Evolution anyone?

[fluffy]

The whole creation/evolution debate arises out of the biblical account of how God created the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve and that whole schmear. The argument only exists if we look at the Bible as an accurate historical account of past occurrences. What if, by some fantastic stretch of the imagination, the Bible is simply a collection of fictional parables meant deliver a moral message in a form that the population two thousand years ago could easily grasp? What if the whole "God" thing was simply a name tagged on to a concept that was way beyond human comprehension to make the infinite and the unknowable a little more accessible to the boys putting in a hard shift down at the pyramid project? What if the six days that God laboured putting the whole thing together was just an oversimplification of the millions of years that passed while the everything grew at its own pace? If that's the case, wouldn't the whole evolution/creation fight be for naught?

[forum]

If that's the case, wouldn't the whole evolution/creation fight be for naught?

Well said fluffy. It's not really a debate anymore. Evolutionist scientists and Atheists are now patiently sitting back in their chairs waiting for Creationists to catch up and come to terms with the new realities. What Evolutionists face right now are Creationists dodging the evidence because they feel the evidence is an attack on them personally. Many Creationists have too much invested in the concept of god and churches that they can't simply throw their investments away. They are filled with a fear they can't overcome. Well, scientists have have been discarding their theories for years as new evidence emerges. But as the scientists unravel the mysteries of cancers, should creationists be dismissed treatment because they didn't believe the scientists research of evolution theory? Of course not. Will Creationists deny Atheists from a spot in heaven if jesus ever magically appears and lives up to the hype? Nope, because I don't think jesus ever knew the definition of a "double standard"or he wouldn't have preached it. But Scientists don't pick and choose what they believe in like Creationists tend to do. I just find it too funny that a creationist will accept cancer treatment to save their life, but won't accept evolution. Cancer research is beginning to borrow evolution facts to come up with solutions to cancers. Scientific progess is entirely based on facts. And the definition of "Theory" has a different meaning to a scientist than it does a creationist. When a scientist is explaining his theory to creationists it is like two ships passing in the night. The creationists think a theory is a scientific "guess", but is not.

The true and accepted definition of Theory:

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Gould writes at the end "some other yet to be discovered". Well scientists have now discovered what "other" facts Gould was referring to.

[36Drew]

Homework: using the above example, extrapolate why the peppered moth has stopped being "peppered" in colour. It's pretty easy....

Since when did the peppered moth stop being peppered?

Have you thought to ask Google? It's not like it's a small obscure phenomenon.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=peppered+moth+evolution

[36Drew]

The creationists think a theory is a scientific "guess", but is not.

To add to your statement:

Criteria for a Scientific Theory

• Consistent (internally & externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Gravity is also a theory, yet those who grapple with evolution wouldn't dare just walk off a cliff. Repeated tests show that objects of a greater mass will attract that of a lesser mass with a force that is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Oh wait - there's math involved. Math is theoretical as well, isn't it?

Funny read: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

[Glacier]

Homework: using the above example, extrapolate why the peppered moth has stopped being "peppered" in colour. It's pretty easy....

Since when did the peppered moth stop being peppered?

Have you thought to ask Google? It's not like it's a small obscure phenomenon.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=peppered+moth+evolution

The majority of peppered moths are still peppered, so your claim that the peppered moth "has stopped being 'peppered' in colour" is not accurate.

[36Drew]

Homework: using the above example, extrapolate why the peppered moth has stopped being "peppered" in colour. It's pretty easy....

Since when did the peppered moth stop being peppered?

Have you thought to ask Google? It's not like it's a small obscure phenomenon.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=peppered+moth+evolution

The majority of peppered moths are still peppered, so your claim that the peppered moth "has stopped being 'peppered' in colour" is not accurate.

You're right, I was way off on my description of that. However, the assertion that the peppered moth provides insight into natural selection is still valid.

The peppered moth was initially only peppered. Circa 1848, darker coloured variants of the moth were observed. By circa 1895, 95% of the population was made up of the darker coloured moths. By the mid-1900's, coal-burning had started to clean up and clean air laws of removed a lot of the sootiness from the english countryside. The lighter-coloured variant returned to predominance, and the darker-coloured variant is expected to be all but extinct within a few decades.

[steven lloyd]

If that's the case, wouldn't the whole evolution/creation fight be for naught?

Well said fluffy.

... completely missing (or conveniently skipping) the point made by fluffy's post (good post fluffy).

[forum]

If that's the case, wouldn't the whole evolution/creation fight be for naught?

Well said fluffy.

... completely missing (or conveniently skipping) the point made by fluffy's post (good post fluffy).

I didn't want to include his entire post. Most people can figure how to read above...

[forum]

If that's the case, wouldn't the whole evolution/creation fight be for naught?

Well said fluffy.

... completely missing (or conveniently skipping) the point made by fluffy's post (good post fluffy).

I didn't want to include his entire post. Most people can figure out how to read above...

[Glacier]

You're right, I was way off on my description of that. However, the assertion that the peppered moth provides insight into natural selection is still valid.

The peppered moth was initially only peppered. Circa 1848, darker coloured variants of the moth were observed. By circa 1895, 95% of the population was made up of the darker coloured moths. By the mid-1900's, coal-burning had started to clean up and clean air laws of removed a lot of the sootiness from the english countryside. The lighter-coloured variant returned to predominance, and the darker-coloured variant is expected to be all but extinct within a few decades.

As you correctly state, the peppered moth story shows natural selection and survival of the fittest, but it doesn't show evolution. Your claim that the peppered moth was initially only peppered is false, and your last statement is a bit of a hyperbole. Distorting the truth diminishes the validity of the actual findings, IMO.

[36Drew]

You're right, I was way off on my description of that. However, the assertion that the peppered moth provides insight into natural selection is still valid.

The peppered moth was initially only peppered. Circa 1848, darker coloured variants of the moth were observed. By circa 1895, 95% of the population was made up of the darker coloured moths. By the mid-1900's, coal-burning had started to clean up and clean air laws of removed a lot of the sootiness from the english countryside. The lighter-coloured variant returned to predominance, and the darker-coloured variant is expected to be all but extinct within a few decades.

As you correctly state, the peppered moth story shows natural selection and survival of the fittest, but it doesn't show evolution. Your claim that the peppered moth was initially only peppered is false, and your last statement is a bit of a hyperbole. Distorting the truth diminishes the validity of the actual findings, IMO.

You reject a current example of natural selection as an example of evolution (which is natural selection)? Wow, way to be obtuse....

[Glacier]

You reject a current example of natural selection as an example of evolution (which is natural selection)? Wow, way to be obtuse....

Let's say we have a deadly disease that effects aboriginals a lot more than caucasions, and for argument's sake, let's call this disease small pox. Now, you would argue the case that this is natural selection in action, but since both groups of people were present before and after the disease's arrival, would you consider this evolution? I think not. The same principle applies with the peppered moth.

[steven lloyd]

... completely missing (or conveniently skipping) the point made by fluffy's post .

I didn't want to include his entire post. Most people can figure how to read above...

and another point is easily missed by its mark

[forum]

... completely missing (or conveniently skipping) the point made by fluffy's post .

I didn't want to include his entire post. Most people can figure how to read above...

and another point is easily missed by its mark

Typical. When someone doesn't have anything to bring to the table they begin their petty insult campaign. I've seen it too many times.

Steven. I take it your a Creationist? What's your thoughts on this? Address some of the facts we've been laying out for you.

[forum]

Capture.JPG

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May ... ps.kr.html

How come none of the creationists on here have addressed the above? Is Cornell a trustworthy source of education?