Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A kick in the teeth for the creationists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    A kick in the teeth for the creationists

    Or is it a poke in the eye?

    In the lab, E. coli evolve ability to metabolize citrate.

    #2
    A kick in the teeth for the creationists

    I never quite understood, why people think evolution and creation must be mutually exclusive.

    There is nothing to say that God couldn't have created things, which later evolved by themselves to fit their environment etc. To me, assuming that evolution itself cannot be a part of "God's Creation" is ludicrous.

    If we couldn't evolve, we would die. The reason Creationism hasn't been killed off is because the only "good" evidence we have, is of very minor evolutionary steps. The missing link evidence is too easily thrown out.

    Why for instance, have apes not taken the evolutionary step to become neanderthals or cavemen over the last thousands of years? Will they ever take this step?

    A mutating bacterium is all very good, but it is very hard to transpose such findings onto complex animals such as humans. The next human evolutionary step is more likely to be mental than physical. We use a rediculously small percentage of our brain's potential. Telepathy? A new generation of super-Einsteins? maybe. It will need a step of such great magnitude to persuade the doubters

    Comment


      #3
      A kick in the teeth for the creationists

      harbinger of hope wrote:
      The reason Creationism hasn't been killed off is because the only "good" evidence we have, is of very minor evolutionary steps.
      You really think that's the reason? I mean, even if it were true, which it, I mean, so fucking isn't, it wouldn't be the reason. The reason is that these clowns aren't interested in evidence that contradicts their passionately held prior commitment to nonsense.

      Comment


        #4
        A kick in the teeth for the creationists

        harbinger of hope wrote:
        We use a rediculously small percentage of our brain's potential.
        Also bullshit.

        Comment


          #5
          A kick in the teeth for the creationists

          harbinger of hope wrote:
          Why for instance, have apes not taken the evolutionary step to become neanderthals or cavemen over the last thousands of years?
          Jesus, pal, you understand nothing. This is comedy stuff.

          Comment


            #6
            A kick in the teeth for the creationists

            I sense Hanoi...

            Comment


              #7
              A kick in the teeth for the creationists

              Hannoyance anyway.

              Comment


                #8
                A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                Ah, at last, it's been quiet on "World" recently, too damn quiet.

                QUOTE:
                We use a rediculously small percentage of our brain's potential.

                Also bullshit.
                Is it? I understand that we use all of our brain but I still thought that we didn't use all of its potential.

                Genuine question not a polemic Molotov cocktail

                Comment


                  #9
                  A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                  harbinger of hope wrote:
                  I never quite understood, why people think evolution and creation must be mutually exclusive.
                  The Pope tends to excommunicate people who try to rationalize that one...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                    Izbušen dana Ples wrote:
                    Is it? I understand that we use all of our brain but I still thought that we didn't use all of its potential.

                    Genuine question not a polemic Molotov cocktail
                    Well, it depends what you mean by "potential", I suppose: there are a vast number of possible thoughts to think, and any one of us thinks only a vanishingly small proportion of them. (I mean, nobody did calculus with their brains before calculus was invented, for example.) But that's a truism. There's not some vast set of mental powers waiting for evolution to unlock them.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                      harbinger of hope wrote:
                      I never quite understood... The next human evolutionary step is more likely to be mental than physical. We use a rediculously small percentage of our brain's potential. Telepathy? A new generation of super-Einsteins? maybe. It will need a step of such great magnitude to persuade the doubters
                      well, a leap is always good... although a bit late for February.

                      I think, sir, that you posted this pissed in the hope that you start aggro.

                      If not, you are radio. And by replying, so am I.

                      (although I subliminally agree with your non physical exposition)

                      Comment


                        #12
                        A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                        Fucking hell. You know a guy for years, go to school with him, work with him, be the best man at his wedding, and then you find out he believes in God. Or at least that's how I've read it.

                        Would you credit it?

                        Mind, I only found out his real name when he added me on facebook. Int that right, Badger?

                        There is nothing to say that God couldn't have created things, which later evolved by themselves to fit their environment etc.
                        Yes there is. There's no such thing as 'God'.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                          yes, there is... and that is the problem.

                          'god' is a human construct because of fear of death. So, we...

                          oh I see.

                          torophile to thread

                          Comment


                            #14
                            A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                            I heard, some time ago, that this 'we only use 20% of our brain capacity' stuff is, in fact, bollocks and it's really more like 80+%.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                              Can I just reassure everyone that we do use all of our brains. Different bits will fire up to do different things, but there's no waste. Seeing as your brain consumes one-third of all your daily energy requirements, it's just as well.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                And in my case that's just "reading" Nuts magazine.

                                Sorry, as you were.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                  I heard, some time ago, that this 'we only use 20% of our brain capacity' stuff is, in fact, bollocks and it's really more like 80+%.
                                  I think that we are suffering from a terminolgy pile-up. We use all parts of our brain, I am not sure what you mean by "capacity".

                                  "Potential" is, as has been pointed out, unmeasureable, I suppose

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                    Yes I was drunk as it happened. When i get drunk i become philosophical. Anyway, I was trying to be impartial about the whole "creation v evolution", by saying, "Why can't it be both?". Why should this debate be so polarised? It's like the debate about wether the Earth was flat or round. As it happens. It's round, but with a flat top and bottom.
                                    ie BOTH! ;-)

                                    IF God exists, there is no reason why evolution cannot exist at the same time. We evolve in minor ways all the time. No sane Christian can doubt that. What they have problems with is things like, "We were first fish, who suddenly took to land, then became small rodent-like mamals etc etc". To be fair I doubt we will ever find evidence of this. Therefore the staunch Creationists can never really be proved wrong. Can they?

                                    You really think that's the reason? I mean, even if it were true, which it, I mean, so fucking isn't, it wouldn't be the reason.
                                    I think you will find, that not all Christians are psycho, brainwashed, bible-bashers. Most are moderates, who have these sort of debates all the time. There is a problem with over-confident statements based on scientific 'fact'. Namely, science constantly disproves itself. What is true one day, is utter rubbish the next. People have proved Einstein was wrong, and that's recent science. Is anything we are taught in science really true. In fifty years it might have all changed again.

                                    What is this major evolutionary step we have evidence of? I am genuinely interested. I thought I would have known of it as it would be such a massive breakthrough. I don't think the E Coli counts.

                                    I heard, some time ago, that this 'we only use 20% of our brain capacity' stuff is, in fact, bollocks and it's really more like 80+%.
                                    The 20% things was what i'd last heard and was refering to. How do autistic people fit into the brain game?

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                      harbinger of hope wrote:
                                      Anyway, I was trying to be impartial about the whole "creation v evolution", by saying, "Why can't it be both?". Why should this debate be so polarised?
                                      Well, "both" is the position of most non-crazed Christians, as I'm sure you know, as well as the official position of the Catholic Church. The theory of evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis, only with what has happened since life began. What you're talking about here isn't really that "polarised".

                                      The polarisation begins when people whose emotional needs outweigh their rationality start trying to chip away at solid science. Few evolutionary biologists, for instance, could care less whether or not you believe in a God, just so long as your particular belief-without-evidence doesn't cause you to doubt what evidence we do have. Because, you know, that's just bloody stupid.

                                      We evolve in minor ways all the time. No sane Christian can doubt that. What they have problems with is things like, "We were first fish, who suddenly took to land, then became small rodent-like mamals etc etc".
                                      Yeah but hang on, they don't "have problems" with that because they've found errors or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, or because they favour an alternative explanation with supporting evidence, do they? If that were the case, people would take their objections seriously.

                                      To be fair I doubt we will ever find evidence of this. Therefore the staunch Creationists can never really be proved wrong. Can they?
                                      You seem to be confusing non-falsifiable belief in a creator with Intelligent Design / Creationism. The theory of evolution is backed up by more evidence, and has seen more of its predictions fulfilled, than most of the science you take for granted. It's the basis of all modern biology. That's why, as you said in the first paragraph, most sane Christians also believe in evolution. "Staunch Creationists" don't - they generate junk science in search of a non-Darwinian explanation, all of which has, so far, "really been proved wrong". You should decide who you're being an apologist for, really.

                                      There is a problem with over-confident statements based on scientific 'fact'. Namely, science constantly disproves itself. What is true one day, is utter rubbish the next.
                                      That's true up to a point - though not the point you're making here - but what's it got to do with religion?

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                        There is a problem with over-confident statements based on scientific 'fact'. Namely, science constantly disproves itself. What is true one day, is utter rubbish the next.

                                        That's true up to a point - though not the point you're making here - but what's it got to do with religion?
                                        There are many Atheists who do have a very polarised opinion as well, and are as mad and stubborn as the extremist Christians. When considering that science changes so much, so quickly, it is only slightly more rational.

                                        There's no such thing as 'God'.
                                        'god' is a human construct because of fear of death.
                                        Considering we humans know so little about life the universe and everything, those are very bold statements.

                                        If there is good evidence about large leaps in evolution, I would be interested to read/look into it. I've not of heard anything that's really dramatic. I can't get excited about E Coli evolving to use Citrate. I understand if it can happen at this fundamental level of life, it should happen for all life, but as humans are so extremely complex it's hard to see us making a giant leap like that.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                          If there is good evidence about large leaps in evolution, I would be interested to read/look into it.
                                          I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for, or what it will take to convince you. Molecular evolution, the fossil record and comparative anatomy all marry up. There are plenty of transitional fossils, despite what the creationists tell you. Are you only going to be happy if you could drill deep into the earth and see a perfect sequence of evolution in the column you pull out?

                                          People have proved Einstein was wrong, and that's recent science
                                          Erm, well you'll have to enlighten me on that.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                            As far as Einstein being wrong goes. I didn't mean everything he said was wrong, but some parts of his work have been surpassed in recent years.

                                            As far as evolution goes, from what was being said It sounded like something really important had been recently found. It will be impossible to find fossils of humans going back so long, as to prove it completely, and i do not expect scientists to find them. The missing link may forever be missing. I was wondering about large evolutionary steps in recent times (geologically). There are billions if not more species on this planet. There must be examples of at least one species somewhere that has made a large evolutionary step. A species more complex than E Coli at any rate. That was the evidence I was be interested in.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                              You're missing the point of the E. Coli story. There are other examples of bacterial evolution – heavy metal tolerance and antibiotic resistance to name two. The interesting thing about this research was that three sequential mutations were identified that led to the ability to metabolise citric acid.

                                              But we can only observe evolutionary change in bacteria in our lifetimes because E Coli can potentially produce offspring every twenty minutes in a laboratory, whereas it takes a human (in the wild) around fourteen years to reproduce. That's why you're not seeing any evolution. When you speak of 'recent geology', what timescales are you talking about?

                                              ... but some parts of his [Einstein's] work have been surpassed in recent years
                                              You'll have to name some examples, as I'm unaware of them.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                                There are many Atheists who do have a very polarised opinion as well, and are as mad and stubborn as the extremist Christians.
                                                The fact that there are idiots on both side of the argument doesn't strengthen the arguments of one set of idiots

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  A kick in the teeth for the creationists

                                                  Thing is, how are these hardline atheists' views "as mad and stubborn as the extremist Christians"?

                                                  They're saying: "Not only is there no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, there's actually a hell of a lot of evidence which very strongly suggests that there is no God - so I shall take a dim view of anyone who continues to insist that any God does, in fact, exist." That's neither "mad" nor "stubborn". At worst you could say it was... coldly logical. Perhaps unnecessarily harsh on those who have an emotional need to believe. But it's the opposite of mad, and only stubborn in the sense that they're unwilling to be swayed by worthless speculation. The perceived charmlessness of people like Dawkins (to use an obvious example) is a totally separate issue.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X