Fairytale?

[Aron-Ra]

My take on the article was that it would be better if evolution was presented on the science alone without the attack on God from an atheistic viewpoint.

That's what I tried to do with you, remember? You fixated on the religious issue, not me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My take on the article was that it would be better if evolution was presented on the science alone without the attack on God from an atheistic viewpoint.

But shouldn't the "creationists" then stick to the science as well? Seems that atheism would never raise it's "ugly head" in the debate if Creationists weren't busy trying to force the God Hypothesis into science.

Science works without the God Hypothesis. It says nothing about God's existence or not. It has no bearing on the topic.

So indeed shouldn't the creationist side drop their insistence of God int the discussion?

My "unsaid" point to WC was that he implyed my posts drive people from away from my faith, and I wanted to point out that the posts from the otherside had the same effect on Creationists

Are you saying that atheists who don't present their point well actually keep people from becoming atheists?

That's a good thing from your side, right?

and if evolutionists wanted Creationists to listen they are going to have to make an attempt to change the way they are posting, also.

Actually evolution, as was stated, has nothing to say about God's existence or not. People have tried to teach others evolution for a long time, but the only time they really receive any significant resistence is when creationists raise religion as the crucial point.

It surely wasn't because of the concerted efforts of geneticists that got disclaimer stickers stuck in biology text books in the county I used to live in a couple years back.

It is always religiously motivated debate.

Atheists don't usually walk down the street and say "Hey! You should learn about evolution because it will turn you into an atheist!"

No but creationists always say "Hey, you should learn how evolution is wrong because it will keep you away from God!"

So, in the interest of giving USincognito a rest, what is your primary argument against evolution? Is it something about genetics? Is it something about the necessity of long geologic history? I think there are many here who will be willing to discuss this with you.

 

[Inan3]

But shouldn't the "creationists" then stick to the science as well? Seems that atheism would never raise it's "ugly head" in the debate if Creationists weren't busy trying to force the God Hypothesis into science.

This board should have omitted Creationism if they did not want God in the equation. It could have been called "Nothing else versus Evolution" or "Let us tell you about evolution and you just shut up" but seeings it is "Creationism and Evolution" then God is in the hypothesis. As to atheism raising it's "ugly head", I see no where in the board title that atheism is mentioned.

Science works without the God Hypothesis. It says nothing about God's existence or not. It has no bearing on the topic.

Creationism allows for the hypothesis of God in creation. It has much bearing on it's topic.

What is the definition of Creationism again?

So indeed shouldn't the creationist side drop their insistence of God in the discussion?

Given my above answers I don't see how it could and still be called Creationism.

Actually evolution, as was stated, has nothing to say about God's existence or not. People have tried to teach others evolution for a long time, but the only time they really receive any significant resistence is when creationists raise religion as the crucial point.

It surely wasn't because of the concerted efforts of geneticists that got disclaimer stickers stuck in biology text books in the county I used to live in a couple years back.

It is always religiously motivated debate.

Atheists don't usually walk down the street and say "Hey! You should learn about evolution because it will turn you into an atheist!"

No but creationists always say "Hey, you should learn how evolution is wrong because it will keep you away from God!"

http://www.atheists.org/action/
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/

So, in the interest of giving USincognito a rest, what is your primary argument against evolution? Is it something about genetics? Is it something about the necessity of long geologic history? I think there are many here who will be willing to discuss this with you.

I'll sit on this one awhile TMT. I'm kind of leary right now of really sharing any of myself with you guys. Thanks for asking though. (If you really meant it)

 

[FishFace]

I thought you might find this interesting as a contrast to what you suggested to me above.

Evolution without Atheism, and Other Ways to Sell Science:
A few weeks back, Mathew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney wrote an article for the Washington Post arguing that defenders of evolution undermine their cause when they seek to promote atheism as well. I wholly agree with this argument. There is no inherent conflict between a belief in evolution and a theistic worldview. The theory of evolution explains how human beings and other species evolved, and is a very effective way of understanding biological systems. Evolution does not purport to answer the question of how things began, or whether there was a Prime Mover who initiated the evolutionary process or perhaps even guided it. It is a scientific explanation about the natural world that we experience. When evolution advocates embrace atheistic evangelism, they not only misrepresent evolutionary theory, they also undermine their ability to communicate with a largely God-fearing public.
Nisbet and Mooney make this point in the context of a broader discussion of how scientists need to "sell" scientific understanding. While Mooney and I clearly have our differences I generally think they are correct here as well. If scientists want to have a greater influence on the public, they need to learn to talk to laypeople differently than they talk to other scientists. This does not require misrepresenting scientific research, nor does it require pretending that science can answer what are essentially normative policy questions. But it definitely requires recognizing the challenge of communicating scientific information to a relatively scientifically ignorant public.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1177512441.shtml

I think you'll be hard pushed to find many atheists round here who disagree with that quotation. The crux of the matter is that evolution still happened.

 

[FishFace]

How exactly does evolution come into play when making antibiotics?

If you ignore evolution, then antibiotics would no longer work because bacteria would be resistant. As it happens, we can develop varied antibiotics to combat evolution and also predict where evolution will take bacteria, and how fast.

 

[Inan3]

If you ignore evolution, then antibiotics would no longer work because bacteria would be resistant. As it happens, we can develop varied antibiotics to combat evolution and also predict where evolution will take bacteria, and how fast.

Please elaborate a little more if you could. I'm not getting the connections.

 

[Lilandra]

I'm up to 12 at this point and my backspace to typing ratio is limiting my response time before I go to bed so I'll just say this - <snip>

I can almost hear the slur in your voice.

 

[mrpiddly]

If you ignore evolution, then antibiotics would no longer work because bacteria would be resistant. As it happens, we can develop varied antibiotics to combat evolution and also predict where evolution will take bacteria, and how fast.

i was under the impression that antibiotics sometimes do not work because of evolution. Usually the antibiotic will kill all the bacteria but if it is misused, then the bacteria will become resistant to the antibiotic. All it takes is one resistant microorganism. The resistant one will be the most successful and will breed the most times. Eventually, all the microorganisms produced will be resistant to the antibiotic.

 

[Lilandra]

I'll sit on this one awhile TMT. I'm kind of leary right now of really sharing any of myself with you guys. Thanks for asking though. (If you really meant it)

Of course, he means it. He helped me to understand evolution, when I was an Old Earth Creationist here 3 years ago.

http://foru.ms/t1174455-the-systematic-classification-of-life.html

 

[Baggins]

I'll sit on this one awhile TMT. I'm kind of leary right now of really sharing any of myself with you guys. Thanks for asking though. (If you really meant it)

Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and be proven a fool

 

[TheOutsider]

Please elaborate a little more if you could. I'm not getting the connections.

Not sure if this helps or not, but here is an article about the evolution of antibiotic resistance. PBS has a lot of good info about evolution, btw.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html

 

[thaumaturgy]

Creationism allows for the hypothesis of God in creation. It has much bearing on it's topic.

Ah, but Creationism is not science. It's religion.

But I agree religion and science should be discussed here because here is where it meets.

I was actually responding to the article you posted that indicated there was some link between atheists and evolution. While most atheists may believe in evolution, not all who believe in evolution are atheists.

That's why in reality there isn't a debate between "Christianity vs Evolution".

Creationism seeks to force religion into science. That's why I debate against. That's what I find frustrating.

Because you know, in the vast majority of cases (certainly on here) it's the people who don't know much of anything about science that most vociferously want to change science.

It's like me demanding that the Electrical Workers Union should change Ohm's Law based on my ignorance of electricity but simply because it would make me feel better!

I'll sit on this one awhile TMT. I'm kind of leary right now of really sharing any of myself with you guys.

That's your perogative. But considering that stating a scientific stance is hardly "sharing yourself". It actually just sounds like you simply don't want to expose any possible lack of knowledge of the subject.

And that's fine too! I do it all the time myself. If I am in a room with a bunch of electrochemists I usually keep my mouth shut.

The last thing I would do is lay into their field because I don't understand it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Creationism allows for the hypothesis of God in creation. It has much bearing on it's topic.

It can't be an hypothesis until you've proposed some way to potentially falsify it. All hypotheses must be testable. If it can't be tested, measured, or indicated by any objectively verifiable means, then it can't be scientific.

What is the definition of Creationism again?

the fraction of religious believers who, [for political and religious reasons] reject the conclusions, principles, and methods of science, and rely instead on blind faith in assumed authorities in an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally conjured out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else &#8211;despite all indications to the contrary.

 

[Blayz]

The Polio vaccine had more to do with trial and error than Darwin.

I met Albert Sabin, and I spent the first part of my career working in a poliovirus lab.

This is the stupidest strawman I have ever seen. The depth of your ignorance is astounding.

 

[Inan3]

I apologize, I keep forgetting that I am talking with scientists. I have included a few definitions of hypothesis just so you will know where I was coming from. I believe you were meaning scientific hypothesis which the 4th definition covers.


hy·poth·e·sis [ h&#299; póth&#601;ssiss ] (plural hy·poth·e·ses [ h&#299; póth&#601; s&#63485;z ])
noun Definition:1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation

The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.
2. assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument

That is what would logically follow if you accepted the hypothesis.
3. antecedent clause: in logic, the antecedent of a conditional statement

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/hypothesis.html

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

hy·poth·e·sis (h&#299;-p&#335;th'&#301;-s&#301;s)

n., pl. -ses (-s&#275;z').

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

[Latin, subject for a speech, from Greek hupothesi
http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis?cat=biz-fin

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

Definition of hypothesis :
An assumption not proved by experiment or observation that is made for the sake of testing its soundness.

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=hypothesis

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

A hypothesis (from Greek &#8017;&#960;&#972;&#952;&#949;&#963;&#953;&#962;) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

[FishFace]

I'm afraid I did not read those definitions, because there's no need. We're working with the scientific definition, and a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

 

[Inan3]

That's your perogative. But considering that stating a scientific stance is hardly "sharing yourself". It actually just sounds like you simply don't want to expose any possible lack of knowledge of the subject.

And that's fine too! I do it all the time myself. If I am in a room with a bunch of electrochemists I usually keep my mouth shut.

The last thing I would do is lay into their field because I don't understand it.

Well it may sound that way to you but I have already voluntarily made known my lack of knowledge on the subject of science.

It is more the manner in which I have been responded to that keeps me from venturing in. Not that I am so sensitive that I cannot handle it but I am more concerned about my "response to the response". It's all part of my "walk" if you know what I mean. I agree with what Liliandra was saying it is foolish to keep it going. I do not want to "be" what I don't like in others. I know what my shortcoming are and I know that I don't have to live there. I would prefer to step back and see how and if I am going to get involved in discussions and with whom. I expect it to be a learning experience for me one way or another. Meantime, I keep searching the web and finding things out that possibly I will sometimes ask about.

 

[Inan3]

I'm afraid I did not read those definitions, because there's no need. We're working with the scientific definition, and a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Don't be afraid it's okay. I'm not offended and I'm sure USIncognito will be proud.

 

[NailsII]

Not sure if this helps or not, but here is an article about the evolution of antibiotic resistance. PBS has a lot of good info about evolution, btw.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html

Great link.

the fraction of religious believers who, [for political and religious reasons] reject the conclusions, principles, and methods of science, and rely instead on blind faith in assumed authorities in an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally conjured out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else –despite all indications to the contrary.

Cracking summary.

 

[Inan3]

Great link.


Cracking summary.

"Cracking" description.