(12-16-2015 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:29 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Who cares?

1.2 billion people.

Clearly, they don't.

Over 70% of adults in the US hold views that contract evolution to some degree. This argument is retarded - we're talking about Creationism in general, and the numbers clearly show what Creationists believe, in general. The percentage of US churchgoers that completely accept evolution is unbelievably small.

And this affects your day to day life how?

Wow, argument #23454 which has nothing to do with the topic itself. Why stop now?

Just trying to understand the point in all this.

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:29 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:06 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  The world's largest Church doesn't teach that.

Who cares?

1.2 billion people.

Clearly, they don't.

Over 70% of adults in the US hold views that contract evolution to some degree. This argument is retarded - we're talking about Creationism in general, and the numbers clearly show what Creationists believe, in general. The percentage of US churchgoers that completely accept evolution is unbelievably small.

And this affects your day to day life how?

Because I have to live in the same country as you. The way you vote affects my children's education, the output of our science funding, and a billion other things. I'm going to be studying for a PhD soon, so the way you and everyone else views science will directly impact me.

The point is that a poorly educated electorate isn't good for democracy, and that not learning to understand the scientific process is a major component in not understanding other issues. Namely, climate change.

I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

(12-16-2015 03:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that a poorly educated electorate isn't good for democracy, and that not learning to understand the scientific process is a major component in not understanding other issues. Namely, climate change.

I'm waiting for someone to claim that climatologists are using a different scientific method (or not at all).

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

yes.

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

This is the problem with evolution. Those who don't have an understanding of the sheer weight of the evidence in favor of it, simply can't grasp the sheer weight of the evidence in favor of it. Simply put, literally every single piece of applicable biological, geographical, and geological data supports the general theory of evolution. Every single fossil, every single organism whose genes we've mapped, the location of current organisms, all of it. It all points to evolution. It explains why marsupials are the dominant land species on Australia, why dolphins still have pelvic bones, why our mitochondrial DNA is different than our own, all of this only makes sense with evolutionary theory.

Conflating the tens of millions of points of evidence which all point to the same outcome as 'some breadcrumbs' is absurd, and shows you need to do far more reading on the subject.

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, and conclusions change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it. Creationists disregard, ignore, or dispute contradictory evidence because the conclusion is not up for debate.

(12-16-2015 03:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:29 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Who cares?

1.2 billion people.

Clearly, they don't.

Over 70% of adults in the US hold views that contract evolution to some degree. This argument is retarded - we're talking about Creationism in general, and the numbers clearly show what Creationists believe, in general. The percentage of US churchgoers that completely accept evolution is unbelievably small.

And this affects your day to day life how?

Because I have to live in the same country as you.

No you don't.

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Shifty learned that about the catholic church recently and just wants to make sure we all know it. We do. It's not new, and it doesn't really have any bearing on americans beliefs.

Unfortunately you're right. It's always been a Protestant country with Protestants making most of the decisions/wielding the most influence.

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Shifty learned that about the catholic church recently and just wants to make sure we all know it. We do. It's not new, and it doesn't really have any bearing on americans beliefs.

Unfortunately you're right. It's always been a Protestant country with Protestants making most of the decisions/wielding the most influence.

To be fair, it's not even that protestants outside of the US really believe in creationism either. It's more of a cultural US thing than based in religion, both the Anglican and Methodist churches fully support scientific explanations, with the Methodist church explicitly stating that they oppose the introduction of creationism or intelligent design into public school curriculum.

It's really just a US thing, and I'm not really sure why that is.

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

That's not how you go about testing evolution. Please, do some reading on the matter.

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

It can mate with the previous species, because the difference between them is very minimal when it happens.

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:08 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd prefer an evidence-based society over a superstition-based society, but that's just me.

No problem with evidence. It is the elaborate stories that are taken as dogma and the suggestion that those that don't follow the dogma are are somehow lesser people. You have a story and some breadcrumbs that could support it, but you could also tell a lot more than one story out of those breadcrumbs. We can't even tell the story of the JFK assassination with more concrete breadcumbs. How many stories have been created on the subject using the same breadcrumbs? Yet, the story of how life became over 4.5 billion+ years is correct verbatum as told by the scientific establishment? I mean, I suppose it's possible.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

A good hypothesis is inspired by something observable and testable. Theories are made up of validated hypotheses, and explain what we observe. Evidence guides the creation of a theory, 100% of the way. Any conclusion reached is subject to change if novel evidence is gathered.

Creationism is a bad hypothesis inspired by an ancient myth. It's the opposite of a theory - a conclusion was made, and people are attempting to bend the evidence to fit it.

That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

(12-16-2015 04:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Shifty learned that about the catholic church recently and just wants to make sure we all know it. We do. It's not new, and it doesn't really have any bearing on americans beliefs.

Unfortunately you're right. It's always been a Protestant country with Protestants making most of the decisions/wielding the most influence.

To be fair, it's not even that protestants outside of the US really believe in creationism either. It's more of a cultural US thing than based in religion, both the Anglican and Methodist churches fully support scientific explanations, with the Methodist church explicitly stating that they oppose the introduction of creationism or intelligent design into public school curriculum.

It's really just a US thing, and I'm not really sure why that is.

That's not really a declaration of their beliefs, rather an insistence on "separation of church and state," but I get your point.

(12-16-2015 04:39 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 03:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Shifty learned that about the catholic church recently and just wants to make sure we all know it. We do. It's not new, and it doesn't really have any bearing on americans beliefs.

Unfortunately you're right. It's always been a Protestant country with Protestants making most of the decisions/wielding the most influence.

To be fair, it's not even that protestants outside of the US really believe in creationism either. It's more of a cultural US thing than based in religion, both the Anglican and Methodist churches fully support scientific explanations, with the Methodist church explicitly stating that they oppose the introduction of creationism or intelligent design into public school curriculum.

It's really just a US thing, and I'm not really sure why that is.

That's not really a declaration of their beliefs, rather an insistence on "separation of church and state," but I get your point.

I didn't intend for that quote to be taken as the declaration of their beliefs on evolution, just a snippet of how much they disagree with any form of creationism taught in schools. The Methodist statement on their beliefs is "The official statement on Science and Technology says in part, "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." and they include articles such as "It's time for people of faith to accept evolution".

(12-16-2015 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 09:49 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not only that, but nature is a wonder no matter who made it. It only required gravity, some mass, and the laws of physics to make a beautiful star that provides life, and also wonderment to humanity. Same with galaxies, nebula etc. None of it requires magic.

"Some mass"? I think you're oversimplifying things slightly.

A lot of mass, somewhat close together so it can condense, but the point stands.

Not really. The type of mass matters.

The type of matter matters, there are not different 'types' of mass. Just different amounts.

Thats what I meant wasosting quickly from work

(12-16-2015 05:09 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 09:49 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "Some mass"? I think you're oversimplifying things slightly.

A lot of mass, somewhat close together so it can condense, but the point stands.

Not really. The type of mass matters.

The type of matter matters, there are not different 'types' of mass. Just different amounts.

Thats what I meant wasosting quickly from work

No worries, I assumed it was either that or a brain fart. The only types of mass I'm aware of is this one and the catholic kind.