oh! Right. That is true. Technically, there are no species. From single-celled to us was a smooth (but spurty) transition. If we had every fossil from every thing that ever lived, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to sort out species.Coqui said:
Creationism vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Sp`ange
- Start date
fly said:
The thing is that people put so much to heart on the idea of evolution being the full blown fact, when the theory of evolution is also constantly modified and disproved.
G
gottoys?
Guest
distortedmind said:also some religous people (my mum for example) take great offence at the suggestion that god doesn't exist, and even more so when i start along the 'if he does exist then he's a big fat prick' road
what started it all off is one of those questions i'd love the answer to but i find hard to get my mind round. similar to if the universe is a finite size, what the f*ck is on the other side of it’ boundary ?
My mom and I would would talk for hours about the finite universe thing - very difficult to get you mind around. There is no beginning , no end and no boundaries. Like religion you just have to except it.
To each their own with religion I can't prove it or not - I sometimes think 'what if the bible was just one families book of stories that they were trying to keep track of'. What if in 1,000 years the only book left for what ever creatures exist then is a book from Shakespheare. Might those people construe it to mean a real record of a life? Or better yet what if they found one of our DVD's or PS2 games.
Plato - Socrates and the likes loved to create stories and contemplate ideas. What else did they have to do in those days? Think Greek Methology.
I am not against religion I am just saying think outside the box ...
Sure, but that doesn't prove evolution is flawed. I'm fairly certain its always been a tenet that some branches die out, some join together, some split two or more ways. I think the idea that we only developed from a certain organism from one cell on to today was popularized by people who didn't really understand what was going on.Coqui said:
And the creation of life has almost been figured out. On several specials and articles I've read on the subject, scientists have been able to get 95% of the way there in the lab. They take some of the basic compounds (water, methane, etc.) that were around when the earth was first created, put them in a jar, add electricity to simulate lightning, and low and behold you get proteins. Letting the experiment run a little longer and they ended up with crude forms of RNA. It's not hard to see if they can get RNA out of basic materials that were around when the earth was first created how eventually it would make a very simple living organism.
Yes, its undergone scientific scrutiny for over 100 years, but the basic idea has not changed nor has it been disproved. Any changes now are simply fine tuning of the theory.Coqui said:
Actually, I think I read in the Blind Watchmaker that the story you refer to was not true. According to the book, it is pretty much impossible for simple RNA or even proteins to simply come into being. Somehow, it happened tho...theacoustician said:
It is true. Protein synthesis is proven. The problem is that the proteins they've gotten to appear in the lab are non-replicating, meaning there's really no way we could have come up from that particular reaction. Something is missing, but it seems like they must be close.fly said:
The thing to me is that there is no utility for "believing" in creationism. There is utility in understanding evolution. (Evolution is something to be understood, after all, not just a belief.)
More than that, for a good deal of the general population, knowing evolution is about as handy as knowing trigonometry. That is to say, not much.
Now... if you are wanting something to believe in, evolution loses any advantage.
All of this doesn't change the fact that it should be taught. (Evolution, that is) You can mention that we were quite possibly all created 5 minutes ago, but that doesn't help with anything. Saying that evolution describes species as they age is a very handy thing.
More than that, for a good deal of the general population, knowing evolution is about as handy as knowing trigonometry. That is to say, not much.
Now... if you are wanting something to believe in, evolution loses any advantage.
All of this doesn't change the fact that it should be taught. (Evolution, that is) You can mention that we were quite possibly all created 5 minutes ago, but that doesn't help with anything. Saying that evolution describes species as they age is a very handy thing.
The real problem there is who's creationism do you teach? Not every religon or even every sect/branch of a particular religon believes the same exact form of creationism.Sarcasmo said:Kansas just passed that legislation mandating creationism be taught in school. Can you imagine? Proven science being compromised by hearsay fantasy. A massive advance in education and enlightenment.
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
theacoustician said:
Thats what Im wondering. How the courts can allow a particular religion to shoe-horn their particular beliefs into the general education system.
Few facts of interest. The idea that man wrote the bible is a given in most theology classes, the distinction is that it's considered the inspired revelation of the word of God vis a vis something that magically appeared. Also acknowledged is the fact that not all truths are revealed in said book (which is why protestants are generally considered insane).b_sinning said:
Bum bum, I express no opinion on this issue though complicated or otherwise.
That's why its bullshit and shouldn't happen. If you send your kid to a private religous school, fine. You've chosen an educational path that follows your beliefs. Whatever. You shouldn't force those beliefs on others. If you don't like your kid learning evolution in public school, then sign a permission slip to get him sent to study hall while the rest of the kids learn it then teach them what you want on Sundays.Drool-Boy said: