Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scientific American answers 15 common dumbasseries

21 posts in this topic

Posted

i only copied the first one or two sentences from each answer. can't post full articles.

No, I read the whole thing. There's a common problem with his viewpoint that destroys it's validity in scientific discussion.

As for the sky being purple, everyone is aware that they are looking at the sky the wrong way, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I use to think evolution was "from the devil" then I realized how ridiculous those church lies sounded, read a couple of books and realized how freakin ignorant I sounded for so many years.

Just because someone wrote a book doesn't make them all knowing...Mankind is relatively stupid with a few very nice achievements along the way. Nobody knows everything, but there are some that think they do. The fact is that even if evolution (as Darwin hypothisized) turns out to be completely on the mark, it doesn't disprove an existence of God at all. The complexity of life is amazing. The complexity of a cell is amazing. I'm not one to buy into the "well, random accident" line of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just because someone wrote a book doesn't make them all knowing...Mankind is relatively stupid with a few very nice achievements along the way. Nobody knows everything, but there are some that think they do. The fact is that even if evolution (as Darwin hypothisized) turns out to be completely on the mark, it doesn't disprove an existence of God at all. The complexity of life is amazing. The complexity of a cell is amazing. I'm not one to buy into the "well, random accident" line of thinking.

First off, its not just one book that I read. Also if you don't believe in evolution you are claiming that almost all scientist are wrong. If you would only read a little bit about evolution you would realize how absolutely ridiculous it is that so many Americans reject it.

Secondly you are right Evolution does NOT disprove that there is a God. it does disprove the literal reading of Genesis which is why so many people reject evolution (they believe a book, full or errors and contradictions written in the Bronze Age over scientific evidence)

Thirdly, you are right no one knows everything (though religious people like to claim they do, like if there is a God, what his name is, his plan for the world and how the world was created) scientist are daily learning more and more about evolution. Darwin wasn't spot on with everything but he got it going.

Seriously you should look into it more. I recommend a new book to start you off with called "why evolution is true" its an excellent read and a whole LOT of evidence.

I also read the christian perspective trying to sell ID as science and disprove evolution. It was very weak, they twisted facts and imo flat out lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

why the constant mention of Darwin when discussing evolution? it has grown exponentially since him as we have expanded our understanding.

people don't constantly mention Newton and call it Newtonism when talking about gravity, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

why the constant mention of Darwin when discussing evolution? it has grown exponentially since him as we have expanded our understanding.

people don't constantly mention Newton and call it Newtonism when talking about gravity, do they?

Excellent observation, I've noticed that happens a lot when talking about evolution. :cheers2:

Maybe cause it makes it sound like one mans theory from ages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

exactly. that way it's one old man and his 'followers' against god, and not science/truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

exactly. that way it's one old man and his 'followers' against god, and not science/truth.

Also I noticed creationist like to replace the word evolution with Darwinism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just because someone wrote a book doesn't make them all knowing...Mankind is relatively stupid with a few very nice achievements along the way. Nobody knows everything, but there are some that think they do. The fact is that even if evolution (as Darwin hypothisized) turns out to be completely on the mark, it doesn't disprove an existence of God at all. The complexity of life is amazing. The complexity of a cell is amazing. I'm not one to buy into the "well, random accident" line of thinking.

Complexity is a direct result of Natural Selection and Evolution.

It is ANYTHING BUT random, and the furthest thing from accidental.

You cite two of the most common fundamental misunderstandings of Biology.

7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.

Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

People don't get that last part, like EVER.

Bad mutations outnumber good beneficial mutations. But they get selected out. So what you SEE is the "perfection of God's creations". But what you didn't see was the crappy stuff that got left behind. And the imperfections (conveniently ignored by those that espouse God, wait, He didn't in fact make everything perfect? :)) are either good enough to get by for the animal, or the next step is so expensive in energy requirements that it hasn't happened. Many other reasons exist, I'm oversimplifying for the sake of bandwidth.

Please. Read The Blind Watchmaker. Ignore the title The God Delusion. Read it.

Challenge yourself.

Think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I love PBS.

Has anyone watched any of the videos on PBS Nova?

Htar if you are interested in looking more into evolution, i really recommend watching some of there videos over there. they are excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites