94 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

I don't think we've had one of these in a good while, and I don't know about you, but I usually enjoy them

[Dan]

                     

 

IF WE EVOLVED WHY ARE THERE MONKEYS

 

                             

[Sweeney]

It's too early in the thread to invoke Poe's Law

[Boggart]

I was talking to a friend who is a creationist. He says that he doesn't believe evolution to be fact but a theory that cannot be explained completely.

 

He said that if evolution were a fact, we would have more hybrid skeletons between specie instead of just drastic shifts between organisms.

 

I didn't want to tell him that the definition of "species" is when they're no longer able to reproduce with other organisms outside their own species (for the most part) hence the lack of "hybrid" organisms. But meh. At least he's not a completely ignorant creationist.

 

I sorta have a question: why can't creationism and evolution co-exist?

[Waser Lave]

If you're using the scientific definition of 'fact' then, yes, it is a fact.

[Sweeney]

I sorta have a question: why can't creationism and evolution co-exist?

That depends on context. Evolution and creationism can and do coexist in terms of peoples private beliefs (insofar as the word "belief" can be applied to evolution).

The conflict arises when creationism attempts to insert itself into places where it does not belong; creationism is categorically not a scientific pursuit, and accordingly does not belong in a classroom or the legislature.

[Florg]

Have you been lucky enough to visit the lovely Creation Museum yet in your new state of residence Mr. Sweeney?

[Sweeney]

Have you been lucky enough to visit the lovely Creation Museum yet in your new state of residence Mr. Sweeney?

No! I have asked Cristen if we can go, but it is pretty much on the opposite side of the state, so it'd be a pretty significant trip. I have seen brochures for it here and there, though.

[Frizzle]

How can evolution be true when the world is only 6000 years old?

[Sweeney]

How can evolution be true when the world is only 6000 years old?

Thank you for trying <3

[Keil]

My biology textbook years back said it was a theory. So I learned it as a theory. Never been bothered to really care if it was truly a fact because there is no reason for me to go beyond knowing the ideas behind it. 

[Sweeney]

My biology textbook years back said it was a theory. So I learned it as a theory. Never been bothered to really care if it was truly a fact because there is no reason for me to go beyond knowing the ideas behind it.

It's both a theory and a fact.

[artificial]

My biology textbook years back said it was a theory. So I learned it as a theory. Never been bothered to really care if it was truly a fact because there is no reason for me to go beyond knowing the ideas behind it. 

 

And thus demonstrates the poison that infects mankind. Let's not individually challenge and question our beliefs, but instead take what we've been told and/or read as truth. 

 

Almost every creationist I've ever talked to can't hold a substantial conversation about contrasting theories because they've done no individual research. That automatically renders their opinion moot as far as I'm concerned. The ones that can quote shoddy science that can easily be discredited, such as the imbalance of the salinity of the ocean. 

 

/yawn

New debate.

[Keil]

New debate.

 

Where do you put me: someone who doesn't really care for either creationist or evolutionist values/ someone who knows that there are no practical implications (at least in my field of study) from knowing either/or to be true. Other than religion, biology and several forms of psychology, I don't see the merit behind knowing either or to be a fact other than making self-important debates online in a forum where people can write anything without being held accountable. Feel free to correct me. I'm actually hoping you do.

[artificial]

Where do you put me: someone who doesn't really care for either creationist or evolutionist values/ someone who knows that there are no practical implications (at least in my field of study) from knowing either/or to be true. Other than religion, biology and several forms of psychology, I don't see the merit behind knowing either or to be a fact other than making self-important debates online in a forum where people can write anything without being held accountable. Feel free to correct me. I'm actually hoping you do.

 

Intellectually lazy.

[Sweeney]

Having greater, wider and more accurate knowledge about the world is inherently valuable.

[Keil]

Intellectually lazy.

 Intellectually lazy is not what you claimed I said earlier. 

 

Having greater, wider and more accurate knowledge about the world is inherently valuable.

I accept your contribution as a valid point. Kudos. 

[artificial]

 Intellectually lazy is not what you claimed I said earlier. 

 

It wasn't a reflection of your early points, it was in answer to your question of where I would put you.

And that is in the category of intellectual laziness. 

[Sweeney]

I accept your contribution as a valid point. Kudos.

I feel existentially validated

[Nymh]

Is this assumed to apply to where humans came from or whether or not organisms evolve and change over time in general?

[Sweeney]

Is this assumed to apply to where humans came from or whether or not organisms evolve and change over time in general?

Both, down to the first "organism". Abiogenesis is not, itself, a part of evolutionary theory.

[Keil]

It wasn't a reflection of your early points, it was in answer to your question of where I would put you.

And that is in the category of intellectual laziness. 

I was no longer arguing the topic at that point, but the consistency of your understanding of other peoples' points before blindfully  claiming general assumptions that lumped me with a group that I don't find myself to be included (I would of accepted your claim if you at least attempted to persuade me that I am in fact in the group of creationists)

[artificial]

I was no longer arguing the topic at that point, but the consistency of your understanding of other peoples' points before blindfully  claiming general assumptions that lumped me with a group that I don't find myself to be included (I would of accepted your claim if you at least attempted to persuade me that I am in fact in the group of creationists)

 

Ignoring the fact that the first half of your post either doesn't make sense or is woefully phrased, I never implied or categorised you as solely being in the same category as creationists. Intellectual apathy is a common trait amongst many different groups of people

[Romy]

Having greater, wider and more accurate knowledge about the world is inherently valuable.

 

Nothing is inherently valuable.

[Boggart]

Nothing is inherently valuable.

DIAMONDS