Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

[nhboy]

"Today, almost one hundred and fifty years after the publication of The Origin of Species, we are still arguing about Darwin. How is this possible? If Darwin's theory of natural selection is a scientific theory, as its defenders claim, then why hasn't it been able to establish itself securely in the public mind? Why, in short, is Darwin still the subject of continuing controversy and acrimonious debate?

Contrast this on-going battle over Darwin with the fate of the other great scientific revolutions. The same Christian fundamentalists who argue that public school should teach creationism have no quarrel with the Copernican revolution. No one argues that public schools should be forced to teach the Ptolemaic system because it permits Joshua to make the sun stand still. Yet polls in the USA show that a large segment of American society continues to reject Darwin's scientific revolution. "

TCS Daily - Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

 

[2ndAmendment]

Easy.

If The Origin of Species is right, the the Bible is wrong.

The Bible is not wrong, so The Origin of Species is wrong.

Deduction my dear Watson.

 

[Hessian]

Just for fun,...

Sit back and watch the evolutionists argue among themselves!

It was an Asteroid!
No,..it was a massive methane release...!
You are both wrong: A huge ice shield stretched down to Africa!
No,...it was the ring of fire that let loose.

And this goes on & on.
I personally like to hear their theories and their evidence.
One thing that is almost always lacking: see how much time they devote to dating techniques. They will post a date: then never talk about independent verification...Gee, I wonder why.

 

[itsbob]

Sit back and watch the evolutionists argue among themselves!

It was an Asteroid!
No,..it was a massive methane release...!
You are both wrong: A huge ice shield stretched down to Africa!
No,...it was the ring of fire that let loose.

And this goes on & on.
I personally like to hear their theories and their evidence.
One thing that is almost always lacking: see how much time they devote to dating techniques. They will post a date: then never talk about independent verification...Gee, I wonder why.

SO which dating technique verifies the age of the Earth at 6000 years?

Where are the one BILLION human remains from the great flood??

We can find the dinosaur remains, whom the ultra religous believe were on the earth with man, and were consumed during the flood, if we can find them we should be able to find the BILLIONS of bones that were just left about...

It's a silly argument.. Especially when all the proof and evidence is against you, and you (the bible thumpers) don't have a shred of credible evidence.

 

[2ndAmendment]

There has been a big ad campaign for the History Channel about a two hour special about live after humans. I keep thinking, even if this were true (it isn't or the Bible would say so) why would anyone care. It won't matter a hill of beans.

 

[2ndAmendment]

SO which dating technique verifies the age of the Earth at 6000 years?

Where are the one BILLION human remains from the great flood??

We can find the dinosaur remains, whom the ultra religous believe were on the earth with man, and were consumed during the flood, if we can find them we should be able to find the BILLIONS of bones that were just left about...

It's a silly argument.. Especially when all the proof and evidence is against you, and you (the bible thumpers) don't have a shred of credible evidence.

Where are the millions of dinosaurs remains? Same place the human remains are; mostly consumed by sea animals and ground to dust by wave action and the few remaining are fossilized and assumed to be millions of years old.

Do you have any idea how quickly meat deteriorates or is consumed in the ocean? Go out into the Gulf Stream and throw over a cow. See how long it lasts. Even the scuffing action of waves or water flow dragging a body over sand or rock abrades the skin and flesh and wears away the exposed bone into granules.

I say you are the one without evidence.

 

[Lugnut]

Where are the millions of dinosaurs remains?

In museums around the world?

Our collections contain over 40 million fossil plants, animals, unicellular organisms and geologic specimens. These fossils record the history of life on our planet over the last 2.5 billion years. Included in our collections are over 1500 catalogued specimens of dinosaurs. Of these, about 30 are on display, and of these, 6 are the actual, original specimens that were used to name new species of dinosaurs. One of our biggest and most popular projects has been the digitizing and remounting of our Triceratops skeleton, a specimen that had been on display in our exhibit halls since 1905. It became the world's first anatomically accurate Digital Dinosaur, rendered from real fossils.
.

Bold added by me.

reference... http://paleobiology.si.edu/collections/paleoCollections.html

 

[This_person]

SO which dating technique verifies the age of the Earth at 6000 years?

Where are the one BILLION human remains from the great flood??

We can find the dinosaur remains, whom the ultra religous believe were on the earth with man, and were consumed during the flood, if we can find them we should be able to find the BILLIONS of bones that were just left about...

It's a silly argument.. Especially when all the proof and evidence is against you, and you (the bible thumpers) don't have a shred of credible evidence.

And, the credible evidence for the origin of life from non-theological/intelligent design?

There is none.

And, the credible evidence for evolution of humans? That "missing link"?

There is none.


We're all just believers in different theories and baseless trust of others, none more likely or logical than the next, when put in perspective.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Easy.

If The Origin of Species is right, the the Bible is wrong.

The Bible is not wrong, so The Origin of Species is wrong.

Deduction my dear Watson.

Or the Bible is not literal.

By the way, The Origin of Species is not "right", it is just the most likely according to the consensus in the science community.
The difference between faith by doctrine and science is that science allows for the possibility of different possibilities and that different theories may be possible.

The belief of creationism based on some people's interpretation of the bible is based on faith and faith alone.

 

[Novus Collectus]

And, the credible evidence for the origin of life from non-theological/intelligent design?

There is none.

And, the credible evidence for evolution of humans? That "missing link"?

There is none.


We're all just believers in different theories and baseless trust of others, none more likely or logical than the next, when put in perspective.

What????

First of all the "origin of life" is not the understanding of evolution. The origin of life is not part of Darwin's theory or part of the theory of evolution. That is a different scientific flavour as I understand it.


As for the evolution of man links.....they are numerous.

If you want to talk about a "missing link", then firsat define exactly what you mean by that phrase.
If there is one link between modern man and a lower evolved ancestor, then what difference does it make that the in between evolved human has not been found yet since the evidence of evolution is still there regardless?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Where are the millions of dinosaurs remains? Same place the human remains are;

No, dinosaur remains are not found in situ in the same layers of sediment as humans are by a long shot.
If dinosaurs existed when man did, then they would not be found way deeper in sediment and mineralized areas.

 

[This_person]

What????

First of all the "origin of life" is not the understanding of evolution. The origin of life is not part of Darwin's theory or part of the theory of evolution. That is a different scientific flavour as I understand it.

I sort of agree. My point was that evolution is only part of an explaination. When discussing "creation", or intelligent design, against creation, there should be no discussion, because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Nothing science has done has ever come close to explaining the origin of life. Intelligent design does.

As for the evolution of man links.....they are numerous.

If you want to talk about a "missing link", then firsat define exactly what you mean by that phrase.
If there is one link between modern man and a lower evolved ancestor, then what difference does it make that the in between evolved human has not been found yet since the evidence of evolution is still there regardless?

Because it's not evidence, it's (at best) a guess.

What I mean by that phrase is the direct change from one thing, to another, to another. We have A, C, and E. Without B and D, we can presume a straight line, but we really have no idea for SURE. Much of what we see in HUMAN evolution could easily be explained with better nutrition, more medicinal knowledge, cleanliness, etc. Without seeing how the fish became the mammal, became the prehistoric human, became the current model human of today, we're doing absolutely no more than any religion has ever been accused of - making a story up to fit what we see today. Evolution may occur, or it may not, in humans. There's a lot of speculation, but no proof, because we can't draw a straight line with all the points, we can only guess at the points in between because we see two ends.

 

[Lugnut]

What I mean by that phrase is the direct change from one thing, to another, to another. We have A, C, and E. Without B and D, we can presume a straight line, but we really have no idea for SURE. Much of what we see in HUMAN evolution could easily be explained with better nutrition, more medicinal knowledge, cleanliness, etc. Without seeing how the fish became the mammal, became the prehistoric human, became the current model human of today, we're doing absolutely no more than any religion has ever been accused of - making a story up to fit what we see today. Evolution may occur, or it may not, in humans. There's a lot of speculation, but no proof, because we can't draw a straight line with all the points, we can only guess at the points in between because we see two ends.

Oddly enough, I don't think this argument will ever go away.

When a fossil of a human ancestor is found, somebody says "OK, but where is the link between THAT one and us." A few years later another fossil is found that provides a link from the previous one to us, and again the argument "Well alright fair enough, but where is the link from THAT one to us?"

Here's a BRIEF synopsis of the human evolution time line (because I don't feel like digging up University papers for reference) List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hessian]

Hostility?

What is equally entertaining is the overt hostility toward anyone/organization that urges the exploration of Intelligent design or asks serious questions regarding artifacts/bones etc.
There was a time when science was eager to have different theories or explanations. Now, its a private club for believers in Darwin only.
Every other possible belief/theory is treated with haughty scorn like they are the scarecrow asking for a brain.

I spent 3 weeks teaching the "Descent of Man" to my Anthropology students: they were stunned to discover the bitter accusations of Paleo-Anthros and rearranging of all their fossil toys. Leakeys vs Johanson vs ??...publicity hounds, eccentrics, -willing accomplices to the supression of competitive theories.

I didn't use a single Christian textbook...I used their finds & announcements that are publicly available.

 

[This_person]

Oddly enough, I don't think this argument will ever go away.

When a fossil of a human ancestor is found, somebody says "OK, but where is the link between THAT one and us." A few years later another fossil is found that provides a link from the previous one to us, and again the argument "Well alright fair enough, but where is the link from THAT one to us?"

Here's a BRIEF synopsis of the human evolution time line (because I don't feel like digging up University papers for reference) List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right, the argument probably never will go away until those missing spots are filled in. Including the one where the fish turns to a mammal.

Then we can talk about how the mucky water became life.

 

[Novus Collectus]

What is equally entertaining is the overt hostility toward anyone/organization that urges the exploration of Intelligent design or asks serious questions regarding artifacts/bones etc.
There was a time when science was eager to have different theories or explanations. Now, its a private club for believers in Darwin only.
Every other possible belief/theory is treated with haughty scorn like they are the scarecrow asking for a brain.

I spent 3 weeks teaching the "Descent of Man" to my Anthropology students: they were stunned to discover the bitter accusations of Paleo-Anthros and rearranging of all their fossil toys. Leakeys vs Johanson vs ??...publicity hounds, eccentrics, -willing accomplices to the supression of competitive theories.

I didn't use a single Christian textbook...I used their finds & announcements that are publicly available.

Why is there hostility whenever someone says Intelligent Design is a science? Because it is not a science. It does not observe scientific methods and it is not even close. It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis at best and really just a philosophical concept with religious undertones.
In order for ID to become science, one has to change the very definition of empirical science for ALL fields. That means we will be back in the age of Airistotle science and the flat earthers will have credibility again.

 

[Novus Collectus]

You're right, the argument probably never will go away until those missing spots are filled in. Including the one where the fish turns to a mammal.

Then we can talk about how the mucky water became life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html

 

[Xaquin44]

At least science attempts to explain things as opposed to an invisible man did it .... and years later made men write a book to loosely explain it SO IT MUST BE RIGHT!

 

[Lugnut]

You're right, the argument probably never will go away until those missing spots are filled in. Including the one where the fish turns to a mammal.
Then we can talk about how the mucky water became life.

Huh?? Uh, they're called therapids or something similar, and that's from memory! I'd google it but frankly I just don't feel like it!!

 

[Novus Collectus]

I sort of agree. My point was that evolution is only part of an explaination. When discussing "creation", or intelligent design, against creation, there should be no discussion, because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Nothing science has done has ever come close to explaining the origin of life. Intelligent design does. Because it's not evidence, it's (at best) a guess.

What I mean by that phrase is the direct change from one thing, to another, to another. We have A, C, and E. Without B and D, we can presume a straight line, but we really have no idea for SURE. Much of what we see in HUMAN evolution could easily be explained with better nutrition, more medicinal knowledge, cleanliness, etc. Without seeing how the fish became the mammal, became the prehistoric human, became the current model human of today, we're doing absolutely no more than any religion has ever been accused of - making a story up to fit what we see today. Evolution may occur, or it may not, in humans. There's a lot of speculation, but no proof, because we can't draw a straight line with all the points, we can only guess at the points in between because we see two ends.

The science of evolution is not "made up". If there is something about science that is "made up" it is a hypothesis which is an idea based in logic that is from observable data and experimentaion. If the experimentation is reapeatable and the predictions are shown to be true, then it basically becomes a theory.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

Not only is evolution seen in nature as with fossils and living examples, but it is also observable in the laboratory and the experiments can be repeated showing the predictions to be true thereby supporting the theory even further.
Evolution has been observed actually happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html