Debate and Discussion

Do you believe in evolution?
Ronson at 1:05PM, Jan. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
RabbitMaster
“Charming”, eh? So let me make sure I get this straight..I'm irrational, unscientific, superstitious,possibly uneducated and incapable of understanding the science behind evolution. I believe in fables and magical theories, unwilling to consider any alternative despite an overwhelming mountain of evidence. Well, at least I'm “charming.” At least I've got that going for me, which is nice.

We are all guilty of all of these, just some of us in different quantities and different areas.

I would probably disregard “uneducated and incapable of understanding the science” in your case and replace it with “unwilling to accept the science”. If it makes you feel any better.

Again though, it's just the way we all are. It is hard for any of us to accept something that just feels wrong to us, regardless of evidence.

I will disagree with Ozone that it is charming. It's just the way some people are. It is “acceptable”, not “charming”. Just as what I believe is “acceptable”. For day to day activities, both of our viewpoints on the more abstract matters such as these are acceptable and equal.

…but I wouldn't want you to decide the teaching cirriculum in science classes that are paid for with my tax dollars.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mlai at 3:47PM, Jan. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Yeah, no one is above matters of faith and superstition. Like the horoscope thread. I slap my knee reading my zodiac sign description cuz of how dead-on accurate it is for me, and I go to read the descriptions on my friends n' family. You can tell me it's bunk but that won't stop me reading it.

But that doesn't mean I want it taught in class.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
kyupol at 5:54PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Evolution theory is meant to explain the origin of humanity.

With regards to the origin of humanity, there are 3 theories I've came across.

1) Evolution - we came from monkeys.

2) Creation - God made the world in 7 days out of nothing.

3) ETs came here and seeded the planet and we are actually a hybrid between any combination of Grey, Reptilian, Sirian, Pleiadian, Annunaki, plus other ET races.

There has to be a link that will link those 3 together.

Could it be like this?

- There is one God. God created this universe. This universe is a free-will universe.

- God's first creations are more advanced beings.

- These advanced beings decide to seed a bunch of planets. While at the same time fighting among themselves.

- In the planets that they seeded with primitive life (including ours), the early humans did not understand the weapons being used in the war, and decided to label them as magic. Or maybe one of the advanced beings told the humans that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. And then the humans had concepts of angels and devils. Perhaps the REAL ANGELS only directly answer to GOD's COMMANDS and do not interfere in the earth on their own.

- It was a stalemate between the forces of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Maybe a truce was declared in which one of the terms was the avoidance of direct mingling with the human population. It includes appearing to the humans just to wow them.

- These advanced lifeforms still tried to interfere with evolution on earth. Evolution does not ‘just happen’. How can something happen without a driving force behind it?

- Humanity at this point is still constantly evolving and still being interfered on. Though during this era, more and more people with psychic abilities (in varying degrees. Don't expect all of them to be able to see the future and see auras and heal with psychic surgery. Just as the artists in drunkduck have varying artistic abilities, this is the same case here) are being born.

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
bobhhh at 7:12PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
kyupol
Evolution theory is meant to explain the origin of humanity.

With regards to the origin of humanity, there are 3 theories I've came across.

1) Evolution - we came from monkeys.

2) Creation - God made the world in 7 days out of nothing.

3) ETs came here and seeded the planet and we are actually a hybrid between any combination of Grey, Reptilian, Sirian, Pleiadian, Annunaki, plus other ET races.

There has to be a link that will link those 3 together.

Could it be like this?

- There is one God. God created this universe. This universe is a free-will universe.

- God's first creations are more advanced beings.

- These advanced beings decide to seed a bunch of planets. While at the same time fighting among themselves.

- In the planets that they seeded with primitive life (including ours), the early humans did not understand the weapons being used in the war, and decided to label them as magic. Or maybe one of the advanced beings told the humans that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. And then the humans had concepts of angels and devils. Perhaps the REAL ANGELS only directly answer to GOD's COMMANDS and do not interfere in the earth on their own.

- It was a stalemate between the forces of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Maybe a truce was declared in which one of the terms was the avoidance of direct mingling with the human population. It includes appearing to the humans just to wow them.

- These advanced lifeforms still tried to interfere with evolution on earth. Evolution does not ‘just happen’. How can something happen without a driving force behind it?

- Humanity at this point is still constantly evolving and still being interfered on. Though during this era, more and more people with psychic abilities (in varying degrees. Don't expect all of them to be able to see the future and see auras and heal with psychic surgery. Just as the artists in drunkduck have varying artistic abilities, this is the same case here) are being born.



Sounds like really cool fantasy/sci-fi to me, very fascinating, even capable of providing a moral like most parables.

But does it compete factually with the science of evolution?

No not really , man.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
StaceyMontgomery at 9:20PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Um, that was considered exciting Sci-fi back in the 50s. I suggest reading something modern, like China Mieville or Charles Stross or Iain M Banks. There's more to life than quoting from ancient copies of Fate magazine.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
ozoneocean at 2:07AM, Jan. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
StaceyMontgomery
Um, that was considered exciting Sci-fi back in the 50s. I suggest reading something modern, like China Mieville or Charles Stross or Iain M Banks. There's more to life than quoting from ancient copies of Fate magazine.
Aw Stacey, don't pretend you don't like a bit of retro Scifi. :3
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
Ronson at 5:23AM, Jan. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Regardless of whether or not life began on Earth due to a god or an alien, the question of where the alien or the god came from is still a mystery in the story you tell.

The point is that evolution allows for a worldview where life began very simply and spread across our world and the various natural changes to this life created the wide variety of species that exist today. The only question is concerned with the actual creation of primitive organic life, for which many scientific theories exist but are untestable as far as I know.

If life on Earth began by aliens, then evolutionary theory would apply on the alien's world. At some point, organic life came into being and evolution begins. That is the way it has to have happened if you factor out mystery sky beings.

The only other quibble I have is that evolution does not say “we came from monkeys”, it says that we share a common ancestor with other primates. This ancestor is only a monkey by using a very broad - and scientifically inaccurate - terminology.

But it isn't like there was a family of monkeys and one of them was suddenly human. It was an imperceptible process of changes, where one group of ancestors split from the others and as a result of environmental conditions what we consider the species of homo sapien gradually arrived. The other groups evolved along similar lines, but evolved different mechanisms for dealing with their environment.

But you could probably say that “we came from single-celled organisms”, which is equally true and more scientifically correct, as they were one of our first ancestors.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 5:56AM, Jan. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Ronson
But you could probably say that “we came from single-celled organisms”, which is equally true and more scientifically correct, as they were one of our first ancestors.
Yeah. I have the exact same problem with the idea! The “Man came from monkeys” line is Anti-evolution if anything… As far as I know some of the earliest versions of that were cartoons of Darwin AS a monkey, designed to make fun of his theories…

People who use the line now don't really “get” the idea… Or they do it to spite the creationists, and inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot, both due to its inaccuracy and its unpalatability; that tends to make evolution even more of a turn off to those people.

Ha! The amoeba thing is right! Or you could say we came from fish, or rats even! :)
That may be just as unpalatable to some, but it's exactly as accurate as the monkey thing. -not as accurate as the amoeba though.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
bobhhh at 9:24AM, Jan. 22, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
What about the stork theory, since we are reaching for scientific status?
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
StaceyMontgomery at 9:42AM, Jan. 22, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
OzoneOcean - Obviously, I *love* retro 50s sci-fi. My current webcomic is meant as a sort of tribute (or is the word homage?) to the movies and comic strips of the period.

A webcomic is one thing though - But basing your new religion on them? That's too old school for me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
UltimaXG2 at 10:16PM, Feb. 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 374
joined: 8-30-2007
A complex being right off the bat seems very unlikely. Evolution just makes more sense. Then again, science never touches on the “supernatural.” Oddly enough, religious zeealots will try to go to war with science on a regular basis, though…
Comics:
Beyond the Deep End
Mysterious Transfer Student
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:36PM
UltimaXG2 at 10:20PM, Feb. 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 374
joined: 8-30-2007
StaceyMontgomery
Rabbitmaster -

Your claim that Stalin was a Darwinist is just nonsense. Stalin was a Lamarkist - which is the belief that organisms adapt to their environment on their own, not over the course of generations. It is a pseudo-science that was invented for political purposes, it has nothing to do with Darwinism. And he killed millions of innocent people for political gain, not because of his philosophy.

Actually, Lamarkism is almost identical to the version of creationism you just described: “…all the necessary information for any possibly needed future adaptations already present in the genetic code at creation and just expressing itself as the need arises.” An odd coincidence, surely.

I am unable to find any evidence to support your claim that Hitler acted on evolutionary ideas. I do know this quote though:

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties” (Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x)

-the last sounds rather more like an appeal to Creationism than Darwinism. Of course, I would never use this quote to try to tar all Creationists in the manner you were trying to use against all Scientists. If I had, you would rightly be as unhappy with me as I am with you.

Your sweeping claims about “every mass murderer” and “the founding thinkers in Darwinian evolution” are simply untrue as matters of historical fact. For instance, in Darwin's writings I see a lot of evidence that he was (sadly) typically racist for an englishman of the period, but I'm not aware of anything that would support your claims he used his theories of evolution to “bolster pet notions about racial superiority.” You would have to support that claim with evidence.

Of course, there was plenty or racism and atrocity throughout history, for instance, so I suppose we can both find plenty of Racist criminals who accepted science and criminal Racist Christians, to no real point. You say “plenty of bloody hands to go around on both sides of the argument” but you introduced the IRC articles and their noxious claims that Racism is a product of Darwinism, a claim you have still not rejected. Then you added your own obviously untrue claim about “every mass murderer.” It seems that the “both sides of the argument” thing you invoked is to quiet my side of the argument, but not yours. That is hardly an honest approach to debate.

I do understand that your faith in Creationism is based on a religious belief, and not really amendable to debate. I have no intention of trying to “convince” any Creationist that they are wrong. It is apparently a revealed truth, and lacking any revelation, I can say little of value about it. Creationism is an explicit rejection of Scientific thinking, and I am in no position to argue beyond that point. I might make a claim to know a very little about science, but I can claim to know nothing at all about the greater mysteries of our vast universe. I leave that sort of thing to those much braver than myself.

However, in a public debate, it is important to stand up to those who spread misinformation. When you make scientific or historical claims of fact, you must expect people to read them and judge their accuracy. You have made many claims that are simply wrong and seem to be in bad faith. The proper thing to do is to correct and renounce these errors specifically.



I find myself in agreement. Oh, and to help you out a little, it turns out… Hitler was a creationist. So much for the “every mass murderer was an evolutionist” way of thinking.
Comics:
Beyond the Deep End
Mysterious Transfer Student
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:36PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved