What is so hard to understand that creationism and christianity cannot be TAUGHT in public schools. Neither are based on fact, especially christianity. Evolution is based on evidence. Scientific theorys are based on fact, and experiments, Try doing a little research. ALL religions are myths. In a couple hundred yrs, religion will be looked back on and laughed at. If religion makes you feel good, thats great. But dont try and teach your myths and fairy tales with my tax dollars,do it in church
What ever happened to respecting the view point of others? If you choose not to believe in creationism, that is fine and I respect not only your right do to so but your opinon. Why can't those of use who do believe in creationism be given the same respect? There is an elitist tone given that basically says if you don't agree with my beliefs then you are stupid. Sorry but evolution is not a proven fact and it also may be a part of creationism. Who is to say that God did not create evolution?
Creationism should never be taught as science in science class. In fact, no religious or superstitious belief has a place in the classroom, aside from an academic historic lesson. There is nothing scientific about religious belief, nor is anything religious scientific.
Now, if they want to teach something like comparative religion or modern history, again from an academic perspective, and discuss it there, that's a different story. Just not in science class where science needs to be taught.
giving both sides? hate to break it to you hassleback but theres more religions out there. if schools teach one religion they need to teach all to be fair
@intoTaboo Yes, I am a Satanist and it seems we do not get our world veiw taught in schools, they should teach children that some people follow jesus and some follow the Prince of Darkness, let the children make up their own minds who is more powerful. One thing we Satanists and our Christian friends both share is our distain for science and those Daewin worshipers who seek to destroy what we hold dear.
@mrpamayer satanism and christianity seem to be the same religion just different sides of the coin- not sure if that analogy makes sense...p.s. spell check wants me to use uppercase for 'c' in schristianity but not an uppercase 's' for satanism lol
@mrpamayer Of course all religions are the same, just with different characters, and I am going to to tell Satan about spell check, she will not be happy.
Instead of debating over unanswerable questions, maybe we should all accept the fact that NO ONE actually knows what happens when you die and if there is a GOD. There is peace in that. You can still have faith that there is something bigger than us. Why are we so determined to have it all defined? Just be good to yourself and each other. Then if there is a GOD, I'm sure it will accept you in the end :)
teachers are to teach facts, that is all. evolution is a fact, creationism is not. the bible is only viable in schools as a work of literature, that's it.
If you say something dumb, the teacher is going to tell you that it is dumb. If that makes you feel dumb, rather than make you feel like you are learning, you should wonder why you are so connected to that idea :p
If my child put his hand up in history class and said " I believe the Snorks once lived in atlantis".... I WANT the teacher to say "That is utter nonsense. That is how he will learn. He used to believe there was a monster in the cupboard......... I told him it was nonsense.
@66GreenBaron66 How did something come from nothing? Well, nobody knows for sure. That doesn't mean we can reasonably attribute it to any beings, be they natural or supernatural.
@66GreenBaron66 "How did something come from ABSOLUTE nothing in the first place?" Who established that it was from 'absolute' nothing? What is 'absolute' nothing anyway?
"The only answer is God" God is something, not absolute nothing. If you wish to claim that it all came from 'absolute' nothing, then there can't be a god either.
"Science doesn't have one" It doesn't need to, since it's a false premise.
There is no real violation of church/state separation in teaching both because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 You clearly don't understand evolution do you. evolution is a chage in allele frequency over time, this has been observed and is a demonstrable scientific fact. creationism is one of the most ridiculous ideas that people have ever thought up, mostly because bible thumbing morons (I'm assuming like yourself) think that when reality contradicts scripture, it's reality that is wrong. creationism is false, and there is no god, get over it.
im a christian young earth creationist. I think that creationism shouldn't be taught in school because religion and government are separate hindus christians muslims etc shouldnt be discriminated in school. in order to teach creation they would have to teach every creation story from judaism to greek mythology . Evolution should be taught as what it is a theory. however this teacher was completely unprofessional. its separation of church and state not destruction of church by the state
@Alexper12 I like your view but I'm afraid you are incorrect on a crucial thing. A "theory" in science is much different then the common usage of the term. In science, a theory is better than fact, it is mounds and mounds of compiled evidence and formulas that outline a part of nature, in this case, the evolution of natural life. The theory of evolution is about as true as any scientific fact can be. People often synonymize theory with hypothesis, but they are the exact opposite of each other.
why teach both. if you want your kids to know the creationist theory you can teach them that superstition in your own time. Young earth creationism is acctualy quite a new thing. Even thomas Aqquinas wrote how genesis is purely symbolic. rely on reason not emotion.
@richotim Creationism is not a scientific theory....therefore it has no place in school. It is a fantasy, a story without any evidence. It is by definition irrational to teach something or even believe something like creationism.
problem #1: its okay to be dumb...stupidity is not acceptable. I'm beginning to want to teach both sides in order to expose creationism for what it is....superstition nonsense
see this is why we have R.E over here in the UK. That way the religious bullshit can stay in its own class and other classes can get the fuck on with their own lessons.
It's the ugly side of religion coming out here. Claiming unprovable things to be true is illogical and a sure fire way to make our kids idiots. Does anyone really want.their kids growing up to believe whatever someone says without any proof? Religion is the only thing that does this. How can they ever learn what is real or not real by this method. You're setting them up to be imbeciles.
What should have been discussed is that Creationists is religion and evolution is science. Evolution is derived from the things we can see and deduce from those things (we do this with EVERYTHING in life). Creationists start with the bible (of which there is NO PROOF) and try to make it provable. In every single attempt they have failed. To prove creation you must show some real world evidence. They can't. WE CANNOT FORCE INFORMATION IN OUR KIDS HEADS WITHOUT ANY PROOF. GET REAL HERE FOLKS
if there is truth, and you completely ignore and deny the truth and decide to live with a delusional belief, that is not deserving of respect. That is deserving of ridicule and criticism.
@mio68df there is no evidence that threre isnt one either...dont sit there dening the fact that there could be a creater when you have no real proof for your own belief....and this brain you want people to grow r u just waiting and hoping they soon develope one cause from evolutions stand point you are goin to be waitin for a while!
@dogdayish I did not just hear you say is not a fact! It IS a fact. There is plenty of evidence to support it. It's a different story if you don't want to accept it. Take a general biology course maybe you'll learn something.
@mio68df Actually, I'm a premed student that has taken MANY biology courses. Darwinism is just a simple theory that has not been proven factual. I'm not saying that it's not true, but rather I am saying that if you only think that schools should teach factual information, then Darwinism should not be taught since it has not been 100% proven.
@dogdayish Well if you've taken many biology courses like you say you did, then why do you still doubt it is a fact. It makes so much sense, pieces fit perfectly with one another. Maybe we don't have All the evidence but the body of evidence is growing. Evolution is a beautiful theory that provides enough evidence to say we did not come from a "creator" or any such crazy nonsense like that. Watch this video...youtube.com/watch?v=9nDcN9gRhfw&feature=related...really watch it please
@dogdayish If you are really a premed biology student having taken "MANY" biology courses, you must know that there is no such thing as "darwinism" and you would not use that term. Also, you would know that the theory of evolution is supported by many scientific observations and empirical evidence, and hence is a tested theory; therefore eligible to be taught in a science classroom. Also, if you are a premed student, you have a long way to go, lots to learn. youd be advised to keep an open mind.
@zamriash Okay, excuse me. Should I instead say "Evolutionary Biology"? I never said that it wasn't a tested theory. All that I said, was that it's not not a solid fact, and if that guy over there said that only factual information should be taught in school, then many evolution studies and teachings should not be taught. I NEVER took a side to anything, so for you to tell me to "keep an open mind" is not true. I also NEVER said that it shouldn't be taught in school.
@dogdayish So you say that evolution is indeed a tested theory and yet not a solid fact? can you please explain in your own words what you consider to be the distinction between a tested theory and fact? Do you know that einsteins "theory" of general relativity completely superseded Newton's "theory" of universal gravitation? Yet newtons "theory" is enough to put a man on the moon. The scientific use of the word "theory" is different from the meaning of the word in common parlance.
@dogdayish you would represent yourself much better if you actually took a stand and refrained from using phrases like "i never said" "i never took a side" "all i said". These phrases really have no meaning if you know what you are talking about.
@dogdayish Evolution has millions of pages of research supporting it from research done over the last 150 years and is a proven fact. It is also the basis of modern medicine as you should know being a premed student. The term scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the word "theory" that we use in everyday language. Evolution is a fact, meaning it occurs in nature and we have observed it. The "Theory of Evolution" explains the mechanisms behind how it actually works.
@Sendamagicmoment No its not a proven fact. It is merely a theory and judging by the track record scientist have at changing their mind, I would take it with a pinch of salt. Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in the classroom on an equal scale.
@MrEnlighteneddespot You can't teach creationism in a science classroom because there is no science within it to teach. All there is is a 2000 year old book written by people that didn't know where the sun went at night. Scientists change their minds, it's called adopting new information when it is discovered. Creationism, however, does not change in light of new information. Thats why it is not science, but rather faith based belief. I'm glad we don't still think earth is flat and 6000 yrs old.
@MrEnlighteneddespot The only place it would have is in a world religions class. Which should be required, yes. I think that would be helpful in ending much ignorance/intolerance. You stated that "Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in the classroom on an equal scale." These are two very different subjects and don't really deserve "equal scale" because there is no debate between the two. One is religious, the other is science. Like saying that tuba and algebra deserve an equal scale
I'm very sorry to call you ignorant but that is just what you are. Please go look up the definition of theory before you post any more things that make you seem utterly stupid.
@Jaramide All of us are ignorant one way or another, as God alone is all-knowing. It is just my opinion that evolution does not have the concrete evidence behind it to have it declared absolute fact. Many top theologians, like John MacArthur, reject evolution as lies entirely- are they utterly stupid? Your arrogant.
@MrEnlighteneddespot Since you say that there is no concrete evidence behind evolution and also state that god alone is all-knowing. Perhaps you'd like to provide the "concrete evidence" you have proving that god is "all-knowing?" Or even evidence that god exists?
Well since they are THEOLOGIANS and don't actually hold any degrees in biology, paleontology or any other disciplines that makes them qualified to make any statements on the matter i would say that yes they are either blindingly ignorant or indeed utterly stupid.
Hell, even if you are right and evolution is false why does that make your "magic man" explanation correct?
and why are these bitches qualified influenced thousands of retarded americans that are listening and worship basically housewives?....thats why entertainers used to be at the bottom of the social latter and not the top in the olden days..damn society has fucked up by giving ppl like this power and influenced in this country
How can creationist possibly say that "both should be taught"? why on earth would we teach something that has been shown to be false? should we also teach kids the world is flat? you can't teach contradicting ideas when one has been found to be true and the other is nonsense. how can you say "well everything evolved and everything was also created by a magic sky man, the world is 4.5 billion years old and it's also 6000. dinosaurs lived with men and they also didn't. Amazing stupidity
@rememberthename33 In many different places around the earth, trees are fossilized standing up, crossing through many different rock layers. Some cross through coal layers, then through rock layers and then coal layers.
Evolutionists claim that rock layers are laid down over millions of years.
With decomposition, erosion, and pest scavenging (like termites), wouldn't that tree have long since disappeared before the rest of it were buried in sediment? Are the rock layers really that old?
@RomansGalatians LOL are you talking about "polystrate fossils"? that idea was refuted 100 years ago! how are you so out of date? if you don't know how it's false ill put it briefly: Tree's have NEVER been found to pass through different layers of rock that are from different geological time periods, the different 'layers' that are seen (such as the ones at Joggins, Nova Scotia) are from the SAME time period and have been dated as such many times with many different dating techniques. Catch up..
@rememberthename33 So you agree that rock layers may be laid at a rapid rate. Good.
Now, what about just a pig or another medium-sized fossil? Must such not also be buried quickly? Or does such a fossil form when sediment is laid down a centimeter per millenium?
You see, not only polystrate fossils, but fossils of many types are found everywhere.
"NEVER been found ... from different geological time periods. What a circular statement. The way that they date the layers is by the index fossils.
@RomansGalatians Obviously layers CAN be laid at a relativity rapid rate, such as in a mudslide or a sandstorm or an avalanche, are you trying to say that because there has been rapid formation of a layer, that is evidence against evolution? or evidence of some giant flood? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
If you really think that evolution doesn't have enough evidence, then why don't you give some evidence, any evidence at all for creation (you would be the first)
@rememberthename33 Yes, a mudslide, sandstorm, avalanche . . . are all examples of catastrophic events where layers are laid down rapidly. And yes, rock layers CAN also be laid down at a much slower rate (f.e: wind erosion sedimentation); however, where FOSSILIZATION is present, we know that the layer were laid down at a rapid rate.
And because fossils are nearly ubiquitious in post Campbrian layers, we can suppose that most layers result from catastrophic, rapid events
@RomansGalatians No because the 'layer' can be in a very small area, a fossil can form even from an animal dying in mud so how does that lead you to believe that all fossils are formed due to major catastrophic events. You still haven't made it clear what your point is OR provided any evidence at all for creation, surely you must have some evidence for it or else why would you believe it?
@rememberthename33 Sir, I am just reasoning with you about what we see.
I am coming with neither a presupposition for creation nor evolution (which is a theory of genetics, so why would I impose such on a geological observation, unless I was coming to the table with a preconceived bias?).
I see fossil rich layers on top of fossil rich layers. This makes me think: "There's one thing we can hang our hats on: fossil-rich layers were laid down rapidly."
@rememberthename33 Well, no, I am not saying that ALL fossils are formed due to major catastrophic events. I am saying that all fossils must have been buried relatively rapidly.
Thus, wherever we see fossil rich layers, we can reasonably make inferences about the sedimentation rates of the layers in which they are found. And fossils are not just found in localized areas, they are found all over.
@RomansGalatians Well of course if the bones of an animal sat on the surface and were never covered by anything then they wouldn't get to fossilize, and i know fossils are found all over I mean to say there are areas where fossilization is more likely to occur and is richer in fossils as a result. I'm still not sure what you're driving at, are you trying to say that everything all got laid down at once due to a global flood? or are you just pointing out how fossils are made..
@rememberthename33 Well, I am pointing out how fossils are made, which in turn tells us about the rock layers in which they are found.
Fossils do not form in top soil. I can look up the article if you want, where they put fish in metal mesh cages to prevent scavengers, and buried them in mud at the bottom of a lake. Just from the bacteria within the fish, the soft tissue was mostly decomposed and the bones falling apart after 6 DAYS!
@RomansGalatians I know fossilization is a unique occurrence, that's why they are hard to come by. I still don't know what you're getting at, It's unclear if you believe in evolution or creation or even if you're trying to give evidence for either. If you're just discussing how fossils form and where they form, I'm honestly not that interested unless you have a point to make
@RomansGalatians But the fossils are dated to be in chronological order, so the older they are, the deeper they are. If there was a massive flood such as in creation, a dense layer of all different fossils would be found at the same level, dinosaurs would be found with humans and they would all be dated to the same time period, but we don't see anything like this.
Yes, I absolutely agree that the sequence of fossils give a chronological order of when they were buried. But what I think is most important is what we DON'T see.
We see layer on top of layer of fossil-rich rock; you don't see a bunch of empty layers. Moreover, you usually do not see evidence of erosion in-between the layers.
I mean, Catastrophism is what I see. And that is not necesarily synonymous with Creation Theory at all. But Uniformitarianism?
@rememberthename33 Uniformitarianism would produce one uniform layer, and such would be almost empty of fossils.
A catastrophic model COULD mean that the earth is like a sleeping giant. It lies dormant for a while, but then, it violently convulses. Such is responsible for the rock layers and the cause of the mass, rapid, deep, burial of fossils.
@rememberthename33 But that model would look different. Because, there, we'd have fossil layer, then empty layer, then fossil layer.
No that's not what we see.
Yet, we do definitely see differing organisms sorted from top to bottom.
However, to say that the order is less to more complex is just not honest. Sharks precede grass, tribolites have complex eyes, and dinosaurs are no simpler than present day animals -- arguably, they're more complex.
@rememberthename33 It's strange: The geologic column is based on the presumption that fossiliferous layers can be traced across entire continents and correlated with rocks in other countries.
But you say that fossil layers are the result of localized events, like animals getting buried in river deltas.
River deltas can't be traced across continents, how in the world could such be correlated with rocks layers in other countries?
@RomansGalatians What is your definition of evolution? It's off topic, but honestly the topic of geology is terribly mundane, if you have some real questions about geology you should probably contact a geologist for the answers.
@rememberthename33 Well, just to sum it up, my point is that the geologic column really is a remarkably subjective model. They are able to "trace layers" across continents MERELY by the fossils found therein. I know you probably hate them, but I would encourage you to read the creation wiki depiction of the geologic column. Truly, as honest as I can be, Evolution does not have independent geological verification.
Evolution generally is the belief that inanimate things "organize themselves".
@rememberthename33 Now, just within the school of genetics, it is the belief system (not an observed science) that random changes increase information.
Random changes do happen, and they do cause funny things: three legged goats, two headed turtles, diseases, etc. But such does not increase information in the program. Quirky things can happen to genes to make them express weird traits, but to say that such gave rise to the origin of an extremely complex interactive program is, in short, crazy.
@rememberthename33 It was cute, I saw a baby who's mom dressed him up like the red barron. I also saw a cat who "played the piano" when a red lazer light was pointed at each key.
What was funny about these thing is that babies really are not ace fighter pilots, and cats aren't bethoven. But sometimes silly people really do attribute intelligent qualities to animals and babies, when they do not really possess such qualities (at least not to the degree depicted).
@rememberthename33 People see a quirky thing happen in inanimate chemicals in the gene code and attribute something equivalent to intelligent design. When really, such is just a PROJECTION of intelligence and a projection of guided design.
Now, of course, I do believe that the code was definitely designed. Anyone with a brain can get that. But random mutations aren't guided intelligence. They're just glitches that create funny manifestations that Evolutionists attribute with increased informati
@rememberthename33 Thus, Evolutionists project and boast remarkable things based on these random glitches in the code. Which is really what this BELIEF SYSTEM is all about. When WE can create ourselves and WE can transform our natures, and OUR EFFORT gets all the glory for all that we have, then we are able to leave God out of the picture.
It's merely an elaborate rationalization to which proud Humanists are drawn. The need to vainly explain away God is the essence of the entire belief system.
@RomansGalatians Ok I see why you don't believe in evolution now, and I think this is the case with most creationists, what you have described is not AT ALL what evolution is, "inanimate things organize themselves" is not evolution, inanimate things becoming living things is (roughly) the theory of bio-genesis, which is a theory about how life might have first formed, it has been demonstrated that inanimate things can form amino acids (the building blocks of life) but so far that's all
@RomansGalatians Evolution on the other hand is nothing about how life originally got here, not about how the planet formed, evolution is change over time, which is a scientific fact and can be seen everywhere on a microscopic level (AIDS virus etc) and on a macroscopic level (get to that in a second)
a mutation causing a three legged goat etc isn't a change over time, it's a harmful mutation which will cause the animal to die and not pass that gene on to further generations
@RomansGalatians Change over time is random mutation guided by natural selection, so the mutation will be random (like if an animal is slightly taller or has slightly longer teeth etc) which is why no animals or humans look the same, people look different because of random mutations in the genes, natural selection is what decides which genes will be passed on, for instance ancestors of the giraffe have been found to have short necks, but the ones with longer necks would get more food from trees
@RomansGalatians and so would more likely survive and pass on their gene of slightly longer necks, over a long period of time the giraffes with the longer necks get favored more and more (survival of the fittest) until eventually we have modern giraffes with ridiculously long necks. That's change over time (evolution) in the process and doesn't mean that randomly one giraffe was born with a huge neck, is a gradual change over a long period of time and we have evidence for this
@RomansGalatians Animals can also change so much that the become a different species (specification) we have seen this at the microscopic level with bacteria and viruses becoming resilient to medicine. we can also see this in animals, for example we have seen a population of lizards (as well as many other animals) separate (half stay and half leave to another island etc) and the ones that leave become more adapted to their new environment by natural selection, they change over time
@RomansGalatians eventually they will have changed so much genetically and physically (different colour, larger, maybe better at climbing trees etc) they will be so different that they will no longer be able to breed with the original lizard and so will be a different species, this happens all over and can be observed, it can happen in a matter of decades but has been going on for millions of years. It's not a belief system and it's not based on assumptions, it happens and we can see it happen
@RomansGalatians There are some parts that are missing but they don't affect the overall theory at all, like we don't have every fossil of every animal that ever lived, and we're not sure how some traits evolved (such as blood clots) but if you have a puzzle and are missing 3 pieces of it you can still tell what the puzzle is, there is no reason to fill the gaps with a "designer" because we can see everything happen without one. It' doesn't explain away god, but so far there is no need for one.
@rememberthename33 Yes, someone would absolutely be crazy to believe in abiogenesis, especially because the Law of Biogenesis is the single-most scientifically verified principle in Biology.
But you know, in Darwin's time a lot of folks believed that environmental factors affected genetics. If a person developed his muscles, it was believed that he could pass muscle traits onto his son. And, indeed, Darwin believed that the giraffe's effort in stretching out its neck was one of the factors.
@rememberthename33 So, lets not confuse the idea that animals are animate with the idea that genetic molecules are NOT.
They are, yes, part of a living organism. And like a computer design (but a million times more complex), DNA arranges and reproduces AFTER ITS KIND . . . In other words, the offspring is a COPY of the DNA codes from the parents. Basically, the DNA REPLICATES its code.
How much more accurate could the language of the Bible be? DNA REPLICATES after the parents.
@rememberthename33 DNA doesn't INCORPORATE its environment when reproducing. It just carbon copies the parents' code.
Now, can it change itself to suit its environment? No, it just copies. Just like if you were bootlegging your buddies' computer program and burning it on a CD.
So, what happens when we get a bootlegged copy of a copy of a copy? Lots of time we get glitches. But 2 main points: 1. GLITCHES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE PROGRAM!!! and 2. Changes are due to loss of info.
@rememberthename33 But moreover, just like computer programs can compress info and even correct glitches, so can DNA in certain situations: it can fuse and heal errors, but such are PART OF THE PROGRAM.
To fancy that computer programs are becoming more and more complex with each bootlegged copy is silly. Data may possibly be added by a glitch BUT INFORMATION is not added!!!
@rememberthename33 So if you smuggle a bootleg copy of a video game to China, and that original copy branches out from Bejing to Hong Kong, you may very well get a variety of glitches. A hundred years later, you would have more variety.
But can you really imagine that you could start out with Halo and end up with an Anne Murray CD? No, you'd have Halo games. Some with certain features preserved, but others with features lost. Not a whole new kind of computer program!!!
@RomansGalatians Ok again I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, The evolution your describing, and the evolution described on creationism websites etc (i suspect this s where you have learnt about evolution) is a complete straw man, these websites either don't know what evolution is and misrepresent is, or they do know what it is and they purposely change it's meaning so it looks ridiculous, If evolution was what you describe it as, do you think that 99.5% of scientists
@RomansGalatians would accept it as scientific fact? the strict definition of evolution is "a change in allele frequencies over time." which is indisputable a fact, we know that over time, the frequency of different alleles changes, this can be, and has been observed thousands of times. Back to abiogenisis for a second, i agree I don't completely believe that life came from non-life, but scientists don't claim this, they have just found that abiogenisis CAN occur, it doesn't mean it did though.
@rememberthename33 "the strict definition of evolution is "a change in allele frequencies over time."
That is a definition of so-called "micro-evolution" or what Creationists call "adaptation of a variety." Creationists have no problem with that, and indeed, contend that such happens at very rapid rates (such that any breed of dog can be selected from a mutt in 100 years!)
@RomansGalatians But again this isn't evolution, evolution makes no claims about how life first started, it's just how it developed. The example with the CD is not at all what evolution does, yes DNA copies, we all accept that, and most of the time it copies perfectly, sometimes there is a mutation where it doesn't copy quite right and a lot of the time this mutation doesn't do anything or can be harmful (like cancer etc) but DNA replicates so often that these mutation can occur a fair bit
@RomansGalatians But the effects of this can be harmful or helpful depending on the environment, for example in parts of England before the industrial revolution, there were mostly light moths and very few dark moths (the darkness was attributed to mutation in dna, both parents of the dark moth could have been light) becasue the trees where light, the light moths didn't get eaten much as birds could see the dark ones very easily, but after the industrial revolution there was so much soot
@RomansGalatians In the air that the light bark of the trees turned darker, and so the light moths were eaten more, so the dark moths survived more, and passed on the gene for darkness more, and in a few years there were few light moths and many dark moths. This is a change in allele frequency, this is evolution, this is scientific fact.
@rememberthename33 In Entomology books, both the dark and light moths were recorded LONG BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
So what you have in the selection of moths is NOT a CREATION of a brand new kind, CAUSED by the environment. No, the genetic program ALREADY EXISTED, and was merely selected.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT A CREATIVE CAUSE FOR COMPLEX GENETIC INFORMATION!!!
@RomansGalatians Yes, I said that both light and dark moths were found, and that dark moths were rare, but due to environmental pressures, the allele frequency changed, the point of the example is that we can see evolution happening, which is why change over time is scientific fact. I gave you examples before of lizards moving to another location and changing over time, until eventually they are a new species (or 'kind' if you want to say that)
@RomansGalatians So we both accept that things change over time (evolve), and we both know that things can change so much that they can no longer breed with the original species (speciation) and so become their own species (kind)
@rememberthename33 Darwin saw two white chickens produce a red chicken and said "See, Evolution by random chance." But Mendel, through the scientific method, showed that it was rather"sudden expression of a latent gene ALREADY PRESENT IN THE GENETIC CODE".
Evolution thinks that magical random influences in the environment is the cause for everything: writing the program and all transformation. This is mathematically untenable.
@RomansGalatians A more recent example is how insects become resistant to pesticide, originally there are very few insects with genetic mutation that make them immune to pesticide, but over time these insects survive more and pass this gene on, so eventually most insects will be resistant to a certain pesticide. This rate is all that's needed to make small changes in a short period of time, and huge changes over a longer period of time, depending on the environment
@rememberthename33 The mathematical probability of RANDOM CHANCE creating such a complex code is preposterous. Since the remarkable complexity of the DNA code was discovered in 1954, the mathematical probability has become totally undefendable.
That is why Evolutionist require large expanses of time, to give them better odds. So when you see a rapid change, it does no service to Evolution Theory.
It proves that such change is due to MECHANISMS WITHIN THE CELL, not random chance.
@RomansGalatians Ok again, I'm not talking about how the 'code' started, I'm talking about evolution as opposed to creationism. The "random chance" part is the chance that when replication, DNA will 'randomly' make a mistake (mutation), which causes different genes, and whether the gene is harmful or not depends on the environment. We don't "require large expanses of time" we just observe that over a long period of time, a lot of changes have occurred, and we evidence that shows this.
@RomansGalatians The theory of evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others and the evidence for it is overwhelming.
The writers of the bible had no idea what DNA was, and to make an obscure connection between the language they use and how DNA works is pretty absurd.
I encourage you to look up evolution from real science websites and not creationist sources, as they tend to be full of shit..
@rememberthename33 If you are willing to agree that rapid changes are due to mechanisms within the cell, and NOT due to RANDOM ENVIRONMENTAL influences and blind chance, then sir, you are a lot closer to Creationist thinking than you know.
@RomansGalatians What is a "random environmental influence"? environmental influences only determines what traits will be favored in survival, and therefore what traits will likely survive and be passed down to further generations. This is nothing like creationist thinking, as creationist thinking is an oxymoron
@rememberthename33 "random environmental influence" like radiation, or some other glitch.
We both agree, to a degree, with natural selection.
But selecting between halo and a barry manilow cd is NOT THE CREATIVE POWER. Nor can it mathematically be defended that both cd's came from a Word program 50 years ago due to RANDOM INCREMENTAL CHANGES IN THE BINARY CODE!!!
@RomansGalatians Again there is no environmental forces acting on the CDs, You cannot compare a non-living thing which doesn't evolve, to a living one. Radiation is an outside cause of mutation, but for the most part it's not what causes the 'errors' that we see when DNA replicates. Again you are confusing evolution with the origin of life, when in fact it is just how that life changes and adapts over time. Theres nothing "magical" or "random" about environmental pressures for survival
@rememberthename33 All natural selection does is trash damaged programs.
What Evolution says is that it causes INCREASED INFORMATION IN THE PROGRAM. Wrong! It merely selects, it doesn't write, nor re-program from completely different codes.
@RomansGalatians No, The whole time no one has said that "random chance causes macro evolution, It's RANDOM mutation (as i have explained) guided by NON-RANDOM natural selection. so again, it is random that a change will occur, because it is random when the DNA will make a 'mistake', but it is NOT random whether that change will be beneficial for survival, or not. If it isn't then the animal won't survive, and won't pass on that gene. If it is, then the animal will survive, and pass on that gene
@RomansGalatians This is assuming that if evolution were true, we would see existing species, turning into other existing species. If you wanted to get a horse the become a different species, say one that is white and has no long hair, you could keep killing all the darker, short haired horses, favoring the lighter ones with longer hair, and over a long period of time this would either
1) cause the species to go extinct (as million of species have)
2) these mutations can be passed down generations (micro-evolution)
3) non-random natural selection causes changes in the frequency of the traits
4) over time, micro evolution becomes macro evolution (as the only difference is the time scale, eg. a micro walk is to the kitchen and a macro walk is down the road)
Most changes are not "Evolution." They are variation that is already present in latent genes within the gene pool. Would you agree with that? When a mutt becomes a poodle or a chiuahua or a great dane, this is just variation within the gene code that is already present.
Indeed, it really is the only way to explain RAPID changes, like when two white chickens produce a red chicken.
@rememberthename33 Mutation is just a tiny footnote of the story, it is NOT the main plot. It's kinda like attributing the formation of the Grand Canyon to wind erosion . . . but much more preposterous, even.
Other cellular factors are at work, not just REPLICATION. Fusing is a response that the cell has when extreme inbreeding occurs. It is a way of filling in lost information. It's like genetic healing or mending (kinda like scabs and scars). This is much more common than mutation.
@rememberthename33 Inbreeding causes a loss of information, which is the cause of most speciation.
But the quality and degree of changes are much less than what Evolutionists purport.
Yes, we can get a Barry Manilow song program that is all scratched up, and do information compression and other ways to try to salvage and bridge the information in the program, but we won't get an Eminem albulm from it.
We'll get essentially a Barry Manilow song, with some variation. That is a simple example.
@RomansGalatians No, it's not a matter of "micro evolution happens, therefore macro evolution MUST happen" we see micro evolution happening, and we see over time the evolution on a micro scale adds up and become evolution on a bigger scale, there is no 'leap'
You can't say micro evolution happens but macro evolution doesn't, that's just creationist nonsense.
All of this is observed and testable. This is not a debated subject among scientists, creation is in no way scientific or valid.
@rememberthename33 "we see over time the evolution on a micro scale adds up and become evolution on a bigger scale"
You see it in the imagination of your mind and the glossy, illustrated textbooks. But you don't see it in the rock layers, where the real evidence is. Unless you are claiming to have lived for 100 million years and observed it, you didn't see anything. Rather, you made inferences from circumstantial evidence . . . spotty circumstantial evidence.
@rememberthename33 The LEAP is in your logic to an enormous conclusion based on minor changes WITHIN a kind.
And the vast majority of changes are due to information already present within the cell.
The random mutation changes don't amount to much. And the vast majority of mutations cause the organism to not survive. And even those quirky situations where it causes an idiosyncratic positive survival character, almost always those traits dissappear when blended with the general population.
@rememberthename33 Yet somehow, you "see" the entire ECOSYSTEM forged by such a minor player in the game.
Oh, and if I can't "see" it, then I'm absolutely crazy?
Hey, see it that way, big deal. But don't tell me that "seeing" that the ecosystem was designed is crazy. And don't tell me that you base your inferences on observed, scientific method facts. They are not facts, they are inferences. And far fetched ones at that.
@RomansGalatians This "lost and gain" of information is nonsense, Mutations can add information, they can also subtract informationm but the amount of information is irrelevant to how much the animal can change, for example the amoeba has 100x the genetic information humans do, so does that mean it can change into whatever animal it wants because it has more information?
Two white chickens giving birth to a red chicken is not evolution, no one is saying it is except creationist websites
@rememberthename33 "the amoeba has 100x the genetic information humans do, so does that mean it can change into whatever animal it wants because it has more information?"
I didn't really get your point here. I probably misunderstood, but this sounds like a Creationist defense.
The answer is, no. (which seems to be what you were saying in a rhetorical question). The genetic code can change somewhat, sure, but it is not like liquid, and can morph itself into any form to suit its environment.
@RomansGalatians If the white chickens started being killed and the red chickens had a survival advantage, and over time all chickens were red, this is a change in allele frequency over time and is considered evolution. If half the chickens moved somewhere and changed over time in a seperate way to the original chicks, due t a different environment, to the point they could no longer interbreed, this is speciation, it is an example of one species become two separate species.
@rememberthename33 "If the white chickens started being killed and the red chickens had a survival advantage, and over time all chickens were red" & "This "lost and gain" of information is nonsense"
Gosh, I'm getting whiplash from you contradicting yourself in 2 consecutive comments.
Are you saying that all white chickens being killed is NOT a loss of genetic information?
@rememberthename33 By the way, I have no problem AT ALL with your depiction of speciation here.
But that is not the essence of Evolution Theory with which Creationsists contend.
The biggest problem is their claim that RANDOM MUTATION is the major driving force in speciation (when in fact, it is more of a footnote, not the leading role).
The other big problem is the grandios boast that Evolutionists claim that speciation eventually designed the entire ecosystem.
@RomansGalatians The fossil record along with all the dating methods and comparative DNA technology, all give a clear picture as to how evolution has happened, how long it took, what animals evolved from what and what caused evolution in different places. I'm not sure on what grounds you claim we don't see it in the rock layers, it's the exact opposite. These are not just inferences or guesses like creationists claims, that's not how science works, you don't get an idea through based on nothing
@RomansGalatians which is precisely why intelligent design has been deemed "not science" in the courts, and the proponents of the idea won't even defend it under oath, because they know it's bull. It's not wise to learn about evolution from creation websites, as you have pointed out several times that you don't really know what evolution is, as the websites give false definitions and push nonsense ideas. If evolution was the way creation websites claimed it was, would anyone believe it?
@rememberthename33 You are aware that the major point of contention is this: Evolutionists attribute RANDOM MUTATION and natural selection for major macro changes over time.
However, Creationists believe that mechanisms within the cell, such as latent unexpressed genes, and other cellular mechanisms, plus natural selection, are almost always responsible for "micro-evolution" or what we call "variation."
In fact, Creationists believe that variation happens at a much faster rate, because . . .
@rememberthename33 because, in order for Evolution to be true through RANDOM MUTATION, it would take MUCH, MUCH, MUCH longer periods of time due to the outlandish mathematical probabilities of such a theory.
In reality, even millions of years would not be enough time to account for such enormous mathematical probabilities. But, to say that such happened in a short period of time would make the theory that much more mathematically preposterous.
@rememberthename33 "A more recent example is how insects become resistant to pesticide . . ."
Just more proof that the genetic information for pesticide resistence was ALREADY PRESENT WITHIN THE GENE POOL.
If such a trait was "ACQUIRED" through random mutation, and over the years evolved into a pesticide resistant trait, then how did the pre-evolved ancestors survive.
Evolving a trait for pesticide resistence, if even done one generation, is a generation too late. Survival is required FIRST.
@RomansGalatians I said the loss and gain of information is a nonsense argument because mutations absolutely add and subtract information, so I'm not sure on what premise this argument keeps being made. And no of course speciation isn't an 'essence' of evolution it's just the effect of evolution, to create different species.
Yes random mutation, with non-random natural selection is what causes change over time. what i don't understand is we can observe these mutations
@rememberthename33 Nice how you use the word "speciation" interchangeably with "random mutation." My point is that they aren't the same thing.
Random mutation may very well add DATA, but information is quite something different.
And hey, if "it doesn't matter what the source of the variation", then why don't we just agree that the source comes from within the cell, not from the environment? Then, you'd be a creationist, like me.
@RomansGalatians As in we can actually see in DNA replicate and create mutations, these mutations are responsible for traits that aren't 'latent' in the gene pool, for example the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon, that trait couldn't have already been present in gene pool because nylon is hasn't always been around, there are many other examples of this. But for evolution to work it doesn't matter what the source of the variation is, it just matters that there is change from one generation
@rememberthename33 The bacteria that digests nylon existed prior to the invention of nylon. It was found to exist in corses from the 1800's. Just because it so happens to have the ability to digest nylon doesn't mean that nylon pre-existed the bacteria.
I can digest a twinky; God knows those things exist nowhere in nature. LOL.
@RomansGalatians Speciation is the process in which new species arise, mutations occur when DNA replicates, There are not interchangeable. what is your definition of information? we have observed increased genetic variety in a population, genetic material, novel genetic material and novel genetically-regulated abilities. If those do not qualify as "information" then I don't know what you are talking about.
@RomansGalatians The ability to digest nylon comes from anew enzyme that has been made in the bacteria, the strain of bacteria has been known for a while, but has never been known to produce this enzyme, which is why it is a new trait. twinkies are made up of many different things that occur in nature, to say that twinkles don't exist in nature therefore It's the same thing is silly
@RomansGalatians And no one said the source of the change is the environment, the source is always in DNA, it doesn't matter if it's a new trait or a trait that has been dormant though.how can you think that anyone thinks a change can come from outside the body, the environment is simply what decides if that change is helpful or harmful and so if it gets passed on or not
@rememberthename33 Gosh, your last reply is the point that Creationists have been trying to make. I don't think we are really that far apart in principle.
how can you teach both to a bunch of kids when they contradict each other?
djcesare 1 week ago
What is so hard to understand that creationism and christianity cannot be TAUGHT in public schools. Neither are based on fact, especially christianity. Evolution is based on evidence. Scientific theorys are based on fact, and experiments, Try doing a little research. ALL religions are myths. In a couple hundred yrs, religion will be looked back on and laughed at. If religion makes you feel good, thats great. But dont try and teach your myths and fairy tales with my tax dollars,do it in church
greggmcc 1 month ago
What ever happened to respecting the view point of others? If you choose not to believe in creationism, that is fine and I respect not only your right do to so but your opinon. Why can't those of use who do believe in creationism be given the same respect? There is an elitist tone given that basically says if you don't agree with my beliefs then you are stupid. Sorry but evolution is not a proven fact and it also may be a part of creationism. Who is to say that God did not create evolution?
rritter72 1 month ago
Creationism should never be taught as science in science class. In fact, no religious or superstitious belief has a place in the classroom, aside from an academic historic lesson. There is nothing scientific about religious belief, nor is anything religious scientific.
Now, if they want to teach something like comparative religion or modern history, again from an academic perspective, and discuss it there, that's a different story. Just not in science class where science needs to be taught.
resistnzisfutl 1 month ago
I think if someone NEVER even questioned the belief of God rather their questioning if he's real or fake is just truely weakminded and dumb.
I question God all the time.
I'm not arrogant enough to think I can explain every part of life with pure fact
And I'm not naive enough to think that there's a man that created it all in a week
So I'm clever enough to say "I don't know"
joi12345678 2 months ago
Darwin belongs in the Science class. Creationism belongs in the Religious Studies class.
zeldaofarel 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AtheistMediaBlog 3
giving both sides? hate to break it to you hassleback but theres more religions out there. if schools teach one religion they need to teach all to be fair
intoTaboo 3 months ago
@intoTaboo Yes, I am a Satanist and it seems we do not get our world veiw taught in schools, they should teach children that some people follow jesus and some follow the Prince of Darkness, let the children make up their own minds who is more powerful. One thing we Satanists and our Christian friends both share is our distain for science and those Daewin worshipers who seek to destroy what we hold dear.
mrpamayer 2 months ago
@mrpamayer i was more referring to like buddhism, hinduism etc. but glad to know you're crazy
intoTaboo 2 months ago
@intoTaboo Ah, but you said all religions......
mrpamayer 2 months ago
@mrpamayer satanism and christianity seem to be the same religion just different sides of the coin- not sure if that analogy makes sense...p.s. spell check wants me to use uppercase for 'c' in schristianity but not an uppercase 's' for satanism lol
intoTaboo 2 months ago
@mrpamayer Of course all religions are the same, just with different characters, and I am going to to tell Satan about spell check, she will not be happy.
mrpamayer 2 months ago
science isn't opinion, you can't change things you don't like about it. church=world is flat lol
science= no its round and the sun is in the center of the solar system
church= you have no proof
science= yes i do, look
church= STFU
34rawfish 3 months ago
WOW they all talk at once.
jock150 3 months ago
Said the moron who thinks the world is flat.
MrHoolits 3 months ago
Instead of debating over unanswerable questions, maybe we should all accept the fact that NO ONE actually knows what happens when you die and if there is a GOD. There is peace in that. You can still have faith that there is something bigger than us. Why are we so determined to have it all defined? Just be good to yourself and each other. Then if there is a GOD, I'm sure it will accept you in the end :)
bdawgz 3 months ago
teachers are to teach facts, that is all. evolution is a fact, creationism is not. the bible is only viable in schools as a work of literature, that's it.
iPriestHolmes 3 months ago 2
If you say something dumb, the teacher is going to tell you that it is dumb. If that makes you feel dumb, rather than make you feel like you are learning, you should wonder why you are so connected to that idea :p
MortuusBene 4 months ago in playlist Atheist 6
If my child put his hand up in history class and said " I believe the Snorks once lived in atlantis".... I WANT the teacher to say "That is utter nonsense. That is how he will learn. He used to believe there was a monster in the cupboard......... I told him it was nonsense.
TacticalHub 4 months ago
How did something come from ABSOLUTE nothing in the first place? The only answer is God. Science doesn't have one.
66GreenBaron66 4 months ago
@66GreenBaron66 How did something come from nothing? Well, nobody knows for sure. That doesn't mean we can reasonably attribute it to any beings, be they natural or supernatural.
mynameisjonas45 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AtheistMediaBlog
@mynameisjonas45 I know someone who was at the creation, can't lie, and wrote it down in a book for us.
66GreenBaron66 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@66GreenBaron66 "I know someone who was at the creation, can't lie, and wrote it down in a book for us."
You don't KNOW, you BELIEVE, which is very different.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@66GreenBaron66 "How did something come from ABSOLUTE nothing in the first place?" Who established that it was from 'absolute' nothing? What is 'absolute' nothing anyway?
"The only answer is God" God is something, not absolute nothing. If you wish to claim that it all came from 'absolute' nothing, then there can't be a god either.
"Science doesn't have one" It doesn't need to, since it's a false premise.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
Didn't the school broke the kid's right to religious freedom first by imposing onto them a religious model based on Christianity?
What if the kid wanted to worship Gaia or Shiva or whatever?
Ebvardh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no real violation of church/state separation in teaching both because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
Mogley52 5 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You clearly don't understand evolution do you. evolution is a chage in allele frequency over time, this has been observed and is a demonstrable scientific fact. creationism is one of the most ridiculous ideas that people have ever thought up, mostly because bible thumbing morons (I'm assuming like yourself) think that when reality contradicts scripture, it's reality that is wrong. creationism is false, and there is no god, get over it.
rememberthename33 5 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 5 months ago
im a christian young earth creationist. I think that creationism shouldn't be taught in school because religion and government are separate hindus christians muslims etc shouldnt be discriminated in school. in order to teach creation they would have to teach every creation story from judaism to greek mythology . Evolution should be taught as what it is a theory. however this teacher was completely unprofessional. its separation of church and state not destruction of church by the state
Alexper12 5 months ago
@Alexper12 I like your view but I'm afraid you are incorrect on a crucial thing. A "theory" in science is much different then the common usage of the term. In science, a theory is better than fact, it is mounds and mounds of compiled evidence and formulas that outline a part of nature, in this case, the evolution of natural life. The theory of evolution is about as true as any scientific fact can be. People often synonymize theory with hypothesis, but they are the exact opposite of each other.
rpsmith014 5 months ago
why teach both. if you want your kids to know the creationist theory you can teach them that superstition in your own time. Young earth creationism is acctualy quite a new thing. Even thomas Aqquinas wrote how genesis is purely symbolic. rely on reason not emotion.
richotim 5 months ago 6
@richotim Creationism is not a scientific theory....therefore it has no place in school. It is a fantasy, a story without any evidence. It is by definition irrational to teach something or even believe something like creationism.
theUSER101 5 months ago
problem #1: its okay to be dumb...stupidity is not acceptable. I'm beginning to want to teach both sides in order to expose creationism for what it is....superstition nonsense
pillowbugg 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mcommander23 5 months ago
see this is why we have R.E over here in the UK. That way the religious bullshit can stay in its own class and other classes can get the fuck on with their own lessons.
Stevie2Sxc 6 months ago
It's the ugly side of religion coming out here. Claiming unprovable things to be true is illogical and a sure fire way to make our kids idiots. Does anyone really want.their kids growing up to believe whatever someone says without any proof? Religion is the only thing that does this. How can they ever learn what is real or not real by this method. You're setting them up to be imbeciles.
USHOULDTHINK 6 months ago
What should have been discussed is that Creationists is religion and evolution is science. Evolution is derived from the things we can see and deduce from those things (we do this with EVERYTHING in life). Creationists start with the bible (of which there is NO PROOF) and try to make it provable. In every single attempt they have failed. To prove creation you must show some real world evidence. They can't. WE CANNOT FORCE INFORMATION IN OUR KIDS HEADS WITHOUT ANY PROOF. GET REAL HERE FOLKS
USHOULDTHINK 6 months ago
if there is truth, and you completely ignore and deny the truth and decide to live with a delusional belief, that is not deserving of respect. That is deserving of ridicule and criticism.
Der3k7r 6 months ago
Paragraphs Below
adrrei 7 months ago
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DAM GOD!!!! PERIOD!! SO DON"T TEACH ANYTHING THAT ISNT A FACT! FOR FUCKS SAKE, PEOPLE SHOULD GROW A BRAIN!
mio68df 7 months ago 15
@mio68df could not have said it better myself!! no wonder why american kids are the least educated in the world - 40% believe in creationism.
oceans19711 4 months ago
@mio68df you spelled 'damn' wrong
reb2550 4 months ago
Comment removed
mio68df 4 months ago
@mio68df It's not a fact that murder is wrong. Does that mean I shouldn't teach my kids that murder is wrong?
mynameisjonas45 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AtheistMediaBlog
Comment removed
mio68df 4 months ago
@mio68df I wasn't arguing for any deity or holy book.
mynameisjonas45 4 months ago
Comment removed
mio68df 4 months ago
@mio68df there is no evidence that threre isnt one either...dont sit there dening the fact that there could be a creater when you have no real proof for your own belief....and this brain you want people to grow r u just waiting and hoping they soon develope one cause from evolutions stand point you are goin to be waitin for a while!
Monica91894 4 months ago in playlist Atheism
@Monica91894 that doesnt make much sense.
KeySour 4 months ago
@mio68df We might be able to grow one for them if religion wasn't holding science back.
brongarago 3 months ago
@mio68df Darwinism is also not a fact, so should the school system not teach that either?
dogdayish 1 month ago
@dogdayish I did not just hear you say is not a fact! It IS a fact. There is plenty of evidence to support it. It's a different story if you don't want to accept it. Take a general biology course maybe you'll learn something.
mio68df 1 month ago
@mio68df Actually, I'm a premed student that has taken MANY biology courses. Darwinism is just a simple theory that has not been proven factual. I'm not saying that it's not true, but rather I am saying that if you only think that schools should teach factual information, then Darwinism should not be taught since it has not been 100% proven.
dogdayish 1 month ago
Comment removed
mio68df 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dogdayish Well if you've taken many biology courses like you say you did, then why do you still doubt it is a fact. It makes so much sense, pieces fit perfectly with one another. Maybe we don't have All the evidence but the body of evidence is growing. Evolution is a beautiful theory that provides enough evidence to say we did not come from a "creator" or any such crazy nonsense like that. Watch this video...youtube.com/watch?v=9nDcN9gRhfw&feature=related...really watch it please
mio68df 1 month ago
@dogdayish If you are really a premed biology student having taken "MANY" biology courses, you must know that there is no such thing as "darwinism" and you would not use that term. Also, you would know that the theory of evolution is supported by many scientific observations and empirical evidence, and hence is a tested theory; therefore eligible to be taught in a science classroom. Also, if you are a premed student, you have a long way to go, lots to learn. youd be advised to keep an open mind.
zamriash 1 month ago
@zamriash Okay, excuse me. Should I instead say "Evolutionary Biology"? I never said that it wasn't a tested theory. All that I said, was that it's not not a solid fact, and if that guy over there said that only factual information should be taught in school, then many evolution studies and teachings should not be taught. I NEVER took a side to anything, so for you to tell me to "keep an open mind" is not true. I also NEVER said that it shouldn't be taught in school.
dogdayish 1 month ago
@dogdayish So you say that evolution is indeed a tested theory and yet not a solid fact? can you please explain in your own words what you consider to be the distinction between a tested theory and fact? Do you know that einsteins "theory" of general relativity completely superseded Newton's "theory" of universal gravitation? Yet newtons "theory" is enough to put a man on the moon. The scientific use of the word "theory" is different from the meaning of the word in common parlance.
zamriash 1 month ago
@dogdayish you would represent yourself much better if you actually took a stand and refrained from using phrases like "i never said" "i never took a side" "all i said". These phrases really have no meaning if you know what you are talking about.
zamriash 1 month ago
@dogdayish Evolution has millions of pages of research supporting it from research done over the last 150 years and is a proven fact. It is also the basis of modern medicine as you should know being a premed student. The term scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the word "theory" that we use in everyday language. Evolution is a fact, meaning it occurs in nature and we have observed it. The "Theory of Evolution" explains the mechanisms behind how it actually works.
Sendamagicmoment 1 month ago
@Sendamagicmoment No its not a proven fact. It is merely a theory and judging by the track record scientist have at changing their mind, I would take it with a pinch of salt. Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in the classroom on an equal scale.
MrEnlighteneddespot 1 month ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot You can't teach creationism in a science classroom because there is no science within it to teach. All there is is a 2000 year old book written by people that didn't know where the sun went at night. Scientists change their minds, it's called adopting new information when it is discovered. Creationism, however, does not change in light of new information. Thats why it is not science, but rather faith based belief. I'm glad we don't still think earth is flat and 6000 yrs old.
LOL4Polio 1 week ago
@LOL4Polio I never said it should be taught in the science classroom though it certainly has a place within the school curriculum.
MrEnlighteneddespot 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrEnlighteneddespot The only place it would have is in a world religions class. Which should be required, yes. I think that would be helpful in ending much ignorance/intolerance. You stated that "Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in the classroom on an equal scale." These are two very different subjects and don't really deserve "equal scale" because there is no debate between the two. One is religious, the other is science. Like saying that tuba and algebra deserve an equal scale
LOL4Polio 19 hours ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot
I'm very sorry to call you ignorant but that is just what you are. Please go look up the definition of theory before you post any more things that make you seem utterly stupid.
Jaramide 22 hours ago
@Jaramide All of us are ignorant one way or another, as God alone is all-knowing. It is just my opinion that evolution does not have the concrete evidence behind it to have it declared absolute fact. Many top theologians, like John MacArthur, reject evolution as lies entirely- are they utterly stupid? Your arrogant.
MrEnlighteneddespot 21 hours ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot Since you say that there is no concrete evidence behind evolution and also state that god alone is all-knowing. Perhaps you'd like to provide the "concrete evidence" you have proving that god is "all-knowing?" Or even evidence that god exists?
LOL4Polio 18 hours ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot
Well since they are THEOLOGIANS and don't actually hold any degrees in biology, paleontology or any other disciplines that makes them qualified to make any statements on the matter i would say that yes they are either blindingly ignorant or indeed utterly stupid.
Hell, even if you are right and evolution is false why does that make your "magic man" explanation correct?
Jaramide 3 hours ago
wow, just wow
xveddermanx 7 months ago
and why are these bitches qualified influenced thousands of retarded americans that are listening and worship basically housewives?....thats why entertainers used to be at the bottom of the social latter and not the top in the olden days..damn society has fucked up by giving ppl like this power and influenced in this country
tnable182 7 months ago
Comment removed
rememberthename33 8 months ago
My teacher at a Catholic school always gave us her views about how she believed in evolution. No one cared haha
AliceBellaGirl 8 months ago
How can creationist possibly say that "both should be taught"? why on earth would we teach something that has been shown to be false? should we also teach kids the world is flat? you can't teach contradicting ideas when one has been found to be true and the other is nonsense. how can you say "well everything evolved and everything was also created by a magic sky man, the world is 4.5 billion years old and it's also 6000. dinosaurs lived with men and they also didn't. Amazing stupidity
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 In many different places around the earth, trees are fossilized standing up, crossing through many different rock layers. Some cross through coal layers, then through rock layers and then coal layers.
Evolutionists claim that rock layers are laid down over millions of years.
With decomposition, erosion, and pest scavenging (like termites), wouldn't that tree have long since disappeared before the rest of it were buried in sediment? Are the rock layers really that old?
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians LOL are you talking about "polystrate fossils"? that idea was refuted 100 years ago! how are you so out of date? if you don't know how it's false ill put it briefly: Tree's have NEVER been found to pass through different layers of rock that are from different geological time periods, the different 'layers' that are seen (such as the ones at Joggins, Nova Scotia) are from the SAME time period and have been dated as such many times with many different dating techniques. Catch up..
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 So you agree that rock layers may be laid at a rapid rate. Good.
Now, what about just a pig or another medium-sized fossil? Must such not also be buried quickly? Or does such a fossil form when sediment is laid down a centimeter per millenium?
You see, not only polystrate fossils, but fossils of many types are found everywhere.
"NEVER been found ... from different geological time periods. What a circular statement. The way that they date the layers is by the index fossils.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Obviously layers CAN be laid at a relativity rapid rate, such as in a mudslide or a sandstorm or an avalanche, are you trying to say that because there has been rapid formation of a layer, that is evidence against evolution? or evidence of some giant flood? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
If you really think that evolution doesn't have enough evidence, then why don't you give some evidence, any evidence at all for creation (you would be the first)
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Yes, a mudslide, sandstorm, avalanche . . . are all examples of catastrophic events where layers are laid down rapidly. And yes, rock layers CAN also be laid down at a much slower rate (f.e: wind erosion sedimentation); however, where FOSSILIZATION is present, we know that the layer were laid down at a rapid rate.
And because fossils are nearly ubiquitious in post Campbrian layers, we can suppose that most layers result from catastrophic, rapid events
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians No because the 'layer' can be in a very small area, a fossil can form even from an animal dying in mud so how does that lead you to believe that all fossils are formed due to major catastrophic events. You still haven't made it clear what your point is OR provided any evidence at all for creation, surely you must have some evidence for it or else why would you believe it?
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Sir, I am just reasoning with you about what we see.
I am coming with neither a presupposition for creation nor evolution (which is a theory of genetics, so why would I impose such on a geological observation, unless I was coming to the table with a preconceived bias?).
I see fossil rich layers on top of fossil rich layers. This makes me think: "There's one thing we can hang our hats on: fossil-rich layers were laid down rapidly."
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Well, no, I am not saying that ALL fossils are formed due to major catastrophic events. I am saying that all fossils must have been buried relatively rapidly.
Thus, wherever we see fossil rich layers, we can reasonably make inferences about the sedimentation rates of the layers in which they are found. And fossils are not just found in localized areas, they are found all over.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Well of course if the bones of an animal sat on the surface and were never covered by anything then they wouldn't get to fossilize, and i know fossils are found all over I mean to say there are areas where fossilization is more likely to occur and is richer in fossils as a result. I'm still not sure what you're driving at, are you trying to say that everything all got laid down at once due to a global flood? or are you just pointing out how fossils are made..
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Well, I am pointing out how fossils are made, which in turn tells us about the rock layers in which they are found.
Fossils do not form in top soil. I can look up the article if you want, where they put fish in metal mesh cages to prevent scavengers, and buried them in mud at the bottom of a lake. Just from the bacteria within the fish, the soft tissue was mostly decomposed and the bones falling apart after 6 DAYS!
Fossilization is a unique occurrence.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians I know fossilization is a unique occurrence, that's why they are hard to come by. I still don't know what you're getting at, It's unclear if you believe in evolution or creation or even if you're trying to give evidence for either. If you're just discussing how fossils form and where they form, I'm honestly not that interested unless you have a point to make
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Fossils are hard to come by in top soil today . . . but everywhere in the rock layers of yesterday.
I do believe in Creation.
But if you are saying that we should reach a conclusion, and THEN look at the evidence. . . That's not really scientific.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians But the fossils are dated to be in chronological order, so the older they are, the deeper they are. If there was a massive flood such as in creation, a dense layer of all different fossils would be found at the same level, dinosaurs would be found with humans and they would all be dated to the same time period, but we don't see anything like this.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Sorry, clients came in.
Yes, I absolutely agree that the sequence of fossils give a chronological order of when they were buried. But what I think is most important is what we DON'T see.
We see layer on top of layer of fossil-rich rock; you don't see a bunch of empty layers. Moreover, you usually do not see evidence of erosion in-between the layers.
I mean, Catastrophism is what I see. And that is not necesarily synonymous with Creation Theory at all. But Uniformitarianism?
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Uniformitarianism would produce one uniform layer, and such would be almost empty of fossils.
A catastrophic model COULD mean that the earth is like a sleeping giant. It lies dormant for a while, but then, it violently convulses. Such is responsible for the rock layers and the cause of the mass, rapid, deep, burial of fossils.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 But that model would look different. Because, there, we'd have fossil layer, then empty layer, then fossil layer.
No that's not what we see.
Yet, we do definitely see differing organisms sorted from top to bottom.
However, to say that the order is less to more complex is just not honest. Sharks precede grass, tribolites have complex eyes, and dinosaurs are no simpler than present day animals -- arguably, they're more complex.
We see catastrophic burial and sorting.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 It's strange: The geologic column is based on the presumption that fossiliferous layers can be traced across entire continents and correlated with rocks in other countries.
But you say that fossil layers are the result of localized events, like animals getting buried in river deltas.
River deltas can't be traced across continents, how in the world could such be correlated with rocks layers in other countries?
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians What is your definition of evolution? It's off topic, but honestly the topic of geology is terribly mundane, if you have some real questions about geology you should probably contact a geologist for the answers.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Well, just to sum it up, my point is that the geologic column really is a remarkably subjective model. They are able to "trace layers" across continents MERELY by the fossils found therein. I know you probably hate them, but I would encourage you to read the creation wiki depiction of the geologic column. Truly, as honest as I can be, Evolution does not have independent geological verification.
Evolution generally is the belief that inanimate things "organize themselves".
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Now, just within the school of genetics, it is the belief system (not an observed science) that random changes increase information.
Random changes do happen, and they do cause funny things: three legged goats, two headed turtles, diseases, etc. But such does not increase information in the program. Quirky things can happen to genes to make them express weird traits, but to say that such gave rise to the origin of an extremely complex interactive program is, in short, crazy.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 It was cute, I saw a baby who's mom dressed him up like the red barron. I also saw a cat who "played the piano" when a red lazer light was pointed at each key.
What was funny about these thing is that babies really are not ace fighter pilots, and cats aren't bethoven. But sometimes silly people really do attribute intelligent qualities to animals and babies, when they do not really possess such qualities (at least not to the degree depicted).
It's kinda like that.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 People see a quirky thing happen in inanimate chemicals in the gene code and attribute something equivalent to intelligent design. When really, such is just a PROJECTION of intelligence and a projection of guided design.
Now, of course, I do believe that the code was definitely designed. Anyone with a brain can get that. But random mutations aren't guided intelligence. They're just glitches that create funny manifestations that Evolutionists attribute with increased informati
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Thus, Evolutionists project and boast remarkable things based on these random glitches in the code. Which is really what this BELIEF SYSTEM is all about. When WE can create ourselves and WE can transform our natures, and OUR EFFORT gets all the glory for all that we have, then we are able to leave God out of the picture.
It's merely an elaborate rationalization to which proud Humanists are drawn. The need to vainly explain away God is the essence of the entire belief system.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Ok I see why you don't believe in evolution now, and I think this is the case with most creationists, what you have described is not AT ALL what evolution is, "inanimate things organize themselves" is not evolution, inanimate things becoming living things is (roughly) the theory of bio-genesis, which is a theory about how life might have first formed, it has been demonstrated that inanimate things can form amino acids (the building blocks of life) but so far that's all
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Evolution on the other hand is nothing about how life originally got here, not about how the planet formed, evolution is change over time, which is a scientific fact and can be seen everywhere on a microscopic level (AIDS virus etc) and on a macroscopic level (get to that in a second)
a mutation causing a three legged goat etc isn't a change over time, it's a harmful mutation which will cause the animal to die and not pass that gene on to further generations
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Change over time is random mutation guided by natural selection, so the mutation will be random (like if an animal is slightly taller or has slightly longer teeth etc) which is why no animals or humans look the same, people look different because of random mutations in the genes, natural selection is what decides which genes will be passed on, for instance ancestors of the giraffe have been found to have short necks, but the ones with longer necks would get more food from trees
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians and so would more likely survive and pass on their gene of slightly longer necks, over a long period of time the giraffes with the longer necks get favored more and more (survival of the fittest) until eventually we have modern giraffes with ridiculously long necks. That's change over time (evolution) in the process and doesn't mean that randomly one giraffe was born with a huge neck, is a gradual change over a long period of time and we have evidence for this
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Animals can also change so much that the become a different species (specification) we have seen this at the microscopic level with bacteria and viruses becoming resilient to medicine. we can also see this in animals, for example we have seen a population of lizards (as well as many other animals) separate (half stay and half leave to another island etc) and the ones that leave become more adapted to their new environment by natural selection, they change over time
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians eventually they will have changed so much genetically and physically (different colour, larger, maybe better at climbing trees etc) they will be so different that they will no longer be able to breed with the original lizard and so will be a different species, this happens all over and can be observed, it can happen in a matter of decades but has been going on for millions of years. It's not a belief system and it's not based on assumptions, it happens and we can see it happen
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians There are some parts that are missing but they don't affect the overall theory at all, like we don't have every fossil of every animal that ever lived, and we're not sure how some traits evolved (such as blood clots) but if you have a puzzle and are missing 3 pieces of it you can still tell what the puzzle is, there is no reason to fill the gaps with a "designer" because we can see everything happen without one. It' doesn't explain away god, but so far there is no need for one.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Yes, someone would absolutely be crazy to believe in abiogenesis, especially because the Law of Biogenesis is the single-most scientifically verified principle in Biology.
But you know, in Darwin's time a lot of folks believed that environmental factors affected genetics. If a person developed his muscles, it was believed that he could pass muscle traits onto his son. And, indeed, Darwin believed that the giraffe's effort in stretching out its neck was one of the factors.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 So, lets not confuse the idea that animals are animate with the idea that genetic molecules are NOT.
They are, yes, part of a living organism. And like a computer design (but a million times more complex), DNA arranges and reproduces AFTER ITS KIND . . . In other words, the offspring is a COPY of the DNA codes from the parents. Basically, the DNA REPLICATES its code.
How much more accurate could the language of the Bible be? DNA REPLICATES after the parents.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 DNA doesn't INCORPORATE its environment when reproducing. It just carbon copies the parents' code.
Now, can it change itself to suit its environment? No, it just copies. Just like if you were bootlegging your buddies' computer program and burning it on a CD.
So, what happens when we get a bootlegged copy of a copy of a copy? Lots of time we get glitches. But 2 main points: 1. GLITCHES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE PROGRAM!!! and 2. Changes are due to loss of info.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 But moreover, just like computer programs can compress info and even correct glitches, so can DNA in certain situations: it can fuse and heal errors, but such are PART OF THE PROGRAM.
To fancy that computer programs are becoming more and more complex with each bootlegged copy is silly. Data may possibly be added by a glitch BUT INFORMATION is not added!!!
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 So if you smuggle a bootleg copy of a video game to China, and that original copy branches out from Bejing to Hong Kong, you may very well get a variety of glitches. A hundred years later, you would have more variety.
But can you really imagine that you could start out with Halo and end up with an Anne Murray CD? No, you'd have Halo games. Some with certain features preserved, but others with features lost. Not a whole new kind of computer program!!!
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Ok again I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, The evolution your describing, and the evolution described on creationism websites etc (i suspect this s where you have learnt about evolution) is a complete straw man, these websites either don't know what evolution is and misrepresent is, or they do know what it is and they purposely change it's meaning so it looks ridiculous, If evolution was what you describe it as, do you think that 99.5% of scientists
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians would accept it as scientific fact? the strict definition of evolution is "a change in allele frequencies over time." which is indisputable a fact, we know that over time, the frequency of different alleles changes, this can be, and has been observed thousands of times. Back to abiogenisis for a second, i agree I don't completely believe that life came from non-life, but scientists don't claim this, they have just found that abiogenisis CAN occur, it doesn't mean it did though.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "the strict definition of evolution is "a change in allele frequencies over time."
That is a definition of so-called "micro-evolution" or what Creationists call "adaptation of a variety." Creationists have no problem with that, and indeed, contend that such happens at very rapid rates (such that any breed of dog can be selected from a mutt in 100 years!)
That is not the point of contention.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians But again this isn't evolution, evolution makes no claims about how life first started, it's just how it developed. The example with the CD is not at all what evolution does, yes DNA copies, we all accept that, and most of the time it copies perfectly, sometimes there is a mutation where it doesn't copy quite right and a lot of the time this mutation doesn't do anything or can be harmful (like cancer etc) but DNA replicates so often that these mutation can occur a fair bit
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians But the effects of this can be harmful or helpful depending on the environment, for example in parts of England before the industrial revolution, there were mostly light moths and very few dark moths (the darkness was attributed to mutation in dna, both parents of the dark moth could have been light) becasue the trees where light, the light moths didn't get eaten much as birds could see the dark ones very easily, but after the industrial revolution there was so much soot
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians In the air that the light bark of the trees turned darker, and so the light moths were eaten more, so the dark moths survived more, and passed on the gene for darkness more, and in a few years there were few light moths and many dark moths. This is a change in allele frequency, this is evolution, this is scientific fact.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 In Entomology books, both the dark and light moths were recorded LONG BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
So what you have in the selection of moths is NOT a CREATION of a brand new kind, CAUSED by the environment. No, the genetic program ALREADY EXISTED, and was merely selected.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT A CREATIVE CAUSE FOR COMPLEX GENETIC INFORMATION!!!
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Yes, I said that both light and dark moths were found, and that dark moths were rare, but due to environmental pressures, the allele frequency changed, the point of the example is that we can see evolution happening, which is why change over time is scientific fact. I gave you examples before of lizards moving to another location and changing over time, until eventually they are a new species (or 'kind' if you want to say that)
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians So we both accept that things change over time (evolve), and we both know that things can change so much that they can no longer breed with the original species (speciation) and so become their own species (kind)
what part do you not agree with?
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Darwin saw two white chickens produce a red chicken and said "See, Evolution by random chance." But Mendel, through the scientific method, showed that it was rather"sudden expression of a latent gene ALREADY PRESENT IN THE GENETIC CODE".
Evolution thinks that magical random influences in the environment is the cause for everything: writing the program and all transformation. This is mathematically untenable.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians A more recent example is how insects become resistant to pesticide, originally there are very few insects with genetic mutation that make them immune to pesticide, but over time these insects survive more and pass this gene on, so eventually most insects will be resistant to a certain pesticide. This rate is all that's needed to make small changes in a short period of time, and huge changes over a longer period of time, depending on the environment
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 The mathematical probability of RANDOM CHANCE creating such a complex code is preposterous. Since the remarkable complexity of the DNA code was discovered in 1954, the mathematical probability has become totally undefendable.
That is why Evolutionist require large expanses of time, to give them better odds. So when you see a rapid change, it does no service to Evolution Theory.
It proves that such change is due to MECHANISMS WITHIN THE CELL, not random chance.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Ok again, I'm not talking about how the 'code' started, I'm talking about evolution as opposed to creationism. The "random chance" part is the chance that when replication, DNA will 'randomly' make a mistake (mutation), which causes different genes, and whether the gene is harmful or not depends on the environment. We don't "require large expanses of time" we just observe that over a long period of time, a lot of changes have occurred, and we evidence that shows this.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians The theory of evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others and the evidence for it is overwhelming.
The writers of the bible had no idea what DNA was, and to make an obscure connection between the language they use and how DNA works is pretty absurd.
I encourage you to look up evolution from real science websites and not creationist sources, as they tend to be full of shit..
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 The problem comes when Evolutionists boast that RANDOM CHANCE, trial and error mutations are responsible for:
1. Creating the remarkably complex code in the first place. JUST PREPOSTEROUS.
and,
2. Transforming creatures' fundamental nature across FAMILY lines. A plant becoms an animal, a reptile becomes a mamal, etc.
Macro-evolution is CLAIMED, but it has nothing to do with OBSERVED science.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 If you are willing to agree that rapid changes are due to mechanisms within the cell, and NOT due to RANDOM ENVIRONMENTAL influences and blind chance, then sir, you are a lot closer to Creationist thinking than you know.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians What is a "random environmental influence"? environmental influences only determines what traits will be favored in survival, and therefore what traits will likely survive and be passed down to further generations. This is nothing like creationist thinking, as creationist thinking is an oxymoron
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "random environmental influence" like radiation, or some other glitch.
We both agree, to a degree, with natural selection.
But selecting between halo and a barry manilow cd is NOT THE CREATIVE POWER. Nor can it mathematically be defended that both cd's came from a Word program 50 years ago due to RANDOM INCREMENTAL CHANGES IN THE BINARY CODE!!!
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Again there is no environmental forces acting on the CDs, You cannot compare a non-living thing which doesn't evolve, to a living one. Radiation is an outside cause of mutation, but for the most part it's not what causes the 'errors' that we see when DNA replicates. Again you are confusing evolution with the origin of life, when in fact it is just how that life changes and adapts over time. Theres nothing "magical" or "random" about environmental pressures for survival
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 All natural selection does is trash damaged programs.
What Evolution says is that it causes INCREASED INFORMATION IN THE PROGRAM. Wrong! It merely selects, it doesn't write, nor re-program from completely different codes.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Evolutionists are running, finally, from this STUPID "random chance" cause for macro-evolution. Good.
If you can abandon random chance cause, we are really very close to agreement. We can even see eye to eye on the issue of variety in a family.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians No, The whole time no one has said that "random chance causes macro evolution, It's RANDOM mutation (as i have explained) guided by NON-RANDOM natural selection. so again, it is random that a change will occur, because it is random when the DNA will make a 'mistake', but it is NOT random whether that change will be beneficial for survival, or not. If it isn't then the animal won't survive, and won't pass on that gene. If it is, then the animal will survive, and pass on that gene
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Even if we intelligently selected and bred a horse, could we ever get a buffalo?
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians This is assuming that if evolution were true, we would see existing species, turning into other existing species. If you wanted to get a horse the become a different species, say one that is white and has no long hair, you could keep killing all the darker, short haired horses, favoring the lighter ones with longer hair, and over a long period of time this would either
1) cause the species to go extinct (as million of species have)
or
2) cause horses to be white and long haired
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians
So we now agree that:
1) random genetic mutations occur
2) these mutations can be passed down generations (micro-evolution)
3) non-random natural selection causes changes in the frequency of the traits
4) over time, micro evolution becomes macro evolution (as the only difference is the time scale, eg. a micro walk is to the kitchen and a macro walk is down the road)
so what part of evolution do we now not agree on?
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 The difference is in degree and quality of changes.
Most changes are not "Evolution." They are variation that is already present in latent genes within the gene pool. Would you agree with that? When a mutt becomes a poodle or a chiuahua or a great dane, this is just variation within the gene code that is already present.
Indeed, it really is the only way to explain RAPID changes, like when two white chickens produce a red chicken.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Mutation is just a tiny footnote of the story, it is NOT the main plot. It's kinda like attributing the formation of the Grand Canyon to wind erosion . . . but much more preposterous, even.
Other cellular factors are at work, not just REPLICATION. Fusing is a response that the cell has when extreme inbreeding occurs. It is a way of filling in lost information. It's like genetic healing or mending (kinda like scabs and scars). This is much more common than mutation.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Inbreeding causes a loss of information, which is the cause of most speciation.
But the quality and degree of changes are much less than what Evolutionists purport.
Yes, we can get a Barry Manilow song program that is all scratched up, and do information compression and other ways to try to salvage and bridge the information in the program, but we won't get an Eminem albulm from it.
We'll get essentially a Barry Manilow song, with some variation. That is a simple example.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 This leads to my second point: We must distinguish between "change" in the code and "increased information" in the code.
It is not enough to discuss "change" but "quality of change."
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "a micro walk is to the kitchen and a macro walk is down the road."
Rather, a conclusion based on premises is logical. But to LEAP to the moon from a couple premesis is flighty.
"We can see that wind erosion can wear away rock (okay, I'm with ya), THUS, WIND EROSION FORGED THE GRAND CANYON AND SCULPTED THE PARTHENON!!"
Whoa, whoa, let's get a few more premises in between there before you jump to that conclusion!
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians No, it's not a matter of "micro evolution happens, therefore macro evolution MUST happen" we see micro evolution happening, and we see over time the evolution on a micro scale adds up and become evolution on a bigger scale, there is no 'leap'
You can't say micro evolution happens but macro evolution doesn't, that's just creationist nonsense.
All of this is observed and testable. This is not a debated subject among scientists, creation is in no way scientific or valid.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "we see over time the evolution on a micro scale adds up and become evolution on a bigger scale"
You see it in the imagination of your mind and the glossy, illustrated textbooks. But you don't see it in the rock layers, where the real evidence is. Unless you are claiming to have lived for 100 million years and observed it, you didn't see anything. Rather, you made inferences from circumstantial evidence . . . spotty circumstantial evidence.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 The LEAP is in your logic to an enormous conclusion based on minor changes WITHIN a kind.
And the vast majority of changes are due to information already present within the cell.
The random mutation changes don't amount to much. And the vast majority of mutations cause the organism to not survive. And even those quirky situations where it causes an idiosyncratic positive survival character, almost always those traits dissappear when blended with the general population.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Yet somehow, you "see" the entire ECOSYSTEM forged by such a minor player in the game.
Oh, and if I can't "see" it, then I'm absolutely crazy?
Hey, see it that way, big deal. But don't tell me that "seeing" that the ecosystem was designed is crazy. And don't tell me that you base your inferences on observed, scientific method facts. They are not facts, they are inferences. And far fetched ones at that.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians This "lost and gain" of information is nonsense, Mutations can add information, they can also subtract informationm but the amount of information is irrelevant to how much the animal can change, for example the amoeba has 100x the genetic information humans do, so does that mean it can change into whatever animal it wants because it has more information?
Two white chickens giving birth to a red chicken is not evolution, no one is saying it is except creationist websites
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "the amoeba has 100x the genetic information humans do, so does that mean it can change into whatever animal it wants because it has more information?"
I didn't really get your point here. I probably misunderstood, but this sounds like a Creationist defense.
The answer is, no. (which seems to be what you were saying in a rhetorical question). The genetic code can change somewhat, sure, but it is not like liquid, and can morph itself into any form to suit its environment.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians If the white chickens started being killed and the red chickens had a survival advantage, and over time all chickens were red, this is a change in allele frequency over time and is considered evolution. If half the chickens moved somewhere and changed over time in a seperate way to the original chicks, due t a different environment, to the point they could no longer interbreed, this is speciation, it is an example of one species become two separate species.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "If the white chickens started being killed and the red chickens had a survival advantage, and over time all chickens were red" & "This "lost and gain" of information is nonsense"
Gosh, I'm getting whiplash from you contradicting yourself in 2 consecutive comments.
Are you saying that all white chickens being killed is NOT a loss of genetic information?
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 By the way, I have no problem AT ALL with your depiction of speciation here.
But that is not the essence of Evolution Theory with which Creationsists contend.
The biggest problem is their claim that RANDOM MUTATION is the major driving force in speciation (when in fact, it is more of a footnote, not the leading role).
The other big problem is the grandios boast that Evolutionists claim that speciation eventually designed the entire ecosystem.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians The fossil record along with all the dating methods and comparative DNA technology, all give a clear picture as to how evolution has happened, how long it took, what animals evolved from what and what caused evolution in different places. I'm not sure on what grounds you claim we don't see it in the rock layers, it's the exact opposite. These are not just inferences or guesses like creationists claims, that's not how science works, you don't get an idea through based on nothing
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians which is precisely why intelligent design has been deemed "not science" in the courts, and the proponents of the idea won't even defend it under oath, because they know it's bull. It's not wise to learn about evolution from creation websites, as you have pointed out several times that you don't really know what evolution is, as the websites give false definitions and push nonsense ideas. If evolution was the way creation websites claimed it was, would anyone believe it?
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 should've read "it CAN'T morph itself into any form to suit its environment."
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 You are aware that the major point of contention is this: Evolutionists attribute RANDOM MUTATION and natural selection for major macro changes over time.
However, Creationists believe that mechanisms within the cell, such as latent unexpressed genes, and other cellular mechanisms, plus natural selection, are almost always responsible for "micro-evolution" or what we call "variation."
In fact, Creationists believe that variation happens at a much faster rate, because . . .
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 because, in order for Evolution to be true through RANDOM MUTATION, it would take MUCH, MUCH, MUCH longer periods of time due to the outlandish mathematical probabilities of such a theory.
In reality, even millions of years would not be enough time to account for such enormous mathematical probabilities. But, to say that such happened in a short period of time would make the theory that much more mathematically preposterous.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 "A more recent example is how insects become resistant to pesticide . . ."
Just more proof that the genetic information for pesticide resistence was ALREADY PRESENT WITHIN THE GENE POOL.
If such a trait was "ACQUIRED" through random mutation, and over the years evolved into a pesticide resistant trait, then how did the pre-evolved ancestors survive.
Evolving a trait for pesticide resistence, if even done one generation, is a generation too late. Survival is required FIRST.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians I said the loss and gain of information is a nonsense argument because mutations absolutely add and subtract information, so I'm not sure on what premise this argument keeps being made. And no of course speciation isn't an 'essence' of evolution it's just the effect of evolution, to create different species.
Yes random mutation, with non-random natural selection is what causes change over time. what i don't understand is we can observe these mutations
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Nice how you use the word "speciation" interchangeably with "random mutation." My point is that they aren't the same thing.
Random mutation may very well add DATA, but information is quite something different.
And hey, if "it doesn't matter what the source of the variation", then why don't we just agree that the source comes from within the cell, not from the environment? Then, you'd be a creationist, like me.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians As in we can actually see in DNA replicate and create mutations, these mutations are responsible for traits that aren't 'latent' in the gene pool, for example the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon, that trait couldn't have already been present in gene pool because nylon is hasn't always been around, there are many other examples of this. But for evolution to work it doesn't matter what the source of the variation is, it just matters that there is change from one generation
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 The bacteria that digests nylon existed prior to the invention of nylon. It was found to exist in corses from the 1800's. Just because it so happens to have the ability to digest nylon doesn't mean that nylon pre-existed the bacteria.
I can digest a twinky; God knows those things exist nowhere in nature. LOL.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians Speciation is the process in which new species arise, mutations occur when DNA replicates, There are not interchangeable. what is your definition of information? we have observed increased genetic variety in a population, genetic material, novel genetic material and novel genetically-regulated abilities. If those do not qualify as "information" then I don't know what you are talking about.
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians The ability to digest nylon comes from anew enzyme that has been made in the bacteria, the strain of bacteria has been known for a while, but has never been known to produce this enzyme, which is why it is a new trait. twinkies are made up of many different things that occur in nature, to say that twinkles don't exist in nature therefore It's the same thing is silly
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians And no one said the source of the change is the environment, the source is always in DNA, it doesn't matter if it's a new trait or a trait that has been dormant though.how can you think that anyone thinks a change can come from outside the body, the environment is simply what decides if that change is helpful or harmful and so if it gets passed on or not
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Gosh, your last reply is the point that Creationists have been trying to make. I don't think we are really that far apart in principle.
RomansGalatians 8 months ago
@RomansGalatians I'm not sure why you don't accept evolution then, you know:
1) What evolution actually is (not abiogenesis)
2) random mutations occur
3) these happen quite often (about 64 new mutation for each zygote {sperm and egg})
4) these mutations can be helpful or harmful depending on the environment
5) natural selection (environmental pressure for survival) determines what traits survive
6) these traits that survive become more common
7) over time this causes new speciation
Thats it
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 Yeah, and I'M crazy?
RomansGalatians 8 months ago