quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:
That's odd, my reply to mark f was deleted. Hopefully not by mark f himself.

It's possible I deleted it accidentally when posting after you. If so, I apologize.

Good gravy, I know I've read this argument somewhere before... That's right! Here, here and here! I started the evolution thread, not because I TRULY didn't believe in it, but because the religion & UFO threads kept getting hijacked by evolution talk. (As if it disproves the existance of God [um... sorry, guys. It doesn't] or proved that aliens were more advanced than we were... or sumpthin' like that.) I admit, I didn't even really believe everything I spouted off in the OP (I had actually learned quite a bit in the "Friendly Talk..." thread), but I figured I had to swing as far to the left as I could in order to spark a debate to get some folks to post replies. (Yep. I pulled a #7) What happened? Pretty much the same thing that happened here. I found it interesting that when "skeptics" have questions about religion, we're supposed to have an answer (no matter how OBVIOUS the answer is to us). We couldn't tell them to "go read the Bible", they wanted the answer from US. On the other hand, if we dared to question scientific theories, it was taken personally. (Which I will NEVER understand because evolutionary theory wasn't discovered by anyone around here... as far as I know... but it's alright to put US and our BELIEFS down. ) WE had to go read a book and take insults on our intelligence (because the answer was so OBVIOUS to them). I admit, I learned plenty on evolution because of a few kind & patient folks 'round here and I've always believed in it... to an extent. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Whether we came from "ape-like creatures" or were always "kinda human" doesn't affect me in everday life (nor anyone else for that matter, I'm sure). I mean, it's kinda like history. Sure, it's important to learn, but how often does the average person have to access what they learned about George Washington for a job? (It seems it's mostly to win prizes in game shows.)

I did catch the end of a very interesting documentary called "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus" a few months ago and they made a very good point (I wish I had caught the whole thing): The reason people seem to have a misunderstanding of evolution is because nobody that knows anything about it wants to tell anyone else. They'll usually tell folks that they're ignorant and to go read a book. (Just like they did 'round here.) They'll use simplistic answers with sarcastic tones like "they evolved it" or "evolution is a fact", which doesn't answer HOW? or WHY? for those who WANT to understand, but would rather have it explained than sit and read about it. (We did that in school and apparently STILL didn't get it.) But what do Creationists/ID "theorists" do? They sit down with the "ignorant" and tell them about how God (or some other intelligent being) made EVERYTHING perfect and in order. They are patient and handle EVERY question like it was the most important question ever asked. As the experts keep pushing people away, the Creationists are pulling folks in. The narrator (who is a stern believer in evolution) suggested that scientists (and those with the understanding) start doing the same or this debate will continue for years to come.

Just something to think about. I'm kinda like Mr. F, these conversations don't go anywhere (unless circles count) and people get offended too easily and start making rude remarks, so this is the only post I'll be making on the topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
(As if it disproves the existance of God [um... sorry, guys. It doesn't]

I'm pretty sure Mr. Gawd hadn't even been mentioned before your post, Monk. There was certainly no debate in this thread over his existence or nonexistence.

Also I find your assumptions that evolutionists are snobby arses and creationists are welcoming and friendly to be a bit, well, overly generalizing. But even if it were true, if I politely ask you to drink from the bottle labeled "poison" and someone else shouts at you to quaff the safe, refreshing beverage, you're still a damn fool for drinking the poison.

Surprise! Surprise! Dork misunderstood what I was tryin' to type.

quote:

Originally posted by Dork:
I'm pretty sure Mr. Gawd hadn't even been mentioned before your post, Monk. There was certainly no debate in this thread over his existence or nonexistence.

I was actually refering to the discussions in the other thread (that I had left a link to). If you noticed, nobody else brung up aliens either.

quote:

Also I find your assumptions that evolutionists are snobby arses and creationists are welcoming and friendly to be a bit, well, overly generalizing.

Wasn't me that made that assumption. It was the point of the documentary, which I also mentioned. I pointed out that there were a few folks that were nice about it, but many posts were sarcastic and insulting. Try reading a bit more carefully next time.

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
I was actually refering to the discussions in the other thread (that I had left a link to). If you noticed, nobody else brung up aliens either.

I know. You seemed to be introducing both into the conversation for no apparent reason and I was simply trying to clarify that "God" was not part of the discussion, nor had that concept even been introduced.

You might consider editorializing your posts to make sure they are clear, concise and relevant rather than rambling and cluttered.

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
Wasn't me that made that assumption. It was the point of the documentary, which I also mentioned. I pointed out that there were a few folks that were nice about it, but many posts were sarcastic and insulting. Try reading a bit more carefully next time.

You did seem to imply agreement by bringing it up with such strong backing from your own personal experiences written in. I apologize if I misread your post.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
you're just really making me think. and thats good.

Agreed. The day you don't think for yourself is the day you're not worth the air you breathe.

I think this thread can be declared over, as barely any mention of the film is being made and despite being an interesting debate I doubt anyone will be convinced or persuaded by any clever, self indulgent posts (not aimed at anyone specific so please take no offense), but for what it's worth this is entertaining.

This was supposed to be about the film... but it seems like whenever people talk about it, the discussion spirals into a debate such as this.

I guess that's what controversial things do.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
This was supposed to be about the film... but it seems like whenever people talk about it, the discussion spirals into a debate such as this.

I guess that's what controversial things do.

The whole point of the film was to spark debates such as this. Like any good propaganda film (I don't necessarily mean that as a slam, but that's what it is), it's difficult to seperate the film from the message. No one's gonna praise the film and not the message unless you're Leni Riefenstahl. Proponants of ID will love it and evolutionists will hate it.

Since there seems to be a great deal of confusion/misinformation surrounding the concept evolution, I'm going to try to clear it up. Hopefully this will get rid of that whole macro micro nonsense.

(Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been an evolutionary biologist, nor do I claim to be an expert in this field or any other related field. But I do think, for a layman, I have a clear understanding of this subject.)

Evolution is a combination of two factors: randomness and environmental change. The randomness comes from the fact that, when it comes to replication, our genes just aren't perfect. They make mistakes. DNA is copied poorly. Some of these mistakes (mutations from here on) don't do anything at all. Some of them are beneficial, and others are harmful.

Here's where the unfriendly environment comes in.

Positive mutations are reinforced because the help the mutant to survive or reproduce more efficiently. Negative mutations are removed from the gene pool because they decrease the mutant's ability to survive or reproduce.

That's natural selection in action, and I'm sure if I stopped here I would meet further cries of "MICROevolution."

But:

There is no specific set of genes that defines a species as a species. All DNA is inherently fallible during copying. The entire genome is susceptible to mutation. This is a proven, indisputable fact. Therefore, these concepts of different kinds of evolution are not and cannot be separate, because the processes involved are the same and the only difference is one of time and scale.

quote:

Originally posted by The Twinkie That Wouldn't Die:
Since there seems to be a great deal of confusion/misinformation surrounding the concept evolution, I'm going to try to clear it up. Hopefully this will get rid of that whole macro micro nonsense.

(Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been an evolutionary biologist, nor do I claim to be an expert in this field or any other related field. But I do think, for a layman, I have a clear understanding of this subject.)

Evolution is a combination of two factors: randomness and environmental change. The randomness comes from the fact that, when it comes to replication, our genes just aren't perfect. They make mistakes. DNA is copied poorly. Some of these mistakes (mutations from here on) don't do anything at all. Some of them are beneficial, and others are harmful.

Here's where the unfriendly environment comes in.

Positive mutations are reinforced because the help the mutant to survive or reproduce more efficiently. Negative mutations are removed from the gene pool because they decrease the mutant's ability to survive or reproduce.

That's natural selection in action, and I'm sure if I stopped here I would meet further cries of "MICROevolution."

But:

There is no specific set of genes that defines a species as a species. All DNA is inherently fallible during copying. The entire genome is susceptible to mutation. This is a proven, indisputable fact. Therefore, these concepts of different kinds of evolution are not and cannot be separate, because the processes involved are the same and the only difference is one of time and scale.

uh oh... never heard that one before. you guys mightve stumped me... is that really proven??

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
This was supposed to be about the film... but it seems like whenever people talk about it, the discussion spirals into a debate such as this.

I guess that's what controversial things do.

The film was a documentary, what are we supposed to discuss if not the subject matter? The production values? Ok fine, I'll start:

They were rubbish.

Now your turn.

Also, I don't think the existence of God needs to come into a debate on evolution. I personally lean towards atheism, but there's plenty of room to believe in both evolution and God. It's absurd to say that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

What could be a more masterful creation than one that can automatically adapt to handle any set of circumstances presented to it?

If you're inclined to think that way.

quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
This was supposed to be about the film... but it seems like whenever people talk about it, the discussion spirals into a debate such as this.

I guess that's what controversial things do.

The film was a documentary, what are we supposed to discuss if not the subject matter? The production values? Ok fine, I'll start:

They were rubbish.

Now your turn.

Also, I don't think the existence of God needs to come into a debate on evolution. I personally lean towards atheism, but there's plenty of room to believe in both evolution and God. It's absurd to say that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I wasnt the one that brought God into the equation, that was Monkey Boy.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

I wasnt the one that brought God into the equation, that was Monkey Boy.

Yes, I was actually responding to Monkey Boy, but I just added that on as an afterthought and only kept your quote.

oh ok i see.

quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
This was supposed to be about the film... but it seems like whenever people talk about it, the discussion spirals into a debate such as this.

I guess that's what controversial things do.

The film was a documentary, what are we supposed to discuss if not the subject matter? The production values? Ok fine, I'll start:

They were rubbish.

Now your turn.

Also, I don't think the existence of God needs to come into a debate on evolution. I personally lean towards atheism, but there's plenty of room to believe in both evolution and God. It's absurd to say that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

What could be a more masterful creation than one that can automatically adapt to handle any set of circumstances presented to it?

If you're inclined to think that way.

Well Im not sure about other religions, but basic christianity says God created man on day 6 and he did not evolve from anything. So if you're a christian, you cant really believe that man evolved from apes because you'd be contradicting genesis.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
I wasnt the one that brought God into the equation, that was Monkey Boy.

Actually, I didn't. I simply gave the reasons (and reactions from other posters when) this topic was discussed in those particular threads and added my personal opinion in brackets (some actually believe evolution DOES mean no God, by the way). I NEVER meant to steer the discussion into a religious debate, even if it was already one. I mean, Mike's link even has a headline that reads "Intelligent design is religious". What else could this be considered?

As for IndieFolkExperimentalLover's Genesis talk, we all KNOW that the universe wasn't created in a week. I see that as a poetic re-telling of the beginning of man.

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

Well Im not sure about other religions, but basic christianity says God created man on day 6 and he did not evolve from anything. So if you're a christian, you cant really believe that man evolved from apes because you'd be contradicting genesis.

Fundamental christianity, yes. So if all the evidence suggests that this account is inaccurate, then fundamental (literal) christianity must be wr.... wr.... wrooo.... well, you can see where I'm going with this.

But what if the account in genesis is not a literal account of what happened, but rather a fable or allegory to demonstrate god's power and creatorhood. Is creatorhood a word? I don't know. But you know; a story to demonstrate that god was pretty good at making stuff.

There are plenty of christians who also completely believe in evolution. My highschool biology teacher, for one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: youandwhosearmy,

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
This was supposed to be about the film... but it seems like whenever people talk about it, the discussion spirals into a debate such as this.

I guess that's what controversial things do.

The film was a documentary, what are we supposed to discuss if not the subject matter? The production values? Ok fine, I'll start:

They were rubbish.

Now your turn.

Also, I don't think the existence of God needs to come into a debate on evolution. I personally lean towards atheism, but there's plenty of room to believe in both evolution and God. It's absurd to say that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

What could be a more masterful creation than one that can automatically adapt to handle any set of circumstances presented to it?

If you're inclined to think that way.

Well Im not sure about other religions, but basic christianity says God created man on day 6 and he did not evolve from anything. So if you're a christian, you cant really believe that man evolved from apes because you'd be contradicting genesis.

Well, considering Genesis contradicts itself, I don't see a big deal in science contradicting it. In addition, there are 'mountains' of evidence that disprove the flawed concept of the earth being created in six days.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Angelo:
Well, considering Genesis contradicts itself, I don't see a big deal in science contradicting it. In addition, there are 'mountains' of evidence that disprove the flawed concept of the earth being created in three days.

Say what you will about Genesis; it still makes more sense than 'Expelled'.