Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 10-02-2011, 03:24 PM  
Carolina Jeep Girl
 
Sarahdactyl's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 717 | Kudos: +36
Images: 1
The Evolutionary Theory and Schools

I could have put this in either here or the religion section.. it applies to both. I will just stick it here

A lot of people don't want class on evolution and I think that is ridiculous. Even if you don't believe in it's main argument there are many scientific breakthroughs and understandings involving human (not ape to human) evolution. Plus, to form an opinion and discuss it with someone you would have to know it's full extent correct? Can't just ignorantly walk into a debate about it.


I believe there is more to evolution than meets the eye. It's not just a ape-to-human theory. Because so many closed minded Christians are against this singular theory of human-to-ape they ignore all the other wonderful and ever change aspects of the human race and how genetics and science has changed animals and humans over time.

People misunderstand word "theory" and the phrase "Evolutionary Theory" quite a bit.

Evolution in biology: the idea that species changed over time and have common ancestory. It also means the change in characteristics from generation to generation. It is a well established THEORY, meaning it's not just a guess. This isn't JUST about the seperate theory of creationism and ape turning humans. This is about how the human species have evolved from NOT apes, but from within our own species.


Now there is argument that Australopithecus afarensis (4 mil years ago) and a few others of similarity are not apart of the human species.



But Homo habilis and homo erectus, homo neantherthal sapien to homo sapien sapien. (excuse me if I mispelled a few of those.) ARE apart of the human genetic line. (1.7 million years ago to current time)



What I am trying to say is, Evolution is also about HUMAN Evolution. How we have changed over time. I could sit here all day and write to you about how agriculture, science and forms have changed us for better and for worse. How genetic drift occurs within species and about natural selective forces. How NATURE selects who will survive and who will perish. This kind of lesson esp. should not be excluded from schools. You can fight about the ape-to-human theory all you want (which I still think should be included in schools because we should at least have a basic understanding of it even if you don't believe it) but there is substance within the Evolution theory.
__________________

__________________
Nothing is going to stop me unless it's Divine Intervention.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 06:36 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
just to clear it up about the talk of ape-to-human evolution, it is that humans and apes share a common ancestor, we did not evolve from the apes we see today

__________________

__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 12:26 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
“Belief” in evolution is politically correct and I was a member of that camp that simply believed in evolution just because those around me did. As I read one of the early in search of Noah’s ark books including testimony of WWII pilots that had seen the ark from overflights and Turkish shepherds who had been inside the ark as children that my interest was awakened. Afterwards I began to notice things that failed to fit the evolutionary mold, such as fossils in the wrong strata, the nonexistence of a geological column in the right order and even a lump of coal with a golden chain in it.

Darwin’s natural selection is at times treated as if it is an information enhancer. Huxley thought the environment to play the same part for natural varieties as man does in domesticated varieties. Of course man has not created any new creatures outside the bounds of DNA content. But the line seems blurred between natural selection by control of the environment and the ability of the organism to adapt. Consider mimicry and camouflage, neither create new creatures but are touted and studied by evolutionists. In either case the environment would choose which creature lives or dies but the heritable characteristic had to either be present within the DNA or by mistakes in DNA. Wouldn’t it be a bit convenient to assume that random errors in DNA produced a butterfly that mimicked a butterfly that tasted bad, what a coincidence. The creationist prediction would be that not only was it programed in the DNA, but that it was still a butterfly as defined by its DNA.

Acquired characteristics are not heritable so what I was taught in school, and what many people believe, about the giraffe’s neck just isn’t true. However in the quest for some semblance of an information enhancer Dawkins has with a straight face suggested the selfish naked gene and has been given credit for the invention of the meme. Now while I hold no animosity toward the evolutionist (believing that he is free to “believe” as he wishes), he will show great anger toward me for even suggesting that another theory better fits the evidence. Gould’s advice to Dawkins was to never grant an interview to a creationist. I say what does either side of the issue have to fear in public debate, let the public decide which model of origins is best supported by all the evidence. BTW how do you suppose a broken lump of coal happened to be connected by a golden chain?
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 08:42 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
“Belief” in evolution is politically correct
Creationists have gone to great lengths to show that evolution is NOT politically correct. A majority of Americans actually believe in some sort of creationism. Creationism is "politically correct"; evolution is scientifically correct.
Quote:
and I was a member of that camp that simply believed in evolution just because those around me did. As I read one of the early in search of Noah’s ark books including testimony of WWII pilots that had seen the ark from overflights and Turkish shepherds who had been inside the ark as children that my interest was awakened.
Who was this pilot? Who were these shepherds? Where is the ark today? These are simple questions, and yet when I do a brief search on the web, I discover that the answers aren't forthcoming. I discover that there have been numerous supposed ark sightings, all of which have been confirmed false. I discover that expeditions are still being formed to try to find it.
Quote:
Afterwards I began to notice things that failed to fit the evolutionary mold, such as fossils in the wrong strata,
Citation needed. What fossils are you referring to? What strata are you referring to?
Quote:
the nonexistence of a geological column in the right order
Citation needed. Where is the geologic column "out of order"?
Quote:
and even a lump of coal with a golden chain in it.
I've found numerous anecdotes about this chain, all of them claiming it is evidence of the impossibility of evolution, all of them claiming the chain has long since disappeared. Where is this alleged chain?
Quote:
Darwin’s natural selection is at times treated as if it is an information enhancer.
Natural selection IS an information enhancer.
Quote:
Huxley thought the environment to play the same part for natural varieties as man does in domesticated varieties. Of course man has not created any new creatures outside the bounds of DNA content.
Neither does natural selection.
Quote:
But the line seems blurred between natural selection by control of the environment and the ability of the organism to adapt.
Organisms don't adapt. (At least not in this context) Species adapt.
Quote:
Consider mimicry and camouflage, neither create new creatures but are touted and studied by evolutionists. In either case the environment would choose which creature lives or dies but the heritable characteristic had to either be present within the DNA or by mistakes in DNA. Wouldn’t it be a bit convenient to assume that random errors in DNA produced a butterfly that mimicked a butterfly that tasted bad, what a coincidence.
No more a coincidence than a kid getting shot after pointing a toy gun at a cop.
Quote:
The creationist prediction would be that not only was it programed in the DNA, but that it was still a butterfly as defined by its DNA.

Acquired characteristics are not heritable so what I was taught in school, and what many people believe, about the giraffe’s neck just isn’t true.
What giraffe neck theory are you talking about?
Quote:
However in the quest for some semblance of an information enhancer Dawkins has with a straight face suggested the selfish naked gene and has been given credit for the invention of the meme. Now while I hold no animosity toward the evolutionist (believing that he is free to “believe” as he wishes), he will show great anger toward me for even suggesting that another theory better fits the evidence.
Ad hominem, strawman. Even if it were true, another's anger with you does not imply the validity of your hypothesis.
Quote:
Gould’s advice to Dawkins was to never grant an interview to a creationist. I say what does either side of the issue have to fear in public debate, let the public decide which model of origins is best supported by all the evidence.
I fully agree, lay all the cards on the table. Science is already there - nothing scientific can ever be concealed or lied about, as the very act of concealment or lying about it means that investigation is NOT scientific.

But I'll let you continue because you demonstrate in your next line the exact reason why Gould and Dawkins won't debate a creationist:
Quote:
BTW how do you suppose a broken lump of coal happened to be connected by a golden chain?
WHERE IS THIS LUMP OF COAL? WHERE IS THIS GOLD CHAIN? If they actually exist, they would raise important questions. How would a golden chain end up within a lump of coal? Is there a contemporary process for producing coal? Is mankind far older than we thought? Is this evidence of alien influence on early life?

But, before we ask any of those questions, it behooves us to ask "Is this a work of fiction? Is this a hoax?"

If the lump of coal did exist, we'd be able to conduct an analysis of it. We'd be able to conduct a CT scan, verify that the gold chain is actually embedded in the coal. We'd be able to do a mineralogical study, to verify that it is actually coal. We'd be able to do an anthropological study on the chain itself, determine who made it, when, where, and how.

I haven't been able to locate this lump of coal. Where is it?

You've clearly demonstrated the point Gould presented. Creationists have a propensity for attempting to elevate apocrypha to the level of evidence. Science fails in these conditions. Science cannot function where an anecdote is given the same credence as direct observation.

Creationism CAN play an important role in the science classroom. Some of the various creation hypotheses are well-constructed and very compelling. Most are not. Demonstrating the flaws in these hypotheses could be a useful lesson in the importance of peer review, and could lead to a better creation hypothesis.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 09:48 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Creationism CAN play an important role in the science classroom. Some of the various creation hypotheses are well-constructed and very compelling. Most are not. Demonstrating the flaws in these hypotheses could be a useful lesson in the importance of peer review, and could lead to a better creation hypothesis.
I especially like this comment as iron sharpens iron. I wonder what the evolutionists are afraid of? The door on science should never be closed.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 10:57 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
I especially like this comment as iron sharpens iron. I wonder what the evolutionists are afraid of? The door on science should never be closed.
No, of course not. But let me be VERY clear as to what I just said: There is NOTHING scientific about the popular creationist theories (specifically, the biblical "Genesis" theory and the "Intelligent Design" theory as demonstrated in "Of Pandas and People"). Including them in a science classroom, they serve only as counterexamples to demonstrate the difference between science and not-science. That line is too frequently blurred in society.

That does not negate the possibility of a scientifically developed creationist theory. BUT, if such a theory WERE developed, it would have to explain all of the facts that evolutionary theory currently explains. The nature of a scientifically developed creation theory's relationship to evolutionary theory would have to be analogous to the relationship of Einsteinian "Relativity" to Newtonian physics. Relativity explains all of the same facts as Newtonian physics, but with greater precision. Relativity also explains facts that appear to be aberrations when studied with Newtonian methods.

Outright denial of the theory of evolution is analogous to denying that "Objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Both denials are absurd in that they contradict observed facts.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 10:59 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
...................

Quote:
As I read one of the early in search of Noah?s ark books including testimony of WWII pilots that had seen the ark from overflights and Turkish shepherds who had been inside the ark as children that my interest was awakened.
Quote:
Many searches have been largely supported by evangelical and millenarian churches and sustained by ongoing popular interest sometimes expressed through faith-based magazines and lecture tours, videos, occasional television specials and more recently the Internet.
In 1949 Aaron J. Smith, dean of the People's Bible College in Greensboro, NC, led an unsuccessful expedition to locate the ark.[6]
Former astronaut James Irwin led two expeditions to Ararat in the 1980s, was kidnapped once, but found no tangible evidence of the Ark. "I've done all I possibly can," he said, "but the Ark continues to elude us."[7]
In the 1980s and 1990s the Durupınar site was heavily promoted by adventurer and former anesthesiologist Ron Wyatt. It consists of a large boat-shaped formation jutting out of the earth and rock. It has the advantage over the Great Ararat site of being approachable. It receives a steady stream of visitors and according to the local authorities a nearby mountain is called "Mount Cudi" (or Judi), making it one of about five Mount Judis in the land of Kurdistan. Geologists have identified the Durupınar site as a natural formation,[8] but Wyatt's Ark Discovery Institute continues to champion its claims.[9]
21st century
In 2004, Honolulu-based businessman Daniel McGivern announced he would finance a $900,000 expedition to the peak of Greater Ararat in July of that year to investigate the "Ararat anomaly"?he had previously paid for commercial satellite images of the site.[1] After much initial fanfare, he was refused permission by the Turkish authorities, as the summit is inside a restricted military zone. The expedition was subsequently labelled a "stunt" by National Geographic News, which pointed out that the expedition leader, a Turkish academic named Ahmet Ali Arslan, had previously been accused of faking photographs of the Ark.[10]
In June 2006, Bob Cornuke of the Bible Archeology Search and Exploration Institute took a team of 14 American "business, law, and ministry leaders" to Iran to visit a site in the Alborz Mountains, purported to be a possible resting place of the Ark. The team did not include any archaeologists or geologists among its members. The team claimed to have discovered an "object" 13,000 feet above sea level, which had the appearance of blackened petrified wooden beams, and was "about the size of a small aircraft carrier" [400 ft long (120 m)], and supposedly consistent with the dimensions provided in Genesis of 300 cubits by 50 cubits.[11] The team also claimed to have found fossilised sea creatures inside the petrified wood, and in the immediate vicinity of the site.[12] One member of the team claimed that 'a Houston lab used by the Smithsonian' tested some beams and confirmed they were petrified wood containing fossilised sea animals,[13] but the name of the laboratory was not given. No one outside the expedition has offered independent confirmation, and apart from a few purported beams, no photographic images of this supposed Ark in its entirety have been made available (though short video segments have been made available).[14] The team's consensus on the "object" is not absolute; Reg Lyle, another expedition member, described the find as appearing to be "a basalt dike".[12] It is the official position of the BASE Institute that Iran was the logical resting place of the Ark.[15] Their website does not definitely claim the object to be the Ark, but concludes that it is "a candidate".[16]
In 2007, a joint Turkish-Hong Kong expedition including members of Noah's Ark Ministries International found an unusual cave with fossilized wooden walls on Mount Ararat, well above the vegetation line.[17] The sample was declared by the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Hong Kong to be petrified wood of the Cyprus variety.
In 2010, Noah's Ark Ministries International l (NAMI) released videos of their discovery of the wood structures.[18] Members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old. It is unlikely that there was any human settlement at the site at altitude of 4,000 meters.[19]
Randall Price, a partner with Noah's Ark Ministries International from early 2008 to the summer of 2008, stated that the discovery was a probably the result of a hoax, perpetrated by ten Kurdish workers hired by the Turkish guide used by the Chinese, who planted large wood beams taken from an old structure near the Black Sea at the cave site.[20] Price noted that Kurdish workers had shown that they could haul substantial weight to that level.[21] He also pointed out the cobwebs in the rafters, saying they were "something just not possible in these conditions." [22]
Unsubstantiated claims

Quote:
According to one story, Nicholas II of Russia sent an expedition to Mount Ararat in 1916-1918 to investigate the Ark. The fact that Nicholas abdicated during the February Revolution at the beginning of March 1917 (Gregorian calendar) makes the story unlikely. A few sources put the date of the expedition at 1916, ("the Russian imperial air force ... is supposed to have sent 150 men up Mount Ararat in 1916 to explore a large object said to be as long as a city block", reads one). No records of such an expedition have yet come to light.[27]
The Forestry Institute of Research and Experiments of the Ministry of Agriculture in Spain certified the wood to be about 5,000 years old ? a claim that is disputed by Radio Carbon dating ? two labs have dated the 1969 samples, one at 650 C.E. ? 50 years, the other at 630 C.E. ? 95 years.[29] Navarra's guide later claimed the French explorer bought the beam from a nearby village and carried it up the mountain.[27]
In 1970 an Armenian, Georgie Hagopian, claimed to have visited the Ark twice around 1908/1910 (1902 in another version, and 1906 according to a segment in the TV series Unsolved Mysteries) with his uncle. Hagopian claimed that he had climbed up onto the Ark and walked along its roof and that some of his young friends had also seen it. The online archive of the old USENET newsgroup talk.origins[30] notes that "[t]he apparent ease of getting to the ark conflicts with the accounts of other explorers,"[31]
Ed Davis,[32] a US army sergeant based at Hamadan in Iran during World War II, reported that he had climbed Mt. Ararat with his driver's family in 1943. After three days' climbing, the group camped 100 feet above the Ark and was able to look down into it but not to approach closely. According to Davis's description, it had broken into two pieces, which had been pushed some distance apart by glaciers. Its description roughly matched Hagopian's, judging by Elfred Lee's paintings. Lee also interviewed Ed Davis and created a painting based on Davis's descriptions. The structures in the paintings appear to match.[33]
In 1977, a documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark" aired in theaters and on numerous television stations, claiming that the Ark had been found on Mt. Ararat; it was based on a book of the same title by David Balsiger and Charles Sellier, Jr. published in 1976. The entire movie is on Godtube, Google, and Youtube.
In 1993, CBS aired a television special entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," which contained a section devoted to the claims of George Jammal, who showed what he called "sacred wood from the ark." Jammal's story of a dramatic mountain expedition which took the life of "his Polish friend Vladimir" was actually a deliberate hoax, and Jammal - who was really an actor - later revealed that his "sacred wood" was wood taken from railroad tracks in Long Beach, California and hardened by cooking with various sauces in an oven.[34]
Searches for Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah?s Ark.
The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-21245089.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-noahs_ark.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-intelligent-design.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-noahs-ark-1.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-noah6.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-spaghetti-monster-coloring-page-3.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-children11.gif 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-arked2.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-demotivation.us__one-more-theory-.jpg 

The Evolutionary Theory and Schools-oh-noes-creation-museum-21.jpg 

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 11:00 AM  
MRB
Senior Member
 
MRB's Avatar

Sacramento, California
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 389 | Kudos: +56
I think that physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, as well as theology should all be taught in an unbiased manner in High School.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 11:35 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRB View Post
I think that physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, as well as theology should all be taught in an unbiased manner in High School.
I think they should be electives, yes. For better or for worse, religion is a major component of American culture. The option should be available to learn about it, if only to better enable discussion. I also think that historical and contemporary political analysis should be electives. My school's social studies department was quite weak.

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 01:01 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
No, of course not. But let me be VERY clear as to what I just said: There is NOTHING scientific about the popular creationist theories (specifically, the biblical "Genesis" theory and the "Intelligent Design" theory as demonstrated in "Of Pandas and People"). Including them in a science classroom, they serve only as counterexamples to demonstrate the difference between science and not-science. That line is too frequently blurred in society.

That does not negate the possibility of a scientifically developed creationist theory. BUT, if such a theory WERE developed, it would have to explain all of the facts that evolutionary theory currently explains. The nature of a scientifically developed creation theory's relationship to evolutionary theory would have to be analogous to the relationship of Einsteinian "Relativity" to Newtonian physics. Relativity explains all of the same facts as Newtonian physics, but with greater precision. Relativity also explains facts that appear to be aberrations when studied with Newtonian methods.

Outright denial of the theory of evolution is analogous to denying that "Objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Both denials are absurd in that they contradict observed facts.
I respect that as a statement of what you "believe". Seems to me absolute denial is a card in the evolutionist's deck, the creationist is willing to view all evidence. I was a member of the Creation Research Society for years and its papers addressed problems without ignoring counter theories. ICR seems above board on this as well.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.