Slashdot Mirror
Putting Anti-Evolution Candidates On the Spot
hmccabe writes "YouTube is currently taking submissions for their next debate, in which the Republican candidates will answer questions. This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution. But since I am not an expert in the subject, I would be interested in how you all feel the question should be presented. For my own part, I think it is important to present the overwhelming body of evidence on the subject as incontrovertible fact, much the same way DNA evidence is presented during a criminal trial, and ask why the candidate feels they can pick and choose what facts they believe in. Moreover, I am wary of coming across like Christopher Hitchins, so vitriolic the candidate will defend themselves rather than answer the question. Perhaps the most important aspect of posing the question is to inform the viewers who watch the debate that this is really not a matter of opinion, but of science. So my question is: 'Hey geneticists, have you considered addressing evolution in the YouTube debates? Can you do it in 30 seconds?'"
Also works for climate-change deniers.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, not a theory.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
If it cannot be falsified it is not Science and does NOT belong in a science class. At all. Not even to "teach the controversy". Period. End of statement.
And since the concept of random mutation cannot be falsified, I guess it doesn't belong in a science class according to you? After all, it's just the same belief as a belief in God, it's just the belief that the universe doesn't have a purpose. Can't be falsified EITHER way.
As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Thumbs up or down on macroevolution is not a "major decision". It is an untestable hypothesis with no bearing on anyone's life.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
The fact that you say that is very frightening. I am growing sick and tired or science zealots who will stop at nothing to make everyone else believe what they do. I believe in evolution, but I do NOT think it's right to shove it down someone's throat, call them names, and resort to bigotry over it all. Heck, if you do that, you're no better than the religious zealots who try to shove THEIR believes down YOUR throat, are you? And where does that get us? The answer is: nowhere.
Easy, context clues.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Obviously, it's very popular to bash those who believe the Bible here on /. Although I disagree with much of what is taught in the name of religion, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and bash believers. That's bigotry and should be beneath civilized society. So what if I kill my karma for saying what I have. Bigotry deserves to be criticized.
Now for my questions. From the outset, let me state that I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. So answer me the following questions because I would like to know:
What if God used old materials to make the earth? It could still be 6,000 years old, right, but tests on the material would show that it was older than that, could they not? Kind of like if I built a house from granite this year. It would only be a few months old, but if I carbon dated the granite, it would be billions of years old. The simple fact that the materials from which the earth is made are billions of years old does not mandate that the earth itself is billions of years old, does it? BTW, here's a question for Christians: how long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? Since they couldn't die, who's to say it wasn't for billions of years? And where does it say God created the earth out of nothing?
Moving on...there is no doubt that cross-species "evolution" occurs. It's been proven over and over again. But where is the evidence for cross-kingdom evolution? Or cross-phylum evolution? Cross-class? Cross-order? Cross-family? Cross-genus? Because when people say they don't believe in evolution, they are saying they don't believe all life originated from a single species. Where has that been proven in a laboratory?
So what say you? Does anyone have any intelligent answers, or are will it be more of the "Christians are such idiots" kind of responses that moderators love to rate highly?
This isn't the sig you're looking for...
>We, humans, know that god is fiction because he
:-)
>is OUR fiction. We invented him. We made him up.
So he can't exist, because he is OUR fiction. And William Wallace didn't exist, because he is Mel Gibson's fiction.
>There's those of us who are honest enough to admit
>that god is fiction, Jean-Luc Picard is fiction,
>The Matrix is fiction, Dr. Frankenstein is fiction.
Who's not honest enough to know that The Matrix is fiction? More over, if you see that Picard is an invention, and The Matrix is a creation, why can't YOU be a creation? Religion exists in many forms, has existed in all ages of civilizations, spontaneusly, everywhere, in all places. People feel it inside their body and soul without anyone telling them.
>Claiming that Star Trek is fact is a lie.
By the way, Star Trek IS a fact (the movie/series), anyway, claiming what's shown *did happen* is a lie, BECAUSE we know it's not the case.
>Claiming that it "might be" fact or "could be" fact is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that there's an open question here anywhere is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that any of this is "opinion" is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>And it doesn't become any less of a lie because Mr. Picard is replaced by Mr. Anderson
Because we already know it's not real.
>or Mr God.
You and me, can't probe this. Claiming YOUR specific version of what GOD is fact, is a lie. You don't know. Claiming GOD does not exist is a lie, because you (nor anybody else) can't prove it. The thing is that it may exist, and that existence is independent of YOUR or my beliefs.
So let me have my beliefs, respecting yours, and I'll do the same for you. Else we really have a problem...trying to make me believe what you believe that you CAN'T probe is not fine. And people discovered this centuries ago.
Thanks and regards
unfinished: (adj.)
I think even if the argument is kept to what can be seen, creationism comes out first. There are plenty of resources for those willing. But you have to be willing.
Here's the problem for evolutionists. If someone wishes not to believe in a god, evolution is the only "resort." (And I mean "resort" in a bad way. I still think it does not hold water.) However, evolutionists have always claimed that you can believe in evolution and god or just evolution. It's up to you. So it seems to me that those who wish, for lifestyle reasons, to be atheists, that they are not unbiased about evolution.
In actual fact, you are wrong. God is an unfalsifiable concept, so the best you can get is "There is no evidence that God exists," and "There is evidence that God is made up," but neither amount to, "There is evidence God doesn't exist." What all this means is that, for all practical purposes, one can claim God doesn't exist but really, that is not "Fact. Absolute, 100% uncontrovertible[sic] fact."
im in ur
I am continually surprised that intelligent rational people seem to loose there intelligence and rationality when confronting the issue of the creation evolution debate. Neither theory can be experimentally verified as this would require the creation of a new universe. All we can do is look at the evidence that presents itself and compare this with what each theory predicts. Unbiased scientific study requires the ability to admit that your pet theory may be wrong if none of the facts that you find are predicted by your theory. Evolution predicts that one species (ie a bird) will evolve from a species that is not a bird (ie a reptile). Yet any evolutionist worth his salt will have to admit (when pushed) that no transitional fossils have been found. Also Evolution requires that the earth as a system goes from a system containing only single celled organisms to what we have today. This means that a lot of information has to be added to the system (ie DNA) where even one mistake in that DNA could spell doom for the entire new species. Therefore the new species has to be virtually born as is from parents that do not contain all the genetic information that the new born child has. And this is just two of the hurdles that the theory of evolution is yet to overcome despite a century of research. So before you go bagging creationism as unscientific do an examination of the facts and see which theory has more scientific evidence to support its claim. Evolutionism is as much based on faith as creationism is.
Evolution theory is not proven. There are many gaps in the theory. Why for instance if we are descendants of apes, do we have a tube in our head that apes do not have. Oh... Lizards do have that tube too so why wouldn't we be descendants of the lizards? Also they are missing a couple of billion years in the evolution theory and they use the same reasons to build the evolution theory on than that they dismiss the creation theory for. Which kind of gives the evolution theory at least the same amount of doubts in regards to whether it is true or not. Evolution theory is a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. I do not see why not believing in it would make anyone a worse candidate.
(Rockwood's wife) I was born and raised protestant, taught Sunday School, sang in the church choir...etc. I have read the bible and since becoming an open-minded adult, have questioned the existence of God in the Christian sense. There are way too many questions and no answers to prove that a man with such Omnipotent power ever existed. Right off the bat, in Genesis ("the beginning"), He made Adam and then Eve from Adam's rib as his helpmate. Ok. That MAY have been possible I guess. Then Adam and Eve had children, most notably Cain and Able. They had daughters apparently also, but the bible rarely mentions daughters being born. Nonetheless, the world was somehow populated. Had to have been incest since they were the first 2 (and only 2) people on Earth. That, in itself, doesn't sound too good to me! Then this all-knowing, all-powerful, all-forgiving God does awful, even horrific, things to His people. Killings, human sacrifices, plagues, famines, floods... The men in the bible have lots of wives, tons of children, and many MANY concubines. The modern church (not to mention society) pretty much frowns upon all these things. This being said, do I believe in God? Absoulutely! I have never seen him or met him, but I believe that a "God" in the sense of a higher intelligence must surely exist somewhere and that we are a part of His existence. On the opposite ends of the scales, if you DO believe in the Bible, then the world is going to Hell in a Handbasket but quick!! The bible specifically tells us that women were put on Earth to be the man's helpmate, to look up to her husband as the husband looks up to his God. To be there for your man in all that he pursues and desires...yes, ladies, that includes sex!! You are to submit to your husband and make sure he is taken care of. He, in return, knows your worth and will treat you like his queen. We were meant to be the bearer of children--he is meant to be the protector and provider of the household. Women were not meant to rule the world or take on the roles of men. Genders cannot be interchanged. We are NOT created equal in THAT way. Really stop and think about this...it all makes perfect sense!
Read more at women in the bible
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!