False ideas about evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2011, 11:29 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2011 11:33 PM by Spectre.)
RE: False ideas about evolution
(30-05-2011 08:19 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  About hermaphrodites coming first. I would say yes, since sexual reproduction appears within plants rather than bacteria, the hermaphroditic plant life came before the species with specific sexes. Hermaphroditic species can spread genes in a wider range, but separating them into two distinct sorts male and female allowed for even more spreading. though it required the ability to walk (or swim =p).
I have heard some of my colleagues ask why darwinian evolution would leave asexual reproduction in favor of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction provides a greater diversification of the gene pool. Whether it was designed or came about by an unguided premise is a totally different matter, but people shouldn't ask questions that they know the answer to. Both the Creation and Darwinian models provide an adequate answer to why we would have sexual reproduction. We just disagree on how sexual reproduction came about.

The problem I normally see when creationists and darwin supporters collide is that both sides tend to employ logical fallacies. Some Creationists tend to use the fallacy of the false dilemma and equivocation, and some darwin supporters tend to affirm the consequent and equivocate the word evolution. If we did not use logical fallacies while trying to communicate our opinions there would not be so much misunderstanding or misinformation about Darwinism and Creationism. Ignorance on both sides really hurt our cause. 99% of the debates between us are an argument of semantics, and it is such a waste when we could have such a productive and educational discussion on the matter.


(30-05-2011 07:09 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  How about Kent Hovinds questions to stump an evolutionist/atheist/liberal/abortionist/anyonewhodisagrees? can't remember them all but I got into an argument with someone once and I swear they quoted kent hovind word for word.
If they watch a lot of Dr. Hovind's videos it sinks in pretty fast because he usually says the same thing in every debate.(Which is fine.) I personally know Dr. Hovind and his Son. Dr. Hovind was the one who got me started on Young Earth Creationism.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" Peter 3:15

http://www.answersforhope.org
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2011, 08:17 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Hey Spectre,

I'm surprise(but not displeased) that you're back. Is this a temporary thing, or have you decided to plunged back into the belly of the beast? We do need diversification here.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2011, 02:48 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Thanks for the ICR articles Spectre. I will have to read some of these when I get a chance. I can poke a hole in the first paper they have listed on Radiohalos. These discoloration halos are the result of damage created by alpha emission and are the result not of U decay but rather from Radon incorporated into the crystalline structure during formation. Radon gas is very common (especially in areas rich is shales, which is why they suggest buying radon gas detectors) and can be easily incorporated into the crystal lattice. Radon decays to form Po which explains the absence of U and since Radon is a gas it tends to migrate along cracks within the rock and becomes concentrated in the areas that form these radiohalos.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2011, 01:38 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(05-05-2011 01:13 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  
(05-05-2011 09:05 AM)Thammuz Wrote:  
(05-05-2011 08:59 AM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  Alright, I saw this said at Evolution is a Fairytale. That a scientist can adjust the numbers in radiometric dating to fit any model and still make it look consistent. I'd like to know if anyone knows the mechanics of this. I know how radiometric dating works, and I'm thinking they are using different half-lives? Or do they say it's the initial amount that can be tweaked?

There is also a creationist theory about accelerating half-life to a certain point. That way young earth creationism would make sense. Of course, the theory is based on nothing and it would mean that God is deliberately trying to fool us.

I observed that when creationist argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible, they would never assume that this law has changed over time. But when it comes to half-lives it is perfectly okay to assume (on no rational basis) that the laws of quantum physics changed for no particular reason. it's so typical.

Howdy,
Are you talking about radiocarbon dating ? If so, see : http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/ant...ating.html
for a discussion and the limitations.

Did you folks know that Homo sapiens, (we--the Pink Monkeys) share 99.5 % identical genetic sequences with each other, (thus putting the "lie", for the most part to the racial thingy), (as well as we are ALL related (by mitochondrial DNA) to one African woman), AND we share 95 % identical genetic sequences to the primate groups, which is conclusive evidence for evolution from primates.

Did Adam have a belly button ? The end. (Reduction ad absurdum I know but....come on).

Evolution is observed to be happening all the time everywhere. In your local hospital they are growing out cultures of bacteria in millions of Petri dishes which have adapted to the antibiotic their host was taking, and developed the ability to resist the antibiotic. Thus the doc has to prescribe a different drug, to which the bug is sensitive. Duh. I bet if a person who has an infection, and doesn't accept evolution was given the choice to go with the original antibiotic, or the new one, they would take about 2 seconds to accept (evolution), the new one.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2011, 02:54 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Some people are okay with evolution in general but think humans were created specially. From what I understand the fossil record for humans is pretty complete until you get back to clearly non-human animals. For example Lucy was an Australopithecine and as such clearly pre human. However species that live in forests, for example chimpanzees and bats, tend not to fossilize as well. So if you followed the evidence you might be able to argue that bats and chimpanzees were specially created but not humans. I think it ought to be possible to put together a really good video to that effect.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 03:11 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(17-07-2011 02:54 PM)angry_liberal Wrote:  Some people are okay with evolution in general but think humans were created specially. From what I understand the fossil record for humans is pretty complete until you get back to clearly non-human animals. For example Lucy was an Australopithecine and as such clearly pre human. However species that live in forests, for example chimpanzees and bats, tend not to fossilize as well. So if you followed the evidence you might be able to argue that bats and chimpanzees were specially created but not humans. I think it ought to be possible to put together a really good video to that effect.

My sister-in-law presented me with a similar idea. She believes in God and identifies herself as Christian but also wants to believe in evolution. The problem is that she was home schooled and has essentially no education in the matter and although willing to accept evolution for animals she still believes humans to be special. I brought the point up that she (nor anyone else) has an evidence to support that. I guess some people don't want to be viewed as and compared to animals. As a result of course they have to make special distortions of the world around them to make sense of it all. She also tried playing the "1 day in heaven is a 1000 on Earth" line to explain the age of the Earth vs. the Creation story. I pointed out the flaws in this too but once again a lack of fundamental science created a difficult barrier to cross.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 11:41 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Ugh the 1 day = 10000000 god days is a very annoying argument. I usually assert what do you have to prove that, even the bible has no such argument, that's just their own personal rationalization.

Funny enough when they start trying to rationalize things like evolution that's where I got them cornered. If god/man only meant the creation story to be a metaphorical story, then what exactly is a real story so to speak? The bible claims to be 100% true and to be taken literally, so by saying some things may be exaggerations, that means your book is fallible, and there is no way of telling what is real or false.

BAM!

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2011, 05:52 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
If god/man only meant the creation story to be a metaphorical story, then what exactly is a real story so to speak? The bible claims to be 100% true and to be taken literally, so by saying some things may be exaggerations, that means your book is fallible, and there is no way of telling what is real or false.

What indeed. What is a "real" story ? For US that might be one with only observable facts. For THEM it might have been "real" if it was something else. Why would we assume that "real" for someone 3500 years ago is the same as "real" for us ? What if it WAS meant to be mythological, in the non pejorative sense and that was as "real" as it got for them ? (Did Homer claim the Iliad and the Odyssey were "100% true" ?) The bible never claims that it is "100% anything", that I know of. Could you cite, chapter and verse, (and then discuss the translation you are using, and have confirmed), where it does or where it says it is to be taken "literally" ? The modern concepts of "literal truth" and "fact" never entered their "magical" minds. That is a 21st century overlay slapped onto an ancient culture which had no such concepts or worldview. To say mythology is "fallible" strikes me as a waste of time. Maybe if we were to find out what the ancient cultures were trying to do with their stories and myths and lore, we might look at the whole ball of wax in another light, and not in the simplistic "fundamental" terms that both sides today use to fight about it. Maybe both sides are missing the point. Just because the fundies have hijacked those texts for themselves, doesn't mean we should allow the hijacking to continue.
I am not a believer by any stretch, but saying the ancient texts are "invalid" because they do not contain what 21st century humans have come to see as "scientific truth", is really bizarre. They never meant them to be "factual", because they didn't know what a "fact" was. Cultural anthropology goes a long way, and just (only) reading the translation of a translation of a translation, of a 3500 year old, long later written, oral tradition, and assuming that by just reading the one text one can figure out what it was trying to say, or the context in which it was written, or what the motivation for which it was developed was, (instead of reading ABOUT it or it's context), or assuming that it might not contain, here and there, a remarkable insight for an illiterate Bronze Ager, seems to me a bit presumptuous.
Cool

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2011, 09:17 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Religion was used as a way to keep the masses in check and unite tribes/countries under a common banner so that they could rally against their enemies. It was also a way to keep the masses illiterate and uneducated (which is why the Catholic Church discourages anyone other than the clergy to read it) so that a king/emperor could maintain full control. Did they believe those stories were as true as anything else they knew to be true at the time? Yes. Is that relevant today? No. We also believed the world was flat at one time and that the sun orbited the Earth. These things are relevant today only as history whereas they were true at the time of their conception.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2011, 05:22 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
One of the biggest sources of false ideas about evolution are movies written by scientifically illiterate writers. Take for example Star Trek, I know of at least two evolution screw-ups in the series.

One is in TNG episode Genesis where the crew of USS Enterprise reverts back to earlier stages of their evolution. Apart from the obvious problem that our DNA doesn't contain the information necessary for this sightseeing trip through time, some of the depicted "evolutionary regressions" are downright impossible. For example, Lieutenant Barclay turned into a spider-like creature. Seriously? A spider? A creature that didn't appear for at least 220 million years after our ancestors separated from theirs during Cambrian or maybe even Precambrian?

Another evolution screw-up is in Voyager episode Threshold, where Tom Paris breaks warp 10 in an experimental shuttlecraft, which causes him to undergo "hyper-accelerated evolution" and turn into an amphibian. How exactly is evolution supposed to work on single individual? If his DNA really started to mutate at such accelerated rate, he wouldn't evolve, he'd die in a few hours because there's nothing to prevent lethal mutations from occuring and without a huge population going through thousands of generations, there's no natural selection going on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like next_ghost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: