Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Things Creationists should learn before opening their slobbering cakeholes
I'll weigh in on this later
just one thing -- I have mentioned before several times -- human behavior is the greatest evidence for evolution -- humans are a dominant male - tribal species -- Mr. RITE -- check out some of my posts on the subject.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 15, 2008 at 8:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Transcendental_Child - I think the change in title was a direct result of
frustration.
I've known all along that I'd last about 2 minutes if I were to ever become a teacher. It must be especially bad these days as the creationist agenda has matured into a full blown plague of stupidity. The recent dialogue in this post was just like the several dozen on this subject before. Another American victim of the "Wedge Strategy" comes forward to demonstrate how he has been rendered further disfunctional by a religiously motivated social agenda.
posted by
gomedome
on October 15, 2008 at 7:00 AM
| link to this | reply
RITE2SPIN - this will be my last response to you on this subject:
It is obvious that your brain has a certain sparkle to it from industrial duty brainwashing. You insist on using terms and avenues of attack to discredit evolution that do nothing more than illustrate your desire for the creationist viewpoint to be right. A scientific theory and the common use of the word theory are not the same thing. Your insistence that they are the same demonstrates that you know very little about science, yet you have a long list of objections against that which you know little about. (sort of what this post was about)
There really is no proof that you or I "come from a monkey" what I said was that our common ancestry with one of the families of chimpanzees has been irrefutably proven by comparing our respective DNA. We have more common DNA with chimpanzees than rats do with mice (about 96%) but again, in this post I stated that evolution is omni-directional, though not a popular stance; it is also possible that "monkeys" have evolved from us.
This is my last attempt, I will use layman's language: To focus on the word "theory" in saying "it's just a theory" is a tactic that only works with those ignorant of what constitutes a scientific theory. As for the scientific theory of evolution, it is both a scientific theory and fact. Scientific theory is utilized as a means of explaining the process by which it occurs, referred to as natural selection. If it is found that this mechanism is not as theorized, our knowledge of evolution will be amended, as it has been many times. Evolution is a demonstrable fact, evidence to which is found in countless circumstances, both in natural and controlled settings.
Finally, you are being duped; fed a line of nonsense by those with an agenda of having their religious beliefs taught in the education system. It is a well orchestrated agenda that is having a number of negative effects on your society and for the most part it is only your society (the USA), alone amongst all developed nations that is experiencing this. The most obvious of these negative effects being the collective dumbing down of a large portion of the populace.
"Evolution" is not a four letter word in the rest of the world.
posted by
gomedome
on October 15, 2008 at 6:45 AM
| link to this | reply
I see no proof that you or I come from a monkey. Again theory in any setting is just what it is called a theory. More fancy words, more polished turds.
posted by
RITE2SPIN
on October 15, 2008 at 3:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomes...
Love the slobbering cakeholes to replace mouths. So much more poetic I think. ha!
As one who has been conducting research - scientific research all of my academic life - Wrongspin - Gomes is correct. No one changed the word theory in midgame as you so commonly put it. Gomes is also correct in that a theory is not the same as a hypothesis.. which does evolve from theory to fact, if research pans out... as DNA research has done in the case of evolution - or null hypothesis - if no proof. Creationism would be considered a null hypothesis.
But Wrongspin... don't waste your time arguing with scholars when you can go find the definition for yourself... wait - I did it for you... all that cake and slobber seems to have mucked up your keyboard.
- S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
- S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
- S: (n) theory (a belief that can guide behavior) "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
posted by
Transcendental_Child
on October 15, 2008 at 2:45 AM
| link to this | reply
RITE2SPIN - you wasted all that time writing that drivel in response?
Just what is it that you think you are arguing against? It seems that your argument is intent on framing how little you know about evolution against a backdrop of irrelevent remarks.
It is really as simple at this; No one is attempting to blow smoke up your ass as you put it. The sad reality is that if you are defending the creationist agenda, as it is currently pitted against evolution in an either/or stance, you have adopted a big load of steaming crap.
Think about it, the creationist agenda relies on what is written in an ancient book as its entire source of discovery and the disparaging of evolution for its validity. There is no reason why evolution and the religious belief of a creator being cannot co-exist. No one knows how it all started but we do know some things about how things have come to their present state. Denying what is demonstrable and provable, then further proliferating misinformation which is intent on discrediting that which is valid, serves no constructive purpose. To do these things simply to advance a religious agenda, is unacceptable to the rest of society.
posted by
gomedome
on October 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
one thing for sure you can't argue with people that have the magical power to just change the definition of things dead in the middle of the ball game. So what you are trying to tell me is this there is by no means by no calculation what so ever period, that the missing link no longer exists. If it takes 15,000 pieces of the puzzle to complete the puzzle to ultimately make it a picture and 3 or 4 pieces of the puzzle are missing you just paint in the missing pieces. That is one hell of a trick. Wish I could be so fortunate. Goes sort of like this, hey man the theory is I got the winning lotto ticket, it's just missing a few numbers, give me my million dollars dude. Your honor it's just a little white lie so it don't really count as being perjury, i'll be leaving now. Scientific or not a theory is an accumulation of facts with some facts not present, period. They can't show me a monkey bone or skull, take some dna from it and say hey your ancestor is a monkey or ape and exspect me to believe it. I don't buy in to the belief that man come about 6000 years ago, I think there is something missing common sense dictates that this is so. Science stumbles over its self all the time. They teach our children in school that indians come cross a ice bridge 12 to 13 thousand years ago and a generation later change it. It is a proven fact that man was in america over 250,000 years ago according to carbon dating if you do enough research on the subject matter. Just recently it has been proven that man was living in alendale South Carolina on the Savannah river over 50 thousand years ago. They have found foot prints of a upright man in volcanic ash over 50 thousand years ago in South America. There are plenty of facts out there, facts. Evolution of man is still a theory, Science can try and blow smoke up my ass and call it cotton candy but it is still smoke. You are real fancy with words in your own way, no doubt about that but when you shine up a turd, all you got in the end is a shinny turd.
posted by
RITE2SPIN
on October 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM
| link to this | reply
RITE2SPIN - you should read this
HERE
posted by
gomedome
on October 14, 2008 at 7:30 PM
| link to this | reply
RITE2SPIN - you might want to slow down a bit here
You are using the word theory in its common English vernacular as being synonymous with hypothesis or speculation, which is the wrong use of the word in this case. You will notice that I have prefaced the word evolution in this post by referring to it as "the scientific theory of evolution", there is a reason why I have done this. In scientific disciplines the word "theory" is not used in the same manner, it does not mean an hypothesis or speculation but must undergo meeting a certain set of criteria to be considered as a scientific theory. Until it reaches that level of corroboration it would be referred to as an hypothesis or be closer to the way you are using the word. A post written by one of the smartest men to ever grace this site explains this very well: HERE
In your comments you illustrate what is ultimately the problem with the agenda currently advancing creationism in our societies. They have intentionally blurred the lines between the two meanings of the word theory so that people like yourself, whom I will assume is not involved in a scientific discipline, will proliferate the cause. There is also no choice between your God and man or however you put it, when determining if the scientific theory of evolution is valid. There is no contest, evolution is a proven scientific fact . . period. No amount of wishful thinking, pitting it against religious beliefs or dumbing down of entire segments of our populaces, as the creationist proponents are now becoming guilty of, will ever change that.
And as for our evolving from apes, we have proven common ancestry between apes and humans via DNA testing, that is also a fact.
posted by
gomedome
on October 14, 2008 at 6:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Child
correct, evolution is a theory but they have by no means, no how, no where, proved that man evolved from a monkey it is still a theory. That is the problem with people like you, you go from theory and hypothesis straight to fact, just like that but it is still theory. It says on Gomes go here page this. There are several hypothesis that account for the evolution of human traits. Then it goes on to say this. scientist agree that many questions remain not answered but the chimps genome provides important clues to understand what makes us human. Before they say all this in the first paragraphs of the first page it say this. humans and chimps originated from a common ancestry and some believe they derived from 6 million years ago. So my question is this how did they go from fact back to theory and hypothesis. You can teach my child that crap and I'll teach him not to believe it. If you want to think you come from a pack of monkey's you can. I'll teach my child different. Understand, there is a difference between you and me you consider speculation from some educated fruit loop with a piece of paper that says he graduated from blah blah blah to be truth, to be fact. I don't put stock in man, I put stock in God, alpha and omega. I don't have to prove it, all I do need is to have something you do not believe in, faith. Your faith is theory just like my invisible God.
posted by
RITE2SPIN
on October 14, 2008 at 5:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Re:
- evolution is not a theory... it is a scientific fact. Everything in life has evolved and will continue to evolve.... otherwise we would still be eating with our hands... and I would not be communicating with you via the Internet.
It is still called a theory... to appease the ignorant... I know... because I teach in a school system that labeled their science text books with a WARNING: Contains Unit on Theory of Evolution. The label was ordered removed by the courts... and there is a pending court case brought on by ignorant asshole parents.
posted by
Transcendental_Child
on October 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM
| link to this | reply
sorry I meant graduated
posted by
RITE2SPIN
on October 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM
| link to this | reply
did you not say theory, correct me if I am wrong but isn't a theory unproven. I was some how under the assumption that theory was based on certain fact's, by those fact's some body come to there own unproven assumption of what may have or may not have taken place. Take for instance Joe Brown graduwated from university of Harverd with all the bells and whistles and come up with this theory that the nile river was actually damned up in levels and as the plains flooded the pyrmids were built with barges and that is why it is a dessert today but with out certain other facts it is still a theory. I think that is some where near the truth. The big bang theory in fact just what they call it, a theory based on certain facts. They are working real hard to erase a higher power being responsable they just have not done it. It is my opinion they will not, opinion that is sort of like a theory isn't it.
posted by
RITE2SPIN
on October 14, 2008 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply