NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just thinking...this creatioism...it denies that evolution is the case...so I ask, do YOU deny evolution?

I start with a quote from the late Isaac Asimov:

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

Now, if one is to deny physical evolution, one must also deny social evolution. In which case, one would be Amish, or even less technologically advanced. So, if humans have not evolved from earlier forms, why aren't we still waiting for lightning to start fires while inbreeding and living in caves?

Now, if one is to deny physical evolution, one must also deny social evolution.
Much as I like posts defending evolution, that argument is nonsense. 'Physical evolution' and 'social evolution' have a word in common, and a superficial similarity, but rely on totally unconnected mechanisms.

I'm just thinking...this creatioism...it denies that evolution is the case...so I ask, do YOU deny evolution?

I start with a quote from the late Isaac Asimov:



Now, if one is to deny physical evolution, one must also deny social evolution. In which case, one would be Amish, or even less technologically advanced. So, if humans have not evolved from earlier forms, why aren't we still waiting for lightning to start fires while inbreeding and living in caves?

why must social and physical evolutoin go hand in hand... macro evolution is the idea that genetic mutations can yield entirely new species.. I think most more REASONABLE creationist would argue micro evoultion exists (since its testable) Social evolution I think would fall in that "micro" category

Much as I like posts defending evolution, that argument is nonsense. 'Physical evolution' and 'social evolution' have a word in common, and a superficial similarity, but rely on totally unconnected mechanisms.

While the mechanisms are disconnected, the two things are interrelated. Wothout the physical development of a human, which includes the micro-evolutionary development of brain patterns and usage over the past 10,000 years, social evolution (and technological evolution) would not be possible. Do you agree that we use our brains differently than our cave dwelling predecessors? If so, you must agree that these physical changes are correlated with the social and technological changes attributed to the use of such an organ.

macro evolution is the idea that genetic mutations can yield entirely new species.. I think most more REASONABLE creationist would argue micro evoultion exists (since its testable)

Question : if they accept that micro-evolution occurs, why do they oppose the idea that a few 1000 microevolutions could de facto result in a new species (or at least something the original would not recognise) ?

I guess I can't really deny evolution, or else I don't know what the hell I'm doing at uni seeing as I'm studying biology... Unless people can come up with some believable arguments for me?

Might not be totally revelent to the conversation, but my mother once said that she thought evolution was impossible because she didn't understand it.

I personally don't see why creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive. Even if you believe the Genesis creation story literally, why can't species have changed over time since then? I find the idea of such a simple system (That which survives, reproduces) much more divine than God creating everything in six days and leaving it like that.

In addition, if the bible is to be taken literally, then there were initially only two humans. How, then, did the various races come into existence if not by evolution from the first couple?

I sure as hell dont deny it.

I personally don't believe in evolution. However, I do believe it should be taught in schools. Creationism should be taught as well, but not in schools- in churches. Unlike many Creationists, I staunchly oppose the teaching of ID in schools. I'll be the first to admit there is no scientific evidence to back up Creation. Unless and until there is, it should be entirely left out of classrooms. Even though I think evolution is b.s., there's at least some evidence to back it up, so, it should be taught.

I personally don't see why creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive. Even if you believe the Genesis creation story literally, why can't species have changed over time since then?

because the theory of evolution also contains the claim of common descent.

and because there aren't any major creationists that are willing to allow 'adaptation' past the borders of whatever they are calling 'kinds' these days.

I personally don't believe in evolution. However, I do believe it should be taught in schools. Creationism should be taught as well, but not in schools- in churches. Unlike many Creationists, I staunchly oppose the teaching of ID in schools. I'll be the first to admit there is no scientific evidence to back up Creation. Unless and until there is, it should be entirely left out of classrooms. Even though I think evolution is b.s., there's at least some evidence to back it up, so, it should be taught.

i agree with you, but i also think some schools need to put more of an seperation between theory and fact

While the mechanisms are disconnected, the two things are interrelated. Wothout the physical development of a human, which includes the micro-evolutionary development of brain patterns and usage over the past 10,000 years, social evolution (and technological evolution) would not be possible. Do you agree that we use our brains differently than our cave dwelling predecessors? If so, you must agree that these physical changes are correlated with the social and technological changes attributed to the use of such an organ.
We use our brains more effectively, but the physical differences between groups of humans evolving separately for tens of thousands of years (for example, native Australians generally having a very good visual memory) are no greater than those within groups of humans interbreeding (for example, I, a European, could beat the average native Australian in a visual memory test). I don't think the minor physical changes in humans in the last ten thousand years have had any significant effect on our social evolution.

I personally don't see why creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive.

To most people who are not creationists but are religious, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive. For the zealots of creatioism, they are.

We use our brains more effectively, but the physical differences between groups of humans evolving separately for tens of thousands of years (for example, native Australians generally having a very good visual memory) are no greater than those within groups of humans interbreeding (for example, I, a European, could beat the average native Australian in a visual memory test). I don't think the minor physical changes in humans in the last ten thousand years have had any significant effect on our social evolution.

So you think a cave dweller could have been a Machiavelli?

I personally don't see why creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive. Even if you believe the Genesis creation story literally, why can't species have changed over time since then? I find the idea of such a simple system (That which survives, reproduces) much more divine than God creating everything in six days and leaving it like that.

In addition, if the bible is to be taken literally, then there were initially only two humans. How, then, did the various races come into existence if not by evolution from the first couple?

Many of my friends and family members believe in both evolution and Creation.

While the mechanisms are disconnected, the two things are interrelated. Wothout the physical development of a human, which includes the micro-evolutionary development of brain patterns and usage over the past 10,000 years, social evolution (and technological evolution) would not be possible. Do you agree that we use our brains differently than our cave dwelling predecessors? If so, you must agree that these physical changes are correlated with the social and technological changes attributed to the use of such an organ.

well you also need to see that changes didnt happen over night. a group wasnt tribal one day and socialist the next

electricity was developed, and many years later people were playing "expirementing", the light bulb came from that, the projector came from that, the tv came from that.

point is its all progressive, im not o sure that we do use are brains differently

Might not be totally revelent to the conversation, but my mother once said that she thought evolution was impossible because she didn't understand it.

heh, that's essentially the idea behind 80% of the rejections of evolution. the "i'm too ignorant or stupid to understand it, therefore it's wrong" crowd.

an additional 15% are just too insane to put any ideas together coherently, but they happen to like the word evolution, so that's where their delusions are most evident. and the remaining 5% aren't stupid, ignorant, or insane. they have merely decided that there is good money/political power to be made catering to all the ignorant, stupid, and insane creationists. it's actually quite a lucrative business model from what i understand.

Many of my friends and family members believe in both evolution and Creation.

which is not at all the same as 'creationism'

So you think a cave dweller could have been a Machiavelli?
In the same social context, yes.

which is not at all the same as 'creationism'

How would you define Creationism?

well you also need to see that changes didnt happen over night. a group wasnt tribal one day and socialist the next

electricity was developed, and many years later people were playing "expirementing", the light bulb came from that, the projector came from that, the tv came from that.

point is its all progressive, im not o sure that we do use are brains differently

While you are correct, it is all progressive, so is development of the human brain. If that weren't true, the initial invention to spark the later inventions wouldn't be possible. Why didn't early human think to try to harness energy?

How would you define Creationism?


The belief that the world was created, more or less as it is today, by god. Usually also that this happened in very recent history.

This is a mainly christian ideology, so it also usually involves a literal belief in the bible creation story.

How would you define Creationism?

creationism is a modern christian movement that arose along with other aspects of fundamentalism as a response to and rejection of modernism, particularly science, instead holding a 'literal' reading of the bible as the main/only source of knowledge.

Why didn't early human think to try to harness energy?

what is fire then? and the atlatl?

early humans (as in homo sapiens sapiens) were every bit as smart as people are today.

Evolution is an anti-christian device devised by scientist who hate the idea of someone being greater then them, so they came up with a smart-sounding idea to mae the people worship their knowledge rather then the rightfull God

what is fire then? and the atlatl?

early humans (as in homo sapiens sapiens) were every bit as smart as people are today.

Actually not true. They might have had mostly the same potential, but acts like learning how to read, do math and even eating a better and more varied diet increase "brain power".

I personally don't believe in evolution.

SO, what are your specific problems with evolution? Why do you not believe in it?

I'm sorry, but the only way to not "believe" in evolution is to be unaware of just how much data there is that supports it. Libraries full of data. Genetic data. Paleological data. Geological data. On and on and on.

Evolution comes only through chaos, death and destruction! :sniper: :mad: :mp5: :headbang:

Evolution is an anti-christian device devised by scientist who hate the idea of someone being greater then them, so they came up with a smart-sounding idea to mae the people worship their knowledge rather then the rightfull God

Do me a favour and keep away from any sharp objects, ok?

Evolution comes only through chaos, death and destruction! :sniper: :mad: :mp5: :headbang:

Who let Zahadoom1 out of his playpen? Come on, own up...

Blah, blah, blah...smart-sounding idea...blah, blah, blah.

Right on. It is a smart idea, and consistently proven.

Evolution is an anti-christian device devised by scientist who hate the idea of someone being greater then them, so they came up with a smart-sounding idea to mae the people worship their knowledge rather then the rightfull God

raflamo im not even gonna try to convince you otherwise it was short to the point and above all wrong imo :D

ps do u think elvis works at your local news agents? :headbang:

Evolution is an anti-christian device devised by scientist who hate the idea of someone being greater then them, so they came up with a smart-sounding idea to mae the people worship their knowledge rather then the rightfull God

I can see you standing on a streetcorner wearing a sandwich-board with that "slogan" on it as you beg for spare change.

Do me a favour and keep away from any sharp objects, ok?Pointy & blunt ones too. Come to think of it, better not leave that padded cell of yours...

What's REALLY stupd is the Big Bang. How did that happen. (And don't say Big Gun, unless you can tell me where THAT came from)

What's REALLY stupd is the Big Bang. How did that happen. (And don't say Big Gun, unless you can tell me where THAT came from)

I have an idea. Why don't you read some books on the subject, or read up on the Nobel Prize-winning work Arno Penzias did detecting the background microwave radiation left over from the big bang?

You know, just in case you are actually intellectually curious about the subject.

I accept evolution - however, I realize that evolution, like any theory, is still subject to debate.

I accept evolution - however, I realize that evolution, like any theory, is still subject to debate.

And THAT is perfectly reasonable and intellectually honest.

i agree with you, but i also think some schools need to put more of an seperation between theory and fact
Here is a person who does not know the scientific definition of theory. It is still the THEORY of gravity. Would you call gravity a fact? Of course. Somebody has got to put up a sticky with this sometime, just to head off all the people who use the "but it's just a theory!" argument.
And as a note to the person two posts above me, you would need some gigantic thing to disprove evolution. Something like disproving any kind of change in organisms at all. Evolution practically can only be modified now, not disproved, and so it is NOT still subject to debate. Beware the "It's just a theory" fallacy, it's very convincing when you look at it the first time and quite a bit less so when you get chewed out by every single person on this board for not knowing the difference between a layman's theory and a scientific theory.

Evolution is an anti-christian device devised by scientist who hate the idea of someone being greater then them, so they came up with a smart-sounding idea to mae the people worship their knowledge rather then the rightfull God

Scientists dont want people's worship, many scientists (including evolutionary biologists) are Christians. Evolution is perfectly compatible with religion. It just isnt compatible with 3000 year old story that the Earth was built in 7 days and is 4000 years old.

There are mounds of evidence in favor of evolution. The only thing I'm unsure of is the mechanism by which it ocurred - ie, punctuated equilibria/gradualism/etc plus gene-centric evolution or group selection evolution, etc. Probably will need to read more on the topic, though.

I don't really want to get involved in the debate per-se because, personally, I think it's a waste of time and even if you win the debate, so what? You haven't done much for all that time you've spent. But anyway, i'm assuming by evolution you mean the theory of evolution with everything contained therein, sludge to rats via ultraviolet light exposure and random mutations and natural selection and whatnot, and in which case, im voting no way at all. Now, if you take the literal definition of evolution, which literally means "to change", technically speaking it's sort of correct, but even when you use it to describe microevolution, I think it's safe to say the general assumption is that it means "microevolution that shows how macroevolution was possible". little bacteria things have certainly changed, but the question I want to know is, what makes people so sure that this change is a direct result of commonly understood evolutionary theory? It's certainly possible that super-recessive genes in these organisms could of simply took awhile to activate themselves based upon something in cellular reactions and evironmental stimulus we don't know about yet, but im only speculating from personal opinion here, the point is, I see no reason why the species which have changed are no longer the same species since we haven't fully sequenced the DNA of all these things to start with anyway to compare, and without a change in species, you don't really have the theory of evolution. That's just my 2 cents anyway.

possible that super-recessive genes in these organisms could of simply took awhile to activate themselves

My understanding is that there are only two categories of genes: dominant and recessive. Recessive genes are the genes that have no effect on your physical characteristics, but are in your DNA and may be passed on to offspring. Dominant genes determine your physical characteristics. What do you mean by super-recessive genes?

My understanding is that there are only two categories of genes: dominant and recessive. Recessive genes are the genes that have no effect on your physical characteristics, but are in your DNA and may be passed on to offspring. Dominant genes determine your physical characteristics. What do you mean by super-recessive genes?

There are also unexpressed genes. There's a lot of "noise" in DNA strands.

raflamo im not even gonna try to convince you otherwise it was short to the point and above all wrong imo :D

ps do u think elvis works at your local news agents? :headbang:

Your name says it all anyway.