Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[MIDutch]

Maybe it was your teachers back in the 1950s and 1960s who should be blamed, since you have 'learned' a very faulty view of what evolution is.

I'm guessing the teaching of the Theory of Evolution was fairly adequate for it's time (science has learned a lot since the 50s and 60s). It probably has more to do with "finding religion" and concluding that anything that contradicts that religion MUST be wrong. Sort of like that Grand Canyon tour guide who understood the ancient Earth geology of the canyon, who then ended up marrying a fundamentalist Christian who "convinced" him with passages read out of scripture that everything he knew was incorrect.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe it was your teachers back in the 1950s and 1960s who should be blamed, since you have 'learned' a very faulty view of what evolution is.

Seems to be a common theme among creationists here where their education on the subject is from the mid-20th century.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm guessing the teaching of the Theory of Evolution was fairly adequate for it's time (science has learned a lot since the 50s and 60s). It probably has more to do with "finding religion" and concluding that anything that contradicts that religion MUST be wrong. Sort of like that Grand Canyon tour guide who understood the ancient Earth geology of the canyon, who then ended up marrying a fundamentalist Christian who "convinced" him with passages read out of scripture that everything he knew was incorrect.

It may have been quite awful. Where I was in high school back in the fifties, evolution was a two-week unit in a biology class that was intended to meet the science requirement for kids not going on to college and was taught by a PE coach in his free period who didn't know any more about the subject than what was in the textbook. It's still that way in many places.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may have been quite awful. Where I was in high school back in the fifties, evolution was a two-week unit in a biology class that was intended to meet the science requirement for kids not going on to college and was taught by a PE coach in his free period who didn't know any more about the subject than what was in the textbook. It's still that way in many places.

Or worse, taught by creationists in some states. Think of how convincing evolution taught by someone that only used strawman versions would be.

 

[MIDutch]

It may have been quite awful. Where I was in high school back in the fifties, evolution was a two-week unit in a biology class that was intended to meet the science requirement for kids not going on to college and was taught by a PE coach in his free period who didn't know any more about the subject than what was in the textbook. It's still that way in many places.

I suppose it could have been, but I was trying to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt. I know lots of teachers and generally they are very good people who try to do the best they can with the resources at their disposal. A "a two-week unit in a biology class that was intended to meet the science requirement for kids not going on to college and was taught by a PE coach in his free period" is the fault of the education system, not the qualified teachers trying to teach it (I'll give you that the PE coach shouldn't be the one teaching it). IIRC the Theory of Relativity got about the same amount of coverage in those science classes, or less, and as far as I can tell, the creationists don't seem to have a problem with that theory. In my opinion, creationism is not so much a lack of education as it is a lack of curiosity about reality and an unwillingness to learn.

 

[Astrophile]

What evidence would you need to convince you that there is a living God?

Seeing a miracle for myself might be enough. A detailed biography, based on eye-witness accounts, of Jesus or of another claimant to divinity would be strong evidence. A detailed and precise prophecy that was fulfilled, long enough after the event for prediction by natural means to be improbable, would also be strong evidence.

On the whole, I think that the evidence that could convince me would be cumulative, like the evidence for scientific facts, rather than a single fact. It would probably be gathered over several years, so it is difficult to explain in precise terms what form the evidence would take.

 

[pitabread]

What evidence would you need to convince you that there is a living God?

My philosophical take on this is as follows:

If there were really were an omnipotent, omniscient being that desired my belief/obedience/whatever, then they would already know what it would take to convince me of their existence.

Since they haven't done that, then either such a being (if they exist) doesn't actually care about my belief/obedience/whatever, or they don't exist in the first place.

 

[Ophiolite]

It may have been quite awful. Where I was in high school back in the fifties, evolution was a two-week unit in a biology class that was intended to meet the science requirement for kids not going on to college and was taught by a PE coach in his free period who didn't know any more about the subject than what was in the textbook. It's still that way in many places.

I don't recall it being taught in school at all (Scotland - late 50s, early 60s) I did chemistry and physics, but not biology. So, I've no idea to what extent evolution was covered on the curriculum. (For some reason, long forgotten, biology was seen to be for girls, not boys.)

Thus I'm not entirely clear how I acquired my early understanding of evolution. I did read quite widely, so some of it would have been picked up that way, including probably from SF. My deeper appreciation probably began when I read On the Origin of Species when I was fifteen, or so.

 

[Strathos]

I didn't see any observations over millions of years going on.

Keep moving those goalposts.

 

[Kylie]

You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

Do you think laws get promoted to facts?

 

[Kylie]

I wasn’t referring to microevolution amongst organisms but macroevolution across species.

And that falls into the "change over time as they reproduce" part.

They change over many generations.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

So what? It was a failed source.

I was just wondering if you had an explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just wondering if you had an explanation.

Make your claim on your own. Referring to a source where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method is a loss from the start. I will try to answer it for you.

And let's go over one claim at a time since that article got sooooooooo many things wrong.

 

[xianghua]

That's still not quite the same thing to have an external system that does the replication. The bacteria replicate, the insects replicate, people replicate, etc.

Self replication ISN'T evidence for design, in fact it's rather the opposite. (Not direct evidence of non-design, but a solid clue that design probably isn't what you should be considering when you know something self-replicates.)

so if you will see a self replicating robot you will not conclude design?

 

[xianghua]

And this is perfectly explainable by evolution. If different variations were used, the ones that used the most effective and efficient versions would have a reproductive advantage over the ones that don't.

This is not the evidence against evolution you think it is, which you'd know if you actually understood evolution.

who said it is evidence against evolution? it was evidence against your claim that different codons for the same amino acid have no meaning.

 

[xianghua]

In your native language (Hebrew I'm assuming) do words have more than one meaning?

in hebrew i dont think that gears and motors have other meaning than gears and motors.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution has ALWAYS been a FACT

not if you refer to a common descent.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution has ALWAYS been a FACT

--d

 

[Larniavc]

Ok, what was once a theory is now called a fact and what was once called a fact is now a theory.

Wrong. What you just wrote is not true.

 

[pitabread]

in hebrew i dont think that gears and motors have other meaning than gears and motors.

Do words in Hebrew have only single meanings then? Are the meanings of words in Hebrew independent of how those words are used?