February 8, 2011
-
Evolution and Psuedo Scientist
I had a professor in college who was an atheist. He had two earned doctorate degrees. He had been teaching for 30-35 years. I took his class because everyone talked about how he was an awesome teacher.
He was a geologist. He told us in one of the first classes that he would not test us on the time lines of when things took place. He also told us he would not test us about the origins of the Earth. He told us that the information on those topics was always changing. Then he said, “I will stick to the science.”
The teacher taught us about the Earth’s crust. He taught us about how volcanoes impacted the Earth’s surface. He taught us about metamorphism. And true to form, he focused on the science. He was an awesome teacher and I learned so much from his class. He was also funny adding in little jokes. I could tell why students loved him.
When I think of a scientist, I think of him.
I had a tumor years ago right when I started on xanga. I asked around because I wanted the very best doctor to treat me. One name came up twice. The doctor was only 38 but she was super smart. I could tell from the very beginning why she was recommended.
She dedicated herself to one type of cancer and treated it with all of her might.
She was clearly a scientist. Her husband was also a doctor.
It appears to me that scientists focus on the big issues. They will attempt to cure cancer. They will try to find out why a rare disease is killing young children. They will study hard and tackle the issues of our time. They will attempt to give us advance warnings of tornado activity. They will warn a whole country of the potential of a tsunami.
I have always wondered why someone would want to be a pseudo scientist and focus on evolution.
It just appears that the only thing that is good for is correcting people on the Internet. Perhaps they just couldn’t make it as doctors or scientists.
Comments (205)
Wait, what?
how does focusing on evolution make you a pseudo scientist?
wow.
you’re not curious about evolution? about our ancestors and how we came to be?
all scientists start out with theories. they tackle big questions and make new discoveries. that’s the point of science…to learn more and more about our world.
This post’s comments may require popcorn and soda.
Oh ouch!
I think I just read the post you are responding to. Well played.
LOL!!!!
Here comes the storm!
@SoapAndShampoo - LOL seriously, I am a little scared.
@veronika_grey - he’s pointing to the usefulness of such a discipline. Like only knowing enough martial arts to do a backflip and having a blackbelt.
AGREE – until the end – people can study evolution because of curiosity – like space exploration. But people who get mad that other people believe differently is true ignorance.
Hands @mtngirlsouth - an umbrella and some popcorn LOL.
Shit storm commencing.
Actually evolution is important when figuring out why a disease is killing people and how to treat said disease. If one does not try to figure out if the disease has evolved to become immune to say antibiotics, then they would try a cure that doesn’t work and waste time that could’ve been spent coming up with a cure that works.
Well, let’s not forget that evolutionary science allows us to do things like track the spread of HIV and other rapidly-mutating viruses, to understand why and how our nerves talk to certain parts of our body, to successfully use animal parts in organ grafts, to successfully create crops that feed literally BILLIONS of people… yeah, I can’t understand why I’m getting a degree in a science that only teaches us about all life on earth, ever.
If they want to believe they came from an ape,more power to them…why would you want to prove you evolved from an ape anyway? Weird thinking if you ask me
But Dan! Don’t you see!? People being wrong on the internet is BY FAR the biggest threat our society faces! Evolutionary scientists play a vital role in helping us correct wrong people with hyperlinks. They’re not just the greatest of scientists! They’re HEROES!
I love it Dan! You do have some great points though.
@RaVnR - best. summary. ever. haha agreed
I’m in total agreement, the internet is no place to discuss evolution especially when it is clear by your post that logical fallacies and false conclusions should be the thrust.
I’ve lost all respect I may have had for you.
Well, Theo… this is an awesome entry. Well done.
you believe what you want to believe. I’m not judging.
@Sunrise_Hope_Joy - Thanks!
@Sunrise_Hope_Joy - Hey! Where did the firemen go!
*yawn*
the cure for cancer may well come from a pseudo scientist or a great chef or some bumbling homer simpson.. ya never know.
@adamswomanlost - LOL!!! Dan is on a roll this week.
That is a long lead-up just to say something rude.
haha
@TheThinkingPerson - I felt this way about a dozen posts ago.
Nearly half of known forms of cancer evolve proteins which make them resistant to cancer treatments. If your oncologist didn’t know about evolution you would likely be dead you ignorant shithead.
After a lovely entry, that’s a pretty silly thing to end with. There are all kinds of different scientists who explore all kinds of different types of science, whether or not it is immediately relevant. All science eventually becomes relevant and the pursuit of knowledge is always useful.
Geez, Dan. Really.
how long before Godwin’s Law is invoked?
This is so absolutely absurd that I’m quite inclined not to take it seriously at all.
*dodges shit*
@SoapAndShampoo - i’ll bring the popcorn.
@RaVnR - Then why do you keep returning?
Mmmkay….
@agnophilo - soapy and i are sharing a bag of popcorn. it’s a big bag…want some?
@Inspectorgrampy5 - Maybe because the truth isn’t determined by what we want? I’d like my living room to be filled with hundred dollar bills and nympho swimsuit models, but me wanting something to be so doesn’t make the universe bend to me will. This isn’t The Secret.
@godfatherofgreenbay - This was posted at 7:17, and it’s now 7:49, so… 32 minutes you Nazi fuck.
@complicatedlight - Heh. I’m half inclined to think he’s just stirring up shit like he always does, but I oppose this anti-science bullshit on principle. Still, thanks for the popcorn : )
@GodlessLiberal - shit, I should have posted an over/under to make some money.
I AM…how physically I got here, with the exception of medical research as already pointed out by one of the other comments, I don’t really see how it matters HOW I got here….I AM.
Ok…. This one was beyond what my feeble mind could comprehend.
But I’m glad you had a professor who made an impact on your life beyond your college years.
The truly ignorant people are the ones who don’t fully understand the evolution that they speak of.
There are two different types of evolution, micro and macro. One is obvious, how evolution occurs within a species, virus, plants, etc, etc (but remain in the same species. This includes your virus that evolves to adapt to medication.)
The other is macro, how evolution occurs BETWEEN species. This is quite unproven and that’s why it’s called a theory.
SO, for those of you who are upset because Dan does not agree with MACRO evolution, don’t attempt to use MICRO as proof of him ‘being wrong, ignorant, a shithead, etc’. You will only look like a fool.
@TheThinkingPerson - @agnophilo -
“I have always wondered why someone would want to be a pseudo scientist and focus on evolution.
It just appears that the only thing that is good for is correcting people on the Internet. Perhaps they just couldn’t make it as doctors or scientists.”
I understood him to mean the folks commenting on xanga are the pseudo scientists. I don’t know of anyone on Xanga who qualifies as any type of authority on Evolution or ID for that matter.
@VeritatisAmans - Just curious, do YOU understand the difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution?
@GodlessLiberal - I am a ‘young earther’
So are you saying that every person who doesn’t make a big, life changing contribution to humanity is a pseudo scientists? Like theoretic relativists and what not? Why is the definition of “scientist” defined by YOU?
You continue to disappoint. You are hitting an all time low, and now, you’re asking for the hate posts. I wonder what happened to the humble Dan I thought I knew. Hm.
@VeritatisAmans - Evolution above the species level (speciation) is observed very frequently, and both happens in nature and in the lab. This is by definition macro evolution, but experience tells me you won’t accept it no matter how much evidence is presented, so why pretend to care about evidence and science?
@bakersdozen2 - It’s pretty clear he is saying that the areas he listed are “real” science and that evolution is pseudo-science. Unless you think people on xanga are pretending to be scientists and faking scientific studies?
Isn’t that why there’s no “cure” for the common cold – because it keeps evolving and now there’s like a billion common cold viruses?
I don’t understand why people can’t grasp evolution..
*insert side eye gifs here*
@VeritatisAmans - That was just about the worst reply you could have come up with.
@agnophilo - I KNOW people on Xanga flatter themselves that they understand Evolutionary Theory well enough to comment at all. They don’t. Take your above statement:
“Evolution above the species level (speciation) is observed very frequently, and both happens in nature and in the lab. This is by definition macro evolution, but experience tells me you won’t accept it no matter how much evidence is presented, so why pretend to care about evidence and science?”
What you call evolution is really just inheritance. Everything is already in the genome. It’s just selecting for new traits. We are 2 lay people commenting on a blog… that’s about it.
Evolution is a greatest issues of science!
It’s just that some our more ignorant atheist brethren turn it into a religion and then use it to attack Christians.
@bakersdozen2 - Not necessarily “already in the genome.” If you had an insertion mutation at just the right spot, a cell would begin producing a new protein.
@ryoma136 - It’s still pulling from the same amino acids
@bakersdozen2 - There are only four (Five if you want to be picky) types of amino acids. Yes, they can be added to the DNA strand to make it longer. Most of our DNA is junk – only 90% actually codes for anything. This is because of mutations.
Well, who needs Biology anyway?
@agnophilo - While I can’t agree with your tone I was having similar thoughts. The place the doctors are at for dealing with cancer (biology in general) is directly related to … the “pseudo science” of evolution. I couldn’t help but make a face like “What? =|” and facepalm. Knowledge, understanding, and above all *gratitude* are ultimately completely absent because of how he finished this post. It’s…. sad.
@ange_lae - Yup. That’s cuz the devil wants us to THINK darwin was right. : P
@bakersdozen2 - No, that is a false creationist claim that is not based on evidence and can easily be disproven. Way too many novel and useful genes exist only in certain lineages for them to all have been in an “original” ex-nihilo genome. Creationists make stuff up that, if it were true, would be compelling, then pretend it is true. That is not a rational form of inquiry, it is a rationalization.
I do not have to be a geneticist to know these things are false. And if these things were correct, the consensus about evolution among those tens of thousands of christian geneticists would not exist.
But hey, if you don’t believe me – look a geneticist up in the phone book, there should be one at a local university. Give them a call and ask them. Hell, only ask a christian geneticist, the answer you get will be the same.
@bakersdozen2 - What does that have to do with anything?
@ryoma136 - to be really picky, there are 6. Beyond that they’re discovering “junk DNA” isn’t really all that junky. Is becoming outdated terminology. Up and down regulation determines the amount of genetic product.
“Most of our DNA is junk – only 90% actually codes for anything. This is because of mutations.”
This is a contradictory statement, btw. What do you mean?
@ryoma136 - Did you mean 10%? And where did you get that figure out of curiosity?
@versatil - Yeah : ( The crappy thing is that science is, as someone once put it, one of the only lights in a naturally dark universe. It could enrich anyone’s worldview including that of religious people if they were not preoccupied with fear and orthodoxy.
@bakersdozen2 - That we have discovered that not all junk DNA is actually junk does not mean that none of it is. There are whole swathes of DNA that we know to be non-coding, duplicated segments, left-over fragments of endogenous retroviruses and many other things. Something like 7% of our genome is fragments of ERVs that inject their DNA into our genome in an attempt to reproduce.
@agnophilo - ”
Way too many novel and useful genes exist only in certain lineages for them to all have been in an “original” ex-nihilo genome.”
This makes an assumption regarding the diversity of the original genomes. And you’re assuming common descent.
@ryoma136 - I wasn’t trying to come up with a reply. Honestly, I would normally argue this till I’m blue in the face, but I’ve learned that it never gets anyone anywhere, and, honestly, I’m too tired and worn out to even think about the subject. He has a bachelors degree in the subject so it would be nothing short of silly to think that I could say anything he hasn’t heard or considered before. Science is not in my realm of knowledge so when it comes to the issue, I’ll usually agree to disagree and deal with that which is in my realm. I wasn’t called to debate science, I am called to share the Gospel. I’m called to live a life that will glorify God. I will probably bring more glory to Him by graciously acknowledging that I wouldn’t understand most, if not all, the science that GodlessLiberal has off the top of his head than by arguing, pointlessly, that which I understand very little of. Science is not a necessity for faith, and while I don’t believe the two are at odds, or even should be, I know that I wasn’t called to study science. Even if I DID study science and even if I DID have a presentable argument, I can’t make ANYONE believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection by writing a thesis on the age of the earth (or anything, for that matter).
1 Cor 1
:
26
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
28
God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29
so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
30
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
31
so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
I will readily acknowledge that I have no place in a sincere discussion of science. I will simply do my best at the calling that the Lord has given me.
God Bless
@agnophilo - Science is helpful/useful, but just because people have access to a decent education doesn’t make them all bright all of the sudden. Even if they can write and speak eloquently it does not mean they are completely rational. For them, I’m not sure how it’s supposed to work, but you have to talk sense with them in a whole other fashion. The various languages we develop through science to understand something is not necessarily going to benefit the majority of people. But those of us for who it is useful…or at least readable for that matter… it’s… well you can’t help but cringe when someone’s method of dealing with it is like… “>= SO?”
@agnophilo - OK??? all you’re talking about is specialized pathogens. It has nothing to do with evolution. And it’s very directed, btw. So?
@GodlessLiberal - agreed
Yea, I never liked them smartalic know it all, eletist book learnen types either. My great great grand pappy wudnt no monkey….he wuz a dinosaur russtler and a cobbler. Made the best pair of t-rex loafers ya ever dun seen.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - It’s not about proving we came from apes. It’s about ceaselessly seeking truth, whatever that truth may be.
@randomneuralfirings - LOL yes! Agreed.
@agnophilo - It was biology class, although that was a few years ago. I looked into it a bit, and it’s more complicated than I thought; I saw a figure of 3% of our genome is actually genes.
@bakersdozen2 - Actually incorrect, because I had amino acids and nucleotides mixed up. There are a ton of amino acids. My statement wasn’t contradictory, I was just pointing out how additions of nucleotides into our DNA has rendered previous genes useless, simply lengthened it, etc. In addition, viruses add to its length.
@TrekkieECH - Just trying to add some humor to this bashing LOL.The only truth I put my trust in is the Bible,but thats just me.If I didn’t believe the Bible even though written by men, was God inspired,I would trust nothing on this earth.
This is one of those posts I wish I could recommend more than once.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Such an unexpected pleasure to be in agreement with you for once! Evolution is a completely legitimate and valid science, but too many people use it to try to attack Christianity, when it should be used to support it instead.
@ryoma136 - Yep, 4 (to 6) nucleotides a,c, t, g, (u, i) *possible*
The contradiction I was referring to was “most” and then 10 %
@Inspectorgrampy5 - Well that’s more than fair. I can totally respect that
At long last, a masterful post monsieur!
@SoapAndShampoo - *offers tub of popcorn*
*facepalm*
I’m under the impression that he’s saying, why would you dedicate your energy to just defending that idea, instead of looking at all the facts and deciding off of that. Or that you should do things that help people instead of contemplate if evolution occurred as assumed or not.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - I would prefer not to think that I am part monkey…
@complicatedlight - The popcorn is great and the comments did pretty much what I expected. Nomnomnomnom.
@agnophilo - Um… Any first-year biology student can tell you that the change you are speaking of does not in any way constitute “Evolution” in the sense Dan was talking about. Individuals are selected. Populations adapt. Evolution (with a capital “E”) only occurs over long periods of time (eras), and to entire species of organisms. One strain of cancer does not “evolve”. It mutates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Great post, Dan! One’s opinion on evolution doesn’t have to factor into their belief that working for the common good is more important than arguing about our origins.
@SisterMae - You and me both.
@bakersdozen2 - So you’re suggesting that modern human lineages were created ex-nihilo? I’m talking about mutations that give things like resistence to HIV that occurred a few hundred years ago in specific lineages, nothing dating as far back as the flood, if that’s what you’re talking about. But even then they couldn’t remain completely isolated. And what do you mean assuming common descent? I was talking about genes in modern humans, but yes there is ample evidence in the genomes of every species.
@VeritatisAmans - Sorry, but willful ignorance isn’t a virtue no matter how much you dress it up in scripture.
@versatil - The area of evolution is especially annoying since to understand the evidence for it you need to understand many fields of science, a bit about everything from geology to physics to chemestry to biology to genetics, paleontology etc, and when asked if the earth goes around the sun 79% of americans said it does, 18% said the sun went around the earth and 3% had no opinion (link). We are not exactly a scientifically literate people.
@bakersdozen2 - You aren’t paying attention to what I was responding to.
@tendollar4ways - Haha.
@ryoma136 - I wouldn’t be surprised. I was just wondering if you had a source with more info. I know scientists have done experiments where they take a mouse, remove millions of “letters” of DNA from the DNA, grow the mouse and it’s perfectly healthy.
@agnophilo - I’m not going to spend years of my life studying science so that I can pursue a futile discussion with you on Xanga about it. That’s pointless. You do your job, I’ll do mine.
@TrekkieECH - I think you’re confusing defense of science with attacking christianity. Anyone who attacks christianity by citing evolution is an idiot. Now disagreeing with literal creationism by citing evolution is another matter, but you don’t need to even go into biology to disprove a literal interpretation of genesis.
@SisterMae - Oh that’s nothing, you’re like 25% banana.
Seriously.
No really, you seriously, actually share a big chunk of your DNA with plants.
Common ancestry is way weirder (and cooler) than you might imagine.
@psycocrazypony - Mutation and natural selection is evolution. If you are suggesting that the term evolution somehow doesn’t apply to micro-organisms, well, then I don’t know what to tell you. I suppose I should ask what science books you’ve been reading and what substances you’ve been smoking while reading them.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - You might enjoy my response to her above.
@VeritatisAmans - A week, month or year from now you are going to turn around and claim that macro-evolution is not ever observed, even though you now have been informed that that is, and has always been, a false claim. That is not the good news, that is deliberate dishonesty. You are lying to others and yourself. I would appreciate it if you could “agree to disagree” without deliberately misinforming others about science.
@agnophilo - You’re a hoot Mark.Even though we pretty much disagree with most stuff,you are a good guy man!
as I said in another blog:you probably get the cosmic joke sooner or later and you’ll understand that whether God created man-as most kindergarten teachers believe-or man created God-as most college professors believe-both of them are pretty perverse specimens. Man and God would make pretty good alcoholic drinking buddies, kind of like Van Gogh and Gauguin except without the talent.
@agnophilo - No, no, I’m perfectly clear on the distinction. And I agree that attacking an entire religion based on evolution is idiotic. In fact, I’m pretty sure we agree on all points. A completely literal interpretation is a little…shortsighted
@veronika_grey - It depends on how it is being discussed. If it is like most, they are more akin to acolytes… “Atheistic Evangelists” if you will. (seemingly ironic but incredibly true) These are often (not saying always) those who use their scientific degree as a means for the purpose of trying to convince people that evolution is true. Again, I’m not saying they all do this. I have seen many who do, all the while trying to claim that all religion is false, never realizing that by definition they themselves are religious and, in fact, proselytizers of their religion. That is what debatably makes them “pseudo-scientists”.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - Thanks. I don’t think you’re evil or anything either : P But as far as the plant thing, that’s actually a fact. : ) I don’t think it should diminish us so much as make us look at plants with a bit of respect : )
@TrekkieECH - Yay. I like finding people I don’t have to argue with : )
But yeah, glad to know you don’t think mountains, human civilization and some living trees pre-date the universe : )
@Legendairy - Are scientists who express belief in god pseudoscientists?
Pseudoscience would only be if they claimed to have scientific evidence of something they don’t have evidence of. A scientist is free to espouse any views they want and is not a pseudoscientist unless they claim their religious or philosophical views are scientific without the adequate empirical support. And evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.
@agnophilo - I’d be more concerned with the fact that the universe pre-dates the universe, but yeah
lololol well it does appear you’re right about that whole internet argument thing.
A lot of people will misread this because they’re reckless but I didn’t. I took my time.
It’s really like this, scientists just uncover truth. That’s what all scientists from physicists to geologists do.
The the thing about knowledge though is that we must build endlessly on whatever we have, whether or not it may appear directly applicable in the forseeable future because you never know when it’ll become helpful. It’s the reason we’re looking for GUTS and sequencing the DNA of random animals and pretending that astrophysics matter. It might just eventually all become directly utilizable once we reach appropriate levels of advancement.
Just recently in the last century our strong advancements in developmental biology have gotten us from near useless knowledge of anatomy as a function of time to deep understanding of physiology with implications that’ll allow us to develop treatments for tons of diseases.
Good stuff science. [even the currently useless bits]
favored mutants?
obvious troll is obvious
Now I ain’t no xtian faggot or nothing but this is it great post. I don’t know why people out here get their panties in a bunch over their inability to convince others to think as they do. If you’re an atheist and you can’t convince an xitan to give up his/her beliefs with all the reason and logic in the universe then just accept that he/she is an imbecile and move on to someone who is less stupid. Vice versa if you are an evangelical xtian. Neither religion nor atheism is going to destroy us. If it goes away they’ll just be some other thing you won’t like to take its place. Now shut up people and find a new topic to write about. You assholes bore me!
@AmeliaHart - I agree with you. I think evolution needs to be studied, but I don’t understand where this resentment toward different ideas is coming from.
@agnophilo - I’m afraid to click the link. It said gallup. So immediately I’m like less prone to doubt the poll. *gulp*
@bakersdozen2 - that’s what i assumed he meant too. i don’t think he literally meant that scientists out there doing hard research on it to some way benefit human beings overall are the pointless ones. but then again he may have and i could be wrong, but it’s just what i gathered.
any way, the professor sounds like a great guy. i like professors like that that don’t shove their beliefs (or lack thereof) down others’ throats. he taught his subject and taught it well.
@agnophilo - I will give you the courtesy of one reply. First off, I was simply explaining to someone who asked why the term could apply. Considering the rather high percentage of comments in this thread that were left by you, it seems that you are just looking to argue with people. I’m not interested in meaningless arguing. Now, a legitimate debate is one thing but I remain skeptical that debate is really what you’re looking for.
Now having said that, those whom I described do, in fact, lack sufficient evidence to justify the very behaviors I mentioned. Now if you can provide solid evidence for them to take the actions, then I would be interested in hearing it. If you do so, however, be advised that unless you approach in an manner that I feel warrants a response, you won’t be getting one. I have better ways of investing my time this evening.
I thought you’ve taken a research methods class before? Evolution isn’t pseudoscience, it’s been empirically investigated and Darwin’s work was peer-reviewed. Although it is “unproven,” evolution has become a universally accepted theory by scientists worldwide. In fact, a lot of scientific theories, like gravity, remain “unproven” and are still accepted by the general populace.
Sup with the false analogies Dan?
@TrekkieECH - Heh : )
@andiote - True.
@sweetboxc00kie - Creationists lying about science is where the resentment comes from for me.
@versatil - Haha. Yup. You should watch the movie idiocracy.
@Legendairy - I’ve no need of snobby condescending people who pretend it’s too much of a strain to lower themselves to my level in order to answer a yes or no question, so by all means keep all that golden goodness that is you to yourself.
@brittany_7x - Well, Dan is usually as silent as a stone on his blog. :/
Likely, we’ll never find out what he really meant. Right, Dan?
It’s interesting that immediately people interpret evolution two ways. One is micro-evolution – ie the observable development within species – the other is the better-known ‘Darwinian’ type of macro-evolution of one speciies evolving into another which has never been observed even by its most fervant advocates as (by definition) it takes too long. it is a non-observable, hostorical science requiring abductive thought processes and deductions which many would say are only in the eye of the beholder.
@the_evil_tamica - I have never known any scientist say, ‘the laws of gravity are as proven as evolution’.
Ahhhh, all the unnecessary anger. As Stephen Colbert once said, “This room is soaked with GASOLINE….and I’m gonna light it up!”
Good question! I have also wondered why someone would want to appear pseudo intelligent and study theology.
@kenedwards5 - you have clearly not heard many scientists then
My head hurts a little
@agnophilo - on the grand scale of reality, who wins the evolution vs. creation debate seems menial. the author of this post is not attacking people who study evolution; he’s critisizing people who like to pick fights over something that’s not worth fighting about. let it go, and go do something awesome with your time.
@XXVl - more likely the scientists you listened to were plonkers!
@GodlessLiberal - Not all of us are to proud to consider every possibility. I for one don’t entirely refuse the evangelical bull shit.
@agnophilo - Believe me when I say, that if I am now aware that I can’t make that claim honestly, I will not make that claim at all.
Dan, have you stooped to trolling?
@agnophilo - Oncologists don’t care about the Theory of Common Ancestry when they do their research. Some of them are creationists and don’t believe the TCA gloss. Duh!
@TheThinkingPerson - I never had any respect for you or for your two neurons.
@Da__Vinci - Well, at least he’s willing to learn. I can’t say as much for you. Still knocking about in your dodgy epistemology?
@GodlessLiberal - Let’s not forget that TCA is totally irrelevant for studying anything useful in biology.
@squeakysoul - All science becomes relevant? Like phlogiston and ether?
@randomneuralfirings - I have to disagree with you, respectfully. It’s the creationists who want to teach creationism in schools that are the biggest threat. Evolutionary scientists’ most valuable contribution is to provide a line of defense against the creationist boogeyman. If creationism were to be taught in school, that would be the end of science as we know it! Let’s not forget that there was no science before Darwin.
@SoapAndShampoo - Ubetcha! I want butter on mine. Trolling is a contact sport, though.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - Actually, evolution has been observed in action among humans. Since Darwin, we have seen the emergence of Evolutionist moronii.
You are a (crack) pot, and you’re calling the kettle black. Read “The greatest show on earth” and come up with one single alternative explanation that better explains all the observable evidence mentioned better than evolution. Yes, evolution is an observable science. Creationists don’t seem to understand this fact. You do not need the fossil record to prove evolution, the fossil record is just a nice bonus, like a cherry on top of a monumentally sized cake of evidence. I guess biology to you is like psychology to scientologists.
@soccerdadforlife - Except for, you know, EVERYTHING in biology. As Dobzhansky put it, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
@GodlessLiberal - Dobzhansky was a rhetorical ideologue, just like you.
Evolutionary thinking has damaged science and humanity, causing them to remove valuable organs unnecessarily, such as tonsils, adenoids, and appendixes. Put simply, it’s quack thinking.
@Spectrophile - Evolution may be observable, but what is observable is trivial. TCA isn’t observable and it is simply fantasy.
@soccerdadforlife - Really? Want to back up your claim that appendixes are removed unnecessarily with statistics on how many people would die without appendix removal vs how many would be saved by keeping it in?
@agnophilo - Wait, I thought evolution produced new species. What you described isn’t evolution, its adaptation, which no one has denied. They’re still the same species of bacteria though, right? That’s like the story teachers like to tell about a species of butterfly that came in two varieties, blue and gray. A volcano erupted and the blue butterflies died out due to predation while the grays flourished. The blues had lost their camouflage and were easy targets. But that isn’t evolution either, it’s just natural selection, which is also not denied by creationists in the main. Still, there’s no new species, just a more homogenous version of the same species.
I don’t take a position on evolution because I don’t have to. God works in mysterious ways. But that doesn’t mean I have to let anyone pull the wool over my eyes with circumstantial evidence and intellectually dishonest arguments. Teachers know better than to actually believe the butterfly story lends any actual credence to the theory of evolution, and you know that the example you cited doesn’t either.
Peace.
@squeakysoul - Hai squeaks. Keeping warm over there?
@RaVnR - rawr
lol.
Congratulations on creating the most spectacular piece-of-shit post of the year.
@bakersdozen2 - He meant to get blog hits is my guess.
@kenedwards5 - As I’ve explained to you before this is a lie, speciation is well-observed, four different types of speciation in fact.
@kenedwards5 - And you hang out with biologists all the time, right? That things fall to the earth and that life changes over time are both facts of biology, the theories attempt to explain the precise hows and whys of those facts.
@sweetboxc00kie - No, he is attacking evolution by contrasting it with what he considers “real” science. He’s just doing it in a veiled way and probably only doing it for blog hits.
@VeritatisAmans - I hope you are being genuine, most creationists I’ve talked to just turn around and repeat the same thing no matter how many times it’s debunked, and creationist websites like AiG promote frauds like the ica stones decades after they were debunked. If you are being genuine, then please look up a claim about evolution here before you repeat it.
@Spectrophile - Common ancestry is a fact of biology. I wouldn’t want someone treating me who didn’t accept the basics about how life works.
@soccerdadforlife - I thought appendixes were removed due to their tendency to burst and kill people. You know, intelligent design.
Meh meh meh meh
What’s worse is getting a degree in philosophy, but hey it’s fun.
@agnophilo - This blog is merely a response to a current blog that was rapping on Dan’s belief of the earth’s age. I think what Dan means by pseudo scientist is that no one on Xanga really holds any authority in the issues brought up unless they work in that particular field which he is directing full forcedly at the previous blogger.
@VeritatisAmans - Great answer! Love it!
@agnophilo - never mind friend! Just keep evolving!
@AOK4WAY - Love your answer! The whole “intellectually dishonest” phrase especially. That is exactly what most of these “debates” are on the side of macro evolution.
I guess for the same reasons why some people decide to be “pseudo philosophers”. Science can only be settled after it’s been investigated. You do a decent job wielding emotional rhetoric, but leave elementary logic to someone else.
You know Dan – knowing that you DON’T believe in evolution & believe in God creating the universe – I’m more likely to read some of your blogs now. I have more respect for you.
I hate to admit it, but I can be such a sucker for debates like this. I really need to try harder to ignore it all as they aren’t going to change my beliefs & I’m not going to change theirs or their hearts. It only serves to frustrate me. Not that they don’t believe but that some of them are so damned mean about it. Why the heck do they care if Christians believe CHRIST (duh, imagine that) over the “scientists?” If they have such faith in their science then they should just be happy with that & who cares if others don’t agree, right? Which is why I don’t debate it anymore so much as attack their attacks on Christians. *lol* That’s not being productive either though.
@AOK4WAY -
“Wait, I thought evolution produced new
species. What you described isn’t evolution, its adaptation, which no
one has denied.”
There is no distinction. Creationists pretend they are two different things because they can no longer deny that evolution is a fact of biology, so they pretend evolution is something else, when it never has been. Natural selection is evolution, adaptation is evolution, speciation is evolution. Saying “of course life adapts due to natural selection and is modified over time, but it doesn’t evolve” is like saying “of course things are pulled toward planets and stars at a fixed rate, but gravitation isn’t real.”
It’s nothing but nonsense word games.
“They’re still the same species of bacteria though,
right?”
Bacteria are not “species” in the sense that sexually reproducing organisms are, and speciation has been observed in animals, plants, insects and plants as well.
“That’s like the story teachers like to tell about a species of
butterfly that came in two varieties, blue and gray. A volcano erupted
and the blue butterflies died out due to predation while the grays
flourished. The blues had lost their camouflage and were easy targets.”
Actually it was a white moth “peppered” with black splotches that had adapted to the pattern of the native trees which was replaced with all-black varieties due not to a volcano but the industrial revolution covering the trees in england with soot and thus making the white and black ones no longer blend into the trees. The gene pool adapted to the change, and when the environmental conditions changed, adapted back. This is an example of evolution by natural selection, it has nothing to do with speciation.
“But that isn’t evolution either, it’s just natural selection, which is
also not denied by creationists in the main. Still, there’s no new
species, just a more homogenous version of the same species.”
Speciation is caused by two populations of the same organism becoming genetically or physiologically incompatable or no longer recognizing each other as mates, and therefore no longer able to exchange genetic information, thus removing the one mechanism keeping them from diverging and becoming increasingly different from each other over time. It occurs a number of different ways, splitting one species into two similar species. This is why there are diverse families of similar species and not just one of each “kind”. There aren’t just wolves, there are wolves, foxes, dingos, coyotes, and many others. And some of them, while they do not breed together in the wild, can still be hybridized. As can horses and zebras, though they are not compatable enough to produce fertile offspring and their young will always be sterile.
“I
don’t take a position on evolution because I don’t have to.”
Sure it’s not because you don’t want to?
“God works
in mysterious ways. But that doesn’t mean I have to let anyone pull the
wool over my eyes with circumstantial evidence and intellectually
dishonest arguments. Teachers know better than to actually believe the
butterfly story lends any actual credence to the theory of evolution,
and you know that the example you cited doesn’t either.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Evolution is a fact of biology, creationists pretend it isn’t by re-defining the term to mean something else entirely.
“Peace.”
Bullshit. If you meant me peace you wouldn’t call me a liar and run away.
@Parsimony - How old does he think the earth is? And I don’t need authority to agree with the scientific consensus. I would need some serious credentials if I were claiming that all the PhD level biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, physicists, geneticists, geologists etc were wrong though.
@Kimmybeth - What I find offensive isn’t christians disagreeing with me – it’s lying to kids and saying that science backs your religious views when it not only doesn’t, but can’t. You cannot put god into a test tube and prove his existence, to tell kids in schools across america that you can is dishonest. Isn’t lying supposed to be a bad thing?
I’m glad you have respect for science and scientists, but the last part of your post confuses me.
Is
it a jab at “creation scientists” who try to refute the enormous mass
of evidence supporting evolution? Those are indeed pseudoscientists.
Pseudoscience is indeed a problem.
Or is it a jab at the
scientists who choose to devote their studies to evolution, an attempt
to denigrate what they do by labeling it “pseudoscience”? As others have
pointed out, this is not a trivial field that doesn’t deserve study. It
even has tangible benefits to the public from time to time — to name just one example,
phylogenetic analyses provided by evolutionary biologists sometimes
provide very important evidence allowing the courts to identify
murderers, rapists, and such.
If the latter is the case, you may
want to read more about ACTUAL pseudoscience before you haphazardly try
to use the term to discredit a field that you seem to understand very
little about. The attitude that it’s OK to completely reject the
validity of a scientific field when you haven’t particularly bothered to
understand the evidence it is based on (or what other evidence would be required to discredit the current theories, or even what you are specifically rejecting) is
actually what allows REAL pseudoscience to flourish.
Finally, the idea that evolutionary scientists couldn’t make it as “real scientists” is laughable. It is no easier to become an evolutionary scientist (ie, to get the advanced degrees, get a job in a lab or a tenured faculty position) than it is in any other field. It’s not like they’re fucking homeopaths, who can do what they do with absolutely no training.
Educate yourself.
@agnophilo - I certainly cannot speak for all Christians that you’ve ever encountered. However you’re completely correct in saying that you cannot put God into a test tube. And I don’t believe science can concretely prove God’s existence. Like I’ve mentioned today already (on either your blog or on another I was on), if science or anyone actually could give hard, fast, concrete evidence of God’s existence, then it wouldn’t be called faith. Faith is what loving & following Christ (and hence God) is all about. However, I can say that science cannot DISPROVE God’s existence either. I heard a few months ago on the radio about a cavern that once had a sign with the cavern’s age above it. Well, the speaker went back to that cavern a decade later to find that the cavern’s sign had changed to show it thousands of years younger than it was previously believed. When he went again years later he saw the sign had been removed. When he questioned why, he was told that it had been recently discovered that stalactites and stalagmites can “grow” (so to speak) faster than they previously believed they could annually. Which means that they really had no clue how old the cavern was. So people keep refining & honing their sciences. You can’t use science (which “evolves” and adapts constantly as we learn knew things) to disprove God’s existence any more than you can to concretely prove his existence.
And I DO understand what a theory is btw. Two synonyms for theory are speculation & belief.
I don’t know why my formatting turned out all funky. Sorry.
@GodlessLiberal - Researchers haven’t yet published the answer to that question because function has only recently begun to be attributed to the appendix.
“While surgery is the most recognized treatment of appendicitis, it is not the only option. Doctors have begun to realize that treatment with intravenous antibiotics can be used to avoid sepsis and to allow the situation to resolve itself. Recent discoveries about the organ have led to less prophylactic appendectomy surgeries. Where the removal of the appendix was often done as an add-on to other abdominal surgeries, many doctors now prefer to leave it intact.” http://doctorfinders.com/appendectomy.php
It’s obvious that the erroneous evolutionary assumption about lack of function is still the prevalent default in academic medicine. Only when function is found in an organ thought to lack it is the evolutionary doctrine about vestigial organs questioned, and only in that particular case. The more conservative assumption of unknown function is safer, but doesn’t fit with the evolutionary paradigm.
I guess you have accepted my point about tonsils and adenoids, right?
@agnophilo - Dan believed the earth is 10, 000 years old from a previous blog. He didn’t claim it was.
@Kimmybeth - “I certainly cannot speak for all Christians
that you’ve ever encountered. However you’re completely correct in
saying that you cannot put God into a test tube. And I don’t believe
science can concretely prove God’s existence.”
The creationism movement is the movement to replace the science curriculum with the book of genesis, and the Intelligent Design movement is the same thing dressed up in secular sounding terms to try to bypass court rulings that creationism violated the church-state clause in the first ammendment. They are trying to pretend that belief in god is scientific in order to (to quote the organization leading the ID movement) “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural and political legacies”, and to “replace it
with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
That is not science.
They aren’t content with teaching about their religion, they need to lie to kids and claim that faith is backed by science. It would be just as disgusting and I would oppose it just as much if they were telling kids science proves atheism, or trying to inject “there is no god” into the biology texts. But nobody is trying to do that.
It’s especially egregious that they’re doing this in the public schools which are meant to be ideologically neutral because they’re for everyone regardless of their religious views. Loathing the creationism movement isn’t the same as loathing christians.
“Like I’ve mentioned today
already (on either your blog or on other I was on), if science or
anyone actually could give hard, fast, concrete evidence of God’s
existence, then it wouldn’t be called faith. Faith is what loving &
following Christ (and hence God) is all about. However, I can say that
science cannot DISPROVE God’s existence either.”
Science cannot disprove the existence of unicorns either, that isn’t evidence of their existence. Bigfoot cannot be proven to exist or disproven, the typical position in light of that is a skeptical one.
“I heard a few months
ago on the radio about a cavern that once had a sign with the cavern’s
age above it. Well, the speaker went back to that cavern a decade
later to find that the cavern’s sign had changed to show it thousands of
years younger than it was previously believed. When he went again
years later he saw the sign had been removed. When he questioned why,
he was told that it had been recently discovered that stalactites and
stalagmites can “grow” (so to speak) faster than they previously
believed they could annually. Which means that they really had no clue
how old the cavern was. So people keep refining & honing their
sciences.”
This is likely an exaggeration, yes science changes it’s estimates with new information but that increases or decreases the margin of error, it does not mean the universe is 6,000 years old. For instance the fastest growing mountain in the world is growing at less than a third of an inch per year. If it had been growing at that rate (the fastest in the world) for it’s entire existence, it would take 1.3 million years to get to it’s current height. While it is true that we can’t know exactly how old it is, we do know that it’s no spring chicken. And we know the earth is far older because in the geological strata we see mountains that have formed, eroded away entirely, and been covered with new strata. In cosmology when we look at distant objects we are not seeing them as they are now, but as they once were, because light does not travel over millions of miles instantly, it takes time. So when we look at the sun we are seeing it as it was about 8 minutes ago, because it takes that long for the light from the sun to get here. When we look at the stars on the opposite side of our galaxy we are seeing them as they were about a hundred thousand years ago (because they are about a hundred thousand light-years away), and the most distant galaxies we can see are over 14 billion light-years away. This does not mean the universe is conclusively 14 billion years old, but it does mean it is at least that old. There are countless methods of estimating the age of various things on and off of the earth, and they consistently line up with a view that the earth is ancient (which to me is more impressive and heavy anyway) and consistently contradict the idea of a young earth. Anecdotal evidence not withstanding.
“You can’t use science (which “evolves” and adapts constantly
as we learn knew things) to disprove God’s existence any more than you
can to concretely prove his existence.”"
That science changes with new information is a strength, not a weakness. And your religion, the interpretation of scripture, translation of it, even what books have been considered scripture, have changed dramatically over the centuries.
“And I DO understand what a theory is btw. Two synonyms for theory is speculation & belief.”
No, they aren’t. You’re using the lay sense of the term, in science that would be called a hypothesis, providing it was testable. A theory in science is a well-supported hypothesis that has been experimentally tested in a repeatable way, is potentially falsifiable, and explains all of the available data.
That is not synonymous with speculation or belief.
@soccerdadforlife - Vestigial organs often have secondary functions which is why they are not fully removed.
@Parsimony - He believed it without claiming it? Sounds like hairsplitting. And from dan it sounds like bullshit designed to rile up an argument and get blog hits.
Thank you! I’m sick of seeing people spout the nonsense idea that scientific theories are just a hunch.
@agnophilo - “There is no distinction.”
Really? No distinction between a new species and one that has adapted to a challenge in the environment? When I develop a resistance to a cold virus by virtue of exposure to it, have I taken a step toward my own personal evolution? Okee dokee.
“Actually it was a white moth “peppered” with black splotches…”
That isn’t how it was told to me.
“Sure it’s not because you don’t want to?”
Yup, I’m pretty sure it’s because I don’t care. A monkey could turn into a zebra before my eyes and I’d still know who made it happen.
“Bullshit….”
Your specialty! I withdraw the comment.
@Kimmybeth - Thanks friend. There’s a lack of humility on both sides of the debate. On either side, there is an assumption of perfect knowledge. My position is Paul’s position:
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. (1 Corinthians 4:5)
Peace
@agnophilo - I’m not a scholar & I’ve repeatedly told myself that if I wanted to debate more in depth I need to do more research. However, being a mother & a wife kind of leaves little time for that. So I’ll just be happy to let you have the last word. I am glad to see (as long as it is completely honest) that you prefer keeping public education neutral. Personally – I don’t see why Big Bang needs to be taught. It is (as you define theory) “potentially falsifiable” after all. And it really isn’t neutral. And while I would like creationism to be taught as a challenger to Big Bang & macro evolution – I understand that with all kinds of religions there may be multiple ideas of how the universe came into existence. So it wouldn’t really be practical. Which is why I feel it’s a moot point to teach any of these theories, ideas, etc at all in public schools – the universe is here regardless of what anyone believes happened to make it so. However, to have creationism REPLACE evolution would make the curriculum slanted from atheist to Christian. So (while I’m sure you’ll disagree) I feel they just need to teach the basics about the universe and forget trying to explain how it all came into existence.
Okay. I’m done. I need to get stuff done offline. =P
@AOK4WAY - Great verse especially in light of this ongoing, never ending “debate.” I admit I’m not great about keeping my temper when it comes to this stuff but I try my best to word even my anger in a way that won’t falsify any testimony. Especially since I’ve long ago discovered debating is worthless. It’s a debate because the other side is sticking to their guns and I’m sticking to mine. So it’s wasted breath. In a discussion or when you’re being asked sincere questions for the sake of knowledge and understanding – then that is more productive as well as more peaceful.
I don’t want to get too involved in arguments about evolution, it always ends up boggling my mind. I believe in it, but it makes me so angry when Christians who don’t believe it insist that they’re right. You say evolution scientists try to prove they’re right, but others do the same. It also annoys me when people who don’t believe in evolution say the theory is based on humans evolving from apes when that’s not the case.
You have to study evolution to get a degree in biology. It’s not an option. As for dedicating one’s life to studying evolution, well, that’s maybe a waste of time. But their research will contribute to other people’s research affecting us more directly.
@agnophilo - I super applaud your energy in trying so hard with the willfully stupid people of Xanga. I myself would never bother.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - honestly that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a grown man say, ever.
@Smokin_SultrySally - You don’t get out much do you ROFL!!!! Man,you folks have a zero sense of humor don’t you.
@Smokin_SultrySally - Actually,there is very little on Xanga I take seriously and you are no exception
I often wonder why people who stand up and yell what dedicated Christians they are put down people who do not follow thier beliefs when they are taught in the bible to love everyone. Now I know why-they pseudo Christians.
people wouldn’t be so offended if it didn’t have some truth to it.
@squeakysoul - I love your sobering replies.
@kenedwards5 - Or….. more likely, you are an ignoramus who fell asleep in science class.
I hope everybody on Xanga reads this. Then they know who they’re supporting, therefore, well yay! Goose egg only to say that I realize you’re nutso on this topic, and also WRONG.
@tymedancer - ha ha ha ha haha haha ! PRECISELY, you got that right. @raspberryjade - lmfao not offended, actually disgusted by the low level of basic intelligence. BIG difference. It’s more like SERIOULY, this is what I am associating with on here? People who want to argue about scientific fact? :HURL: sorry, I just get disgusted by stupid. There is zero truth to this, I put up with all that other stuff as a social scientist, and OK there might be some truth to THAT. But evolution is real science, not social science.
@Parsimony - I did a blog criticizing him saying evolution was pseudoscience and dan responded, only taking issue with my saying he had cancer when he had a non-cancerous tumor. He didn’t dispute anything else, and I think his meaning is pretty apparent, so yeah.
@AOK4WAY -
“Really?
No distinction between a new species and one that has adapted to a
challenge in the environment?”
No, there is no distinction between natural selection, adaptation and evolution. Suggesting that adaptation by natural selection is not evolution is not accurate, it is something religious websites maintain to avoid admitting they’re wrong.
“When I develop a resistance to a cold
virus by virtue of exposure to it, have I taken a step toward my own
personal evolution? Okee dokee.”
No, evolution is a change in the frequencies of naturally occurring genetic variations over multiple generations – species evolve, individuals do not. At least not in the darwinian sense, though they of course “evolve” in the general non-scientific sense of the term.
“That isn’t how it was told to me.”
You were told a very inaccurate version of the science. I’ve never met someone who rejected evolution that wasn’t severely misinformed or uninformed about it. I don’t say this as an insult, just an observation. The “there are no transitional fossils” people never, ever know what the term transitional fossil means. The easiest way to end an anti-evolution debate is to ask what evidence the creationist would require – they invariably are either stumped because they don’t know enough about the science to even know what would support it, or they ask to see a living dinosaur or a cat giving birth to a dog or some nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.
“Yup,
I’m pretty sure it’s because I don’t care. A monkey could turn into a
zebra before my eyes and I’d still know who made it happen.”
No, you wouldn’t. You would believe that yahweh made it happen. Belief is being convinced of something, knowledge is demonstrable. Either way nothing in evolutionary science suggest such a thing ever did or ever should or even ever could happen.
“Your specialty! I withdraw the comment.”
Of course you ignore the substance of what was said and focus on the naughty word to the exclusion of everything else. Color me surprised.
Evolution does not teach that people came from apes. Evolution is
important because a thorough understanding of it can help us combat and
understand the dangers and threats around us, whether that be diseases
or our own motivations. Here are some important related topics-
*Cancer- Evolution helps us understand how cancers become more virulent and deadly, and combat this.
*Aids- Evolution helps us understand how it spreads, how it multiplies, and how to keep that from happening.
*Every
other disease on the planet- Again, it allows us to understand how they
become more damaging, so we can work against that.
*Mutation- Knowing which genes cause mutation will eventually allow us to eliminate negative mutation
*Genetic
Predispositions- Wouldn’t you like to have a world without mentally
retarded children? Evolution as a field works towards that.
*Personality and Psychological Motivation- How do serial killers get the way they are? How does PTSD benefit us?
*Ethics-
Where did our ethics come from? All religions and cultures share some
similar ethical traits, but there are massive differences as well.
*Religion- Why are there so many? How did they help humanity as a whole progress?
*History- Why did it take so long for us to evolve into civilized creatures? Were there others before us? What sparked our rise?
*Politics-
Do differences in biological make-up help point to the reasons for so
much global conflict? Maybe a better understanding can help smooth the
waters.
Evolution is rather like technology. While a field in
itself, it reaches into every other, helping them along. It can be
easily disproved and has not been. Unlike ID, which cannot be
disproved, because it does not lend itself to (haha) evolving with the
facts. It has no facts.
@agnophilo -
This made me laugh heartily.
Theo is Correct
Evolution is a Pseudo Science
It’s a Theory, much like Relativity
In Which the Good bits must be Extracted from the Diseased Carcas
(YES RELATIVITY IS EXTREMELY FLAWED AS A THEORY)
The Facts of Adaptation are Interesting
But it’s as far away from explaining the origins and function of life
As einstien was from Explaining the Inner Machinery of it.
By Definition a Theory that fails but is still Held as True
By Zealous Adherants
Is PSEUDO SCIENCE… Or CULT
Which-ever or Both.
I Don’t understand the big HArummph over this post.
@vicdaily -
in most states you have to study it to get a highschool deploma
You also have to study Relativity and Newtonian Laws
To get a degree in Physics
Even though Both are accepted as Wrong,
Relativity in it’s theories of Gravity and Newtonian
On The Small and Large scale outside human Perception.
Just Because one Has know About a theory
Doesn’t Make it’s accepted Failures vanish
Holding Evolution as True or a Science
Simply is a Joke.
When Swedish Scientists are Superheating Water
And Finding DNA spontaneously Appearing within it
It’s best to leave dead Theories as Dead
And Focus on the Cool shit science is Doing.
Well this is a fun purpose to spend 24 hours. Insult and arguing with people you disagree with. I think if anyone need’s the soda and popcorn it’s Dan. This is like watching a reality TV.
As one of the most prominent Greek deities, Hermes (known as Mercury to the Romans) fulfilled numerous duties, but was most widely acknowledged as the messenger of the gods and the guide of the recently deceased to the Underworld
@Kimmybeth - ”I’m not a scholar & I’ve repeatedly told
myself that if I wanted to debate more in depth I need to do more
research. However, being a mother & a wife kind of leaves little
time for that. So I’ll just be happy to let you have the last word.”
That’s big of you, though you continued to comment further, lol.
“I
am glad to see (as long as it is completely honest) that you prefer
keeping public education neutral. Personally – I don’t see why Big Bang
needs to be taught. It is (as you define theory) “potentially
falsifiable” after all.”
Falsifiability means if it is not true that that can be demonstrated. If your hypothesis is that x person raped Y person, and you have DNA evidence, your hypothesis is potentially falsifiable. That doesn’t mean it is less credible, it means it is more credible. Falsifiable just means testable.
“And it really isn’t neutral.”
Facts are always neutral.
“And while I would
like creationism to be taught as a challenger to Big Bang & macro
evolution – I understand that with all kinds of religions there may be
multiple ideas of how the universe came into existence.”
Sorry, but you don’t get to use my tax dollars to teach my kids your religion, especially not lying and claiming it is scientific when it is not. And the big bang theory, of which you know nothing, is not atheistic. Know who first proposed it? Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest who happened to also hold a PhD in physics and teach the subject in a christian university. It is a description of the current behavior of the universe, the “big bang”, or expansion of the universe is observably happening as we speak.
Anti-science fundamentalists LIE about these theories and spread misinformation so that people like you will oppose them on false grounds.
“So it wouldn’t
really be practical. Which is why I feel it’s a moot point to teach any
of these theories, ideas, etc at all in public schools – the universe
is here regardless of what anyone believes happened to make it so.
However, to have creationism REPLACE evolution would make the curriculum
slanted from atheist to Christian. So (while I’m sure you’ll disagree)
I feel they just need to teach the basics about the universe and forget
trying to explain how it all came into existence.
Okay. I’m done. I need to get stuff done offline. =P”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Most christians in most industrialized countries accept evolution and the big bang, there is nothing atheistic or anti-christian about them, they just annoy biblical literalists. But guess what, all of observable reality annoys biblical literalists. If you take the bible literally the universe is younger than living trees.
The definition of a pseudoscience is one that cannot be tested, therefore has no valid or working hypotheses. Funny thing about those who study evolution…most of them have their PhD…couldn’t make it as doctors or scientists? Try made it as both.
Refusing to believe in evolution is like refusing to believe in gravity. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn’t make it untrue
@Smokin_SultrySally - Thanks, lol.
@lifeonacitybusem4 - Always glad to entertain : P
Only ignorant theists believe that evolution is contrary to God’s creation. Genesis was never meant to be take literally; it only cements the idea of intelligent design. There is nothing in evolution that contradicts intelligent design. Children these days….what do they teach them in school?
@SoapAndShampoo - Shoot, i’m thinking popcorn and beer. LOL!!
@randomneuralfirings - Best comment ever.
@VeritatisAmans - Amen to that!
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
I feel like I’m missing something here…
When did evolution become “pseudoscience?” Just because it’s called a theory doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It means that all the evidence points to a central idea and no evidence to the contrary has been found. Evolution is remarkably simple when you think about it, but the way the actual bits and pieces work over time is incredibly amazing.
@kenedwards5 - I’m making a comparison. If you don’t believe what I said about gravity, look it up.
@soccerdadforlife - How can you say TCA is not observable science? What is your definition of observable science? Do you honestly think we need a time machine to prove it? With that logic, I guess you think Ancient Rome is fantasy as well. We have millions of pieces of evidence that points to there being a city called Rome that existed thousands of years ago. There is no possible alternate explanation, and I dare so no one criticises the idea, because there is no religion that this revelation would cause trouble to. On the other hand millions of pieces of evidence that point to evolution – including common ancestry – people do have a problem with because they’re insulted by the idea we are primates and/or it conflicts with the mythical story of Adam and Eve. If observed events of speciation don’t do it for you, if the changes in wolves and wild cabbages into their many and varied modern descendents in the tiny period entitled ‘human history’ don’t do it for you, and the single-celled organism mutations that give them the ability to eat different materials in the tinier period of a few decades don’t convince you, if the science of cell embryology don’t convince you, we can literally geographically trace the evolution of horses, whales, humans, and numerous other animals to their common ancestors with the fossil record. There are no missing links, we can see their gradual changes as they travel across the world, with the thousands of fossils specimens we have. Yet, here you are, saying its all rubbish. I suppose you think the global flood is the explanation, and if so, you must be ignorant of the information that debunks the idea. Read “The Greatest Show on Earth” and try continuing what you said with a straight face and guilt-free conscience. It mentions what I have in greater detail, amongst several other examples, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Feel free to provide an all encompassing alternative explanation for all this evidence any time now. Hell, we even have mathematical algorithms that show how it works (many of which can be found on cdk007′s channel on youtube), so if you aren’t a fan of evil falsifiable science, try denying the math. So yes, you literally can not deny it without being ignorant.
@Spectrophile - ”Do you honestly think we need a time machine to prove it?” To prove TCA? Yeah, that would provide actual evidence derived from observers. Of course, creationists already have evidence from an Observer. No time machine required.
Ancient Rome had plenty of observers who wrote about their observations, unlike your mythological TCA story.
Observed speciation? Guess what. This is uncontroversial. Creationists have accepted speciation for decades. Fixity is so passe.
The rest of your assertions about the fossil record lack a basis in fact. Feel free to provide supporting links to survey papers/books that show otherwise. I’ll reference Stephen Jay Gould as a counter.
You seriously recommend a Dawkins book? BWAHAHAHA Did you read the negative reviews of the book written by evolutionists?
You reference analogical experiments as evidence; analogical experiments are about as convincing as scholastic arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
@XXVl - nope! Wrong again! Amazing how people like you take so many opportunities to be wrong.
@the_evil_tamica - I believe in gravity. It is observable and measurable. Historical evolution is not. Even Dawkins admits that.
@kenedwards5 - Do you even know what the laws of gravitation are? I highly doubt it. Because if you did, you’d know that they are observed laws, just like evolution.
Amazing how people love talking out of their asses about things they have no idea about. You probably heard the theory of evolution once and decided that since it sounds like it might contradict your religion, you will not even bother to find out what it’s ACTUALLY about and instead will close your eyes, stick your fingers in your waxy ears, and sing ‘lalalalalala.’
@XXVl - if you knew anything about science you would know that no-one has ever observed the laws of Darwinian evolution. They are supposed to take millions of years and are therefore unobservable.
@soccerdadforlife - Creationism has evidence from an observer? Who? If you say god, where are they? Sorry, there is no evidence god(s) exist. I’m guessing you’ll argue they divinely inspired the authors of the bible to tell their story. Unfortunately for you, the bible is full of appropriated stories from pre-existing ‘heathen’ myths. I’m going to have to use your own argument against you: We have evidence from human observers from those early periods in history to show where several stories originated, so it must be true! Don’t need a time machine! Perhaps you are going to tell me it was an act of god that brought all these unoriginal stories together to tell what actually happened, or it was Satan who planted all those pre-existing stories achronologically to deceive us, like the early apologist Justin Martyr theorised. Why not just accept the obvious? I’ll tell you why. Because you are not critical of your own beliefs. Everything else has to be wrong, but not your religion, eh? Unfortunately, that’s not how reality works. Objectivity is required.
A fossil is little different from a stone tablet with an ancient human observation on it, on a macroscopic scale. On their own, neither tells much about anything. Like in a puzzle, you can not rely on one piece to accurately tell the reality of a situation, but when there is millions of pieces, there is virtually no room for alternative theories. Besides, if you accept speciation, how can you not accept common ancestry? They are part and parcel. Honestly, this is just getting bizarre. Do you think species can only evolve one way, rather than branch out into several different species? This would go against the evidence (observational, by your definition) that mutations and gene selection occur at random, not just one way.
You’ll appeal to authority if I produce papers to support my claims, eh? What Stephen Jay Gould may say about the fossil record is besides the point. Nothing I can find that Mr Gould says denies TCA, in fact I can find quotes of his saying how a common ancestor is the only way possible to explain such things as Australian marsupials (how do you explain them? lol). Perhaps you have misinterpreted him, as his wikipedia article mentions, his writings were incorrectly used by creationists (like yourself). Something he noted himself and later corrected. Be sure you’re up to date with your spoon fed information. As for the references for the argument from the fossil record, you know as well as I do that my efforts would be pointless. Its the most popular of the evidence for evolution. Why would I waste my time looking at the appendixes of various scientific books, or searching the internet for you, when you’re perfectly capable of doing it yourself. You’ve already said what you’re going to do anyway, produce a Stephen Jay Gould strawman argument. When it comes down to it, I’m guessing you’re actually fine with the basic idea of other animal’s branching out. Its the idea that humans came from a common ancestor with the other animals that urks you, isn’t it? I’ve never understood why this is bothersome for creationists. Oh wait, Adam and Eve were created by god, not by evolution, and you can’t apply a critical eye to your religion! Gotcha. They also had conversations with a talking snake… yep.
Criticism of Dawkin’s book? From what I can find, there is nothing in regards to the common ancestry argument of yours. Perhaps the evolutionist critics you speak of (who I assume disagree with common ancestry) are not to be taken seriously. You know, they may just be on the fringe. Research ‘Project Steve’ (ironically named after Stephen Jay Gould). Basically, science is peer-reviewed, unconvincing theories get thrown to the floor. Scientists who dismiss the popular mechanisms of evolution are in the extreme minority, meaning they are likely living with their flat-earth and young-earth friends, and they’re probably wearing tin foil caps. So yeah, obviously the ‘evidence’ for their theory is not convincing enough… or hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all conspiring against us! Oh no!
If you’re referring to my math argument as not convincing, why is it not? Unlike angels on a pinhead, the data put into these algorithms is based on evidence found in nature. Last time I checked, angels are baseless mythical beings.
@kenedwards5 - If you knew anything about anything, you would have known about Darwin’s finches. Oh man, aren’t you embarrassed?
@XXVl - Darwin’s finches? Yes – I do know about them. So?
@kenedwards5 - Observed Evolution……
Are you thick?
@XXVl - no but I think you are if you think you can build a theory on Darwin’s finches!
@kenedwards5 – Direct quote from you: ‘if you knew anything about science you would know that no-one has ever observed the laws of Darwinian evolution.’
I gave you an example. And now you jump to the conclusion that I’m
‘building a theory’ based on this one instance? You’re grasping at straws here. Do you really have anything to say? Or are you just talking for the sake of talking?
You had me there, up until the end. Who are you to say what is legitimate science and what is not? People now scoff at alchemy, without realizing that was essentially the beginning of chemistry…you know…that science where they learned about medicines and things that save lives every day. When you scoff at those attempting to acquire knowledge, you only show your own lack of it.
Also, diseases evolve and become resistant to medication, cancer cells evolve, cells mutate and cause cancer, etc. If no one studied this “Pseudo-science” as you call it, image how very low our life expectancies would be. Would you still be alive?
Just because you’re religious doesn’t mean you have to be ignorant. Sometimes, I really just want to throw fossils at you.
@XXVl - Darwin’s finches is indeed an example of a species adapting to its environment. How this is an example of transmutation of species is quite beyond me!
@kenedwards5 - As are a lot of things, I’m sure.
You would really benefit from actually studying the theory instead of looking for one line proofs of it on xanga.
@XXVl - Can you please tell me then how the variant size of a finch’s beak proves the transmutation of species?
@kenedwards5 - You want ME to tell you about evolution? What would be the point? It would be a waste of time to tell you anything, since NO PROOF would be good enough for you (except the word of god of course). Because clearly since nobody was there with a video camera to record evolution from the beginnings of time, it’s not true. Forget about all the fossils that tell the story pretty clearly to scientists and especially forget that fossils have been found to document parts of the chain of human evolution as well as the branching off of different primates. Forget that if a population of finches evolved within a lifetime, so much more would be possible within billions of years. NO no, you HAVE to see it to believe it, even though that would be impossible; you cannot observe a change of species before your eyes. These things take time.
I can’t narrow down a whole branch of science for you in a few paragraphs. But If you need details, GO READ ABOUT IT. It’s alllllll available. Don’t think details will help though, since your mind is closed to science.
Are you saying that all fields of science with no practical application are”pseudo sciences”? This includes astronomy, quantum mechanics, and plenty of other topics involving theory. Although you may see that there is no direct application of these fields of knowledge currently (unless you’re being sarcastic), I would not consider it to be a pseudo science. If every field of knowledge served some practical purpose, then I don’t think we’d a majority of them, especially the humanities. Evolution studies where we come from-it’s a very interesting topic, and like many that exist out there, they only seem to fulfill our curiosity rather than some “practical” application-if practical means extending people’s lives more than nature would allow them.
@XXVl - this just shows your naivity and simple-mindedness. Since when do the so-called ‘evolution’ of finches prove the transmutation of species? The fossil record is hopelessly ambiguous to say the least, giving wildly different interpretations.Even that high priest of evolution, Richard Dawkins, has said that science must be based on observable, testable phenomena. Since when does something that has supposed to have taken place over millions of years and is by nature unmeasurable come into that category.?
@kenedwards5 - I suppose your mind is so ‘complex’ that you know more about it than scientists themselves who devote their whole lives studying it. Your stubbornness would be forgivable if you worked in the field, learned all there is to learn, and still found room to doubt, but I bet that’s not the case. Why? Because you’re missing crucial facts which are obstructing your understanding.
Next thing I know you will be disputing physics and chemistry.
But in the end, you’re not a scientist. Your opinion in science matters is of no importance.
@XXVl - sorry, but you didn’t answer my question. Just how do Darwin’s finches prove the transmutation of species? you are so absolutely wrong in what you say it is unbelievable. You make me laugh with you sheer stupidity.
@kenedwards5 - Are you a moron? Nobody said that the finches were an example of transmutation of species. You claimed that evolution cannot be observed; the finches were an example of ongoing evolution. Do you think branching off of species happens overnight?? It’s that kind of misunderstanding that leads to your ignorance. Educate yourself.
@XXVl - no, I think you must be the moron. The finches do not ‘evolve’ in the sense of changing species which you first implied. They adapt.in that the length of their beak varies. The problem is you don’t even understand the question let lone the answer.
@complicatedlight - yeah that was pretty fucked up
edit: in my world, he’s obviously joking