are also a biologist and managed to get your degree by answering "God Did It" to evolution type questions? Which university did you attend? Or were you talking about other biologists?

I'm not talking about ANY biologists. I'm not a biologist.
And I didn't say that I said " God did it " to anything.

Dannager · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
I'm not talking about ANY biologists. I'm not a biologist.
And I didn't say that I said " God did it " to anything.

Could you please illustrate to us how many (non-denominational) higher-learning schools allow their students to "opt out" of evolutionary teachings? I attend a university in which I know a student wishing to "opt out" would be laughed at by the professor and told to drop the course if necessary, because he'll be damned if he lets a student graduate in biology without a decent education.

Cassandra · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
I don't understand your arguing tactics or the ' lingo ' used on this or any forum for that matter. From what I've read throughout these things everyone seems to over exercise you intelligence.

Why not speak in lamens terms for those who may not understand?

I understand your point, but it isn't that hard for lay people to look up what the 'lingo' means. Think of it like studying Shakespeare. When you read Shakespeare you often have to consult the back of the book or some citation or even a whole other book to find out the meanings of words/phrases.

I am no scientist. When I first came here there were plenty of terms I did not understand. I asked or looked them up. I still have to do that sometime. People don't use 'scientific lingo' to try to appear intelligent. At least I've never been impressed by anyone using technical language. Also, some terms are used so frequently that you forget it isn't a common phrase.

Cassandra · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
as far as any evolutionary teaching goes in schools you can opt not to be a participant in those teachings and still pass ... Go figure.

Which schools are these? And I'm speaking of ones that specifically accept 'I didn't want to learn about evolution' as a valid reason for being absent from the class.

We studied an entire chapter (over 100 pages) in the course of a week and had a whole exam devoted to evolution in my Anthropology class...I'd think the work for a biology class, to which evolution is even more specific, there would be more work and study. I know if I had missed those classes/ didn't read the text I would have failed the exam and probably received a letter grade less.

Morallyangelic · Dec 2, 2005

You can opt out of anything for religious beliefs - You still have to take the tests but you can put answers like " Well the textbook says this BUT ... "

And I am NOT a biologist for the second time.

RufusTheRevelator · Dec 2, 2005

you didnt have one original word on that statement
please form some ideas

random_guy · Dec 2, 2005

Let's reverse the situation and post quotes by Creationists to see which side is more valid.

IF the Bible told me the sky was made of blue cheese, I'd believe it and any hypthesis to the contrary would be in error, no matter the supposed "scientific evidence against it.

You see, the problem is if we keep just posting quotes, we'll get nowhere. That's why evidence matters not what people say.

Dannager · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
You can opt out of anything for religious beliefs - You still have to take the tests but you can put answers like " Well the textbook says this BUT ... "

And I am NOT a biologist for the second time.

Yes, you can opt out of anything for religious beliefs. In the case of a university, you would be opting out of class and a biology major. Again, please show me a non-denominational institution that allows students to graduate with a major in any of the biological sciences without an acceptance of the theory of evolution. Answering " Well the textbook says this BUT ... " is cute, but will get you labeled a moron in any science classroom unless the topic at hand is actually under significant controversy in the scientific community (hint: evolutionary theory is not under significant controversy in the scientific community).

Edmond · Dec 2, 2005

random_guy said:
Let's reverse the situation and post quotes by Creationists to see which side is more valid.

You see, the problem is if we keep just posting quotes, we'll get nowhere. That's why evidence matters not what people say.

Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

-------------------------------------

Caphi · Dec 2, 2005

random_guy said:
Let's reverse the situation and post quotes by Creationists to see which side is more valid.

You see, the problem is if we keep just posting quotes, we'll get nowhere. That's why evidence matters not what people say.

Ooh, I wanna try.

what are some scriptures that prove Esau's theory on the earth's orbit is incorrect? I heard a while back in the truth that everything revolves around the earth and that it doesn't rotate but stands still

And for the record, I did NOT mine this, it is there exactly as stated on FSTDT. Edmond, on the other hand, clearly went in and cherry-picked his. Isn't Amplification of Distinction fun?

Donkeytron · Dec 2, 2005

Edmond said:
Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

-------------------------------------

QUOTES FROM 1886!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Valkhorn · Dec 2, 2005

They constitue the presence of massive evidence.

No. Quotes from 1886 do not constitue evidence.

EVIDENCE constitutes evidence.

Do you even know what evolution is?

Loudmouth · Dec 2, 2005

Edmond said:
Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

-------------------------------------

New evidence has emerged since the late 1800's, which is why those quotes are invalid.

Other quotes are pulled out of context, such as the Gould quote. This is often called "quote mining". It is a dishonest practice that you should be ashamed of.

The other quotes are made by physicists and other non-biological professionals. If you are arguing from a position of authority, then you need to use quotes from authorities within the discipline you are discussing. If it is evolution, then you need quotes from prominent biologists.

Also, if such large volumes of contradictory evidence does exist, then you shouldn't have any problem discussing it in another thread. My guess is that we won't see any that threatens the theory of evolution, only strawman versions that exist in the world of creationism.

Caphi · Dec 2, 2005

Edmond said:
Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAno.

Edmond. You are the LAST person on this forum who can in good conscience accuse anyone else, even be he the reincarnation of Houdini, of using escape tactics, when you yourself are currently the most infamous escape tactician on the forum.

And quotes don't count as evidence unless they are quotes from peer-reviewed dissertations by prominent scientists in the field they write about. You've given nothing more than cherry-picked or truffle-dug snips from individuals most of whom didn't even work in biology at all, let alone paleobiology or anthropology.

Loudmouth · Dec 2, 2005

Edmond,

If you want the real history of the development of the theory of evolution I would suggest reading this article written by Ernst Mayr. This article is a short synopsis of Dr. Mayr's experiences in biology over the last 80 years (he was 100 years old when he wrote the article). If anyone is in a position to judge whether or not evolution has been supported by new evidence and new hypotheses, it is Ernst Mayr. Here is a little snippet from the article (it's also one of my favorite Mayr quotes).

"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm--nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."

notto · Dec 2, 2005

Edmond said:
Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

-------------------------------------

So then every quote by prominent scientists that talk about how evolution is the best science out there contitute the presence of massive evidence, right?

Do you think we can find a few of those?

Will you accept them as evidence? You haven't in the past. Why should yours be accepted as evidence?

Creationists sure have some strange ideas about science.

random_guy · Dec 2, 2005

Edmond said:
Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

-------------------------------------

That's hilarious. Quotes from leading scientists from 1888 count as evidence? Let's post Netwon's thoughts on alchemy since he was the leading scientist of his time in order to disprove atheistic chemistry.

BTW, the quote I posted was not out of context, either. It just goes to show you a glimpse into the Creationist's mind.

HairlessSimian · Dec 2, 2005

Morallyangelic said:
As a Christian when I read those quotes I see some people who are educated in their fields going against evolution and I'm taking them at face value.

Because that fits in with your beliefs.
If you saw a quote from a Christian going against christianity, you'd be suspicious.

Evolution As Science? Really...?

Veteran

Contributor

Dr.Suessarian!

Back in Town

Cassandra

Guest

Cassandra

Guest

Dr.Suessarian!

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Back in Town

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Legend

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency