Bill Nye (The Science Guy) Big Times Kansas Rubes and high fives Darwin

[Ghost of Stan Parrish]

There are a number of dumbasses that think science is a political tool

Yes, I hate these dumbasses.

[Stevesie60]

So although the debate did not start out as science versus religion, that is how many people now see it. Paradoxically, this is not how many scientists see it. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. Should anybody be surprised?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

[Pete]

We haven't banned anyone from this site, but I'd be up for banning creationists.   

[8manpick]

We haven't banned anyone from this site, but I'd be up for banning creationists.   

[CNS]

We haven't banned anyone from this site, but I'd be up for banning creationists.   

Gonna have to merge with the JesusLand Would Freak thread.

[p1k3]

We haven't banned anyone from this site, but I'd be up for banning creationists.   

 

[kitten_mittons]

We haven't banned anyone from this site, but I'd be up for banning creationists.   

You're going to ban top 10 goEMAW poster nouji? (SP?)

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[fun muffin]

There are holes in evolution as well.

[p1k3]

There are holes in evolution as well.

not really

[Dugout DickStone]

There are holes in evolution as well.

 

[fun muffin]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

[Ghost of Stan Parrish]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

[Stevesie60]

At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they WANT to believe. The thing about deism/atheism is that everyone is biased. Some people want to believe there is a purpose to life, some don't. There is plenty of evidence for both sides. No one is going to have any trouble finding a reason (or lots of reasons) to believe what they want to believe. This is noted in the divide of the people who research evolution. 40% believe in a God, 45% do not. (These numbers have remained pretty constant over the years). They are the ones who have all of the evidence in front of them, and it's still split fairly evenly. So if anyone in this thread is trying to change someone else's worldview, it's not going to work.

[Ghost of Stan Parrish]

At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they WANT to believe. The thing about deism/atheism is that everyone is biased. Some people want to believe there is a purpose to life, some don't. There is plenty of evidence for both sides. No one is going to have any trouble finding a reason (or lots of reasons) to believe what they want to believe. This is noted in the divide of the people who research evolution. 40% believe in a God, 45% do not. (These numbers have remained pretty constant over the years). They are the ones who have all of the evidence in front of them, and it's still split fairly evenly. So if anyone in this thread is trying to change someone else's worldview, it's not going to work.

I'd be hesitant to assert there's much evidence in support of (or against) religion.  It's rather mystical.  Isn't that the whole thing, taking it on "faith" and all that?  That being said I don't see any conflict between understanding evolution and believing in God.  As you say, many scientists are in that camp.

What I don't understand is how someone can disbelieve evolution.  Can't wrap my head around that.  There's heaps of empirical, concrete evidence that you simply have to ignore or explain away by subsuming it to otherwordly, mystical explanations (e.g. the devil planted fossils).  Yeah, I don't get these people.

[TheHamburglar]

Nope, they believe the Dino's were around at the same time as man.  Otherwise, yep.

They even have a $27MM museum in Kentucky to "prove" it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum (An overview for you wikipedia lovers).

http://creationmuseum.org/

[TheHamburglar]

That being said I don't see any conflict between understanding evolution and believing in God.  As you say, many scientists are in that camp.

This is the biggest difference between Catholics and Baptists/most Evangelicals that no one ever talks about.  This is also one of the largest reasons that evolution hasn't been turned into religion vs. politics vs. science debate in any other country.  No other country has the Baptists trying to put up this fight. 

[fun muffin]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

There are more holes.  Get to them later.

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

[Ghost of Stan Parrish]

 

[TheHamburglar]

fun muffin, what's your theory? (not baiting, I won't come back with a "you dumbass" post, seriously curious)

[8manpick]

We can't prove that this thing that was invented in times that people thought the world was flat and the earth was at the center of the universe is right or wrong because it was created in such a way as to prevent proof for or against it.  I don't think the existence of a god is mutually exclusive with evolution, but the young earth theory is ludicrous.

However, tons of evidence based on rigorous application of the scientific method (the same scientific method that brought us great things like cars, television, internet, phones, almost everything we use on a daily basis, etc.) scientifically proves that evolution has happened for billions of years.  It happens currently, and will continue to happen for as long as life exists.

[06wildcat]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

There are more holes.  Get to them later.

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

If evolution is false, then why is RoundUp being phased out as an herbicide? Why will penicillin become basically useless within my lifetime? Why are humans taller, stronger and living longer than ever before?

[p1k3]

Fossilization is a pretty rare event. Even 1000 years from now after humans have dug up millions of more fossils we probably still won't have them all. 

[ChiComCat]

Fossilization is a pretty rare event. Even 1000 years from now after humans have dug up millions of more fossils we probably still won't have them all. 

WE'RE JUST NOT DIGGING HARD ENOUGH!

[Dugout DickStone]

So we've eliminated:

1.  Creationism - proven false, less than zero evidence;
2.  Evolution - giraffes!

So what do we have left?

[8manpick]

I enjoyed this article today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/science-religion_b_1831217.html