Interesting enough, but a question is never pointless, although you may or may not answer - yes, even the ones with grammatical errors. It sort of how we, as either scientist or non-scientist, learn and experience.

Brand said
I honestly think schools don't cover evolution well enough.

Because it can be offensive. You don't seem them promoting one certain religion ( Don't mix this up with them giving the history of it, think of it as a church sermon way. However, religion has influenced that past heavily with ancient empires, etc, etc.). It's almost respectful to give both equal grounds if it needs to be talked about. Or don't talk about it at all. I bet schools do not want to deal with mobs of angry parents/ students. I myself am in school, and history is... often on the back burner by many students. It isn't worth changing what is already there :/.
~~~
anywho,
I read something today. It went sort of like this " In spite of evidence, evolution has been rejected by members of religious groups who prefer creationism. This attempts to explain some of the features of plants and animal life through an interpretation of the bible. In the scientific field, however, there is little doubt that the general outline of Darwin's theory of evolution is correct...a recently proposed modification of evolution theory suggests that from time to time, evolution may proceed rapidly. These bursts of activity are followed by long periods of no change. This modification is called punctuated equilibrium, which goes a long way toward explaining what has been called incompleteness of fossil record, that is, the scarcity of the fossils,"

No matter where you look, there is uncertainty somewhere, a "scarcity of information". Of course, most do not feel uncertain with their own belief. All this really shows me is that I guess when you die, you'll find out whether you've been living a truth or a lie. I'm also curious about the future of the numbers of creationist/ ones of evolution. Words out that Democrats number of evolutionist are increasing, and republicans are decreasing. I say there's going to eventually be a /huge split/ in the USA nation since beliefs influence well.... other beliefs- a bigger split than has what already been presented if people do not resort back to the foundations, the so called "original political/law times." I almost wonder if it would be topics like this that will eventually destroy the stability of the government.

xAsunaWolfx said Because it can be offensive.

And is Gravity now offensive too? What about vaccines? Cancer Treatment? Your car? The very device you're using to read this post?
Are any of those offensive?

Evolution is the same thing, a result of science in our search for the truth.
It's a fact of history, there's nothing to be offended about. To put in another example though just to get my point across.

If I pointed to your mother and said "That's your Mom, she gave birth to you" would you find it offensive that your Mom gave birth to you?
It's where you came from, it's a known and proven scientific fact just like Evolution is.

xAsunaWolfx said
Because it can be offensive. You don't seem them promoting one certain religion ( Don't mix this up with them giving the history of it, think of it as a church sermon way. However, religion has influenced that past heavily with ancient empires, etc, etc.). It's almost respectful to give both equal grounds if it needs to be talked about. Or don't talk about it at all.

I don't understand why your mentioning the effect religion had on early empires and such, but none-the-less evolution is something supported by scientific theories and empirical evidence, religions are not. If fossil records and observational science DID point to creationism, then we'd be studying creationism, but it doesn't and we aren't. Creationism DOES have a place in school (colleges), since I took a class last semester about the religions of the world, but creationism has no place in science classes or public schools (not including college level classes, where the OPTION to take religion classes is available). It has no place in science classes because fossil records give strong support to evolution, but not creationism, and is has no place in public schools (again not referring to college here) because as you said, all kinds of people would go into a storm if a class about religions became a part of the curriculum.

In spite of evidence, evolution has been rejected by members of religious groups who prefer creationism. This attempts to explain some of the features of plants and animal life through an interpretation of the bible.

Religious groups rejecting evolution explains the features of plants and animals through the bibles interpretation? What?

said Words out that Democrats number of evolutionist are increasing, and republicans are decreasing. I say there's going to eventually be a /huge split/ in the USA nation since beliefs influence well.... other beliefs- a bigger split than has what already been presented if people do not resort back to the foundations, the so called "original political/law times."

I think there is a pretty big divide between the ideologies of conservatives vs liberals, but to attribute the divide to religion is very silly, and to say religion lies at the core of it or influences it a great deal is over dramatizing it. The divide is more likely attributed to how either side thinks the economy should be handled and of course how much the government should be allowed to regulate aspects of our lives.

I almost wonder if it would be topics like this that will eventually destroy the stability of the government.

Topics like Creationism vs Evolution? I hope not. If the stability of our government is threatened by creationism vs evolution then I think we'd be a nation of idiots.

I'm curious, aside from "the bible says so" why do YOU believe in creationism?

Ok, is AsunaWolf like a Wolf-kin, if so can we just disregard what that person thinks on science? They don't even know they are a person.

Magic Magnum said And is Gravity now offensive too?

Gravity can be exceptionally offensive. Push someone down the stairs, you'll see what I mean ;)

What about vaccines? Cancer Treatment?

*Points out there are religious nutjobs who find medical intervention of any sort offensive and refuse to get vaccines.* I like to think of them as modern day plaguebearers.

Your car? The very device you're using to read this post?

According to rabid environmentalists, certainly on both counts.

Are any of those offensive?Evolution is the same thing, a result of science in our search for the truth. It's a fact of history, there's nothing to be offended about. To put in another example though just to get my point across.If I pointed to your mother and said "That's your Mom, she gave birth to you" would you find it offensive that your Mom gave birth to you?It's where you came from, it's a known and proven scientific fact just like Evolution is.

xAsunaWolfx said Because it can be offensive.

It's almost respectful to give both equal grounds if it needs to be talked about. Or don't talk about it at all.

Okay, I've only been reading, even when this thread got really bad and I wanted to respond, until I was directed to this line.

I want to delve into ad hominem. I won't, but boy howdy do I want to.

Instead, let me say this. Religious texts, for all mainstream western religions at least, include lines of things that contradict science. That is not conjecture, that is not a statement I say weakly, that is a fact. They all contain things that are presented as how the world is, but simply isn't. The moon is but a light, the earth is flat, we were all made as we are and used to live for thousands of years. These are things that are presented as true by religious texts.

These are things that are not backed up by empirical evidence.

In a class of science, ancient conjectures of pre to early literate people, should not be in equal footing or respect, to things that can be empirically verified and tested. You know what that isn't? Respectful to the actual pursuit of knowledge. It's insulting.

Knowledge is not offensive. Truth is not offensive, and to say that we can't discuss truth because we don't give as much credence to ignorance, wilful ignorance, and the illusion of knowledge, as a viable alternative to knowledge, is beyond ludicrous.

Ugh, I can't believe I actually posted in this stupid thread. I was doing so good at staying out of it. Damn you all. This thread, and everyone in it (myself included) are bad and should feel bad.

xAsunaWolfx said
Because it can be offensive.

http://youtu.be/fHMoDt3nSHs?t=3m22s

You don't seem them promoting one certain religion ( Don't mix this up with them giving the history of it, think of it as a church sermon way. However, religion has influenced that past heavily with ancient empires, etc, etc.). It's almost respectful to give both equal grounds if it needs to be talked about.

Not at all. religion and science are completely different things and should be separated. Sure we should still learn about the influence of religion and the background, but beyond that is not the responsibility of a history class. In fact, I think schools shouldn't teach religion at all, but that's another topic I don't think is worth getting into right now.

However, covering creationism is, and I'm very sorry, teaching ignorance. It has absolutely nothing to stand on. If you want to ignore all evidence and believe that for yourself, go ahead, but don't institutionalise it like it's actually equal to empirical data or rational thought. I think teaching creationism is fundamentally and morally wrong. Rather than explaining how something works, how people came to that conclusion and what data was used and observed, you're saying "Go read this book and don't question it." You're teaching top-down, using authority as an argument, which is a very bad form of argument, or teaching for that matter.

Also;

Or don't talk about it at all. I bet schools do not want to deal with mobs of angry parents/ students.

"I'm a policeman and I don't want to deal with angry mobs, so I decided not to approach delinquents because they may not like that."

It's a stupid argument. It's a school's job to prepare young persons for college and adulthood and to teach them about the world we live in, not to please people who aren't comfortable with facts like evolution.

I myself am in school, and history is... often on the back burner by many students. It isn't worth changing what is already there :/.~~~anywho,

I find that a very awkward position to be in for someone who decided to start a thread on a debate on where we came from and how we became what we are today. 'cause, you know, history teaches just that.

No matter where you look, there is uncertainty somewhere, a "scarcity of information". Of course, most do not feel uncertain with their own belief.

The beautiful thing about science is that it learns from it's own mistakes and acknowledges it doesn't know everything. If you find strong evidence you can change the world. It's flexible, which makes it such a good model.

I mean, let's use a simple example. Say there's a cookie jar and two kids. Billy and Donald. One day, all the cookies are gone. The parents know that Donald is a rascal and blame and punish him for stealing cookies. However at dinner-time, it turns out Billy isn't hungry at all. Creationism exclusively uses meta-knowledge and essentially goes like "Nope, it was Donald! He always been like that and I am confident in my belief!" While more rationally minded people would question their assumption and explore the question why Billy isn't hungry.

Turtlicious said
Ok, is AsunaWolf like a Wolf-kin, if so can we just disregard what that person thinks on science? They don't even know they are a person.

I see you're having a bad day. I'm very sorry. Hopefully this attention will make it better.

Asuna, let me explain to you why I believe in Evolution:

Scientists today can date fossils using a method called carbon dating. What is carbon dating? Well you see, our atmoshpere is full of gases. One such gas is Nitrogen, and when cosmic rays and rays from the sun enter our atmosphere they interact with the Nitrogen. When these cosmic rays enter our Earths atmosphere, they produce neutrons, these neutrons then interact with the nitrogen in the air, and during this interaction a proton is often expelled.

Remember the periodic table? Well an elements atomic number is influenced by the number of protons. Well when these rays interact with the Nitrogen in our atmoshpere, they boot out a proton and the neutron is absorbed. So the element effectively goes from having 7 protons (Nitrogen) to 6 protons (Carbon; Check the periodic table). However, regular carbon has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, this newly formed carbon has 6 protons just like regular carbon, however unlike regular carbon which has 6 neutrons, carbon formed via this method has 8 neutrons. Why 8? Because remember how the element was originally Nitrogen? Well the number of protons usually equals the number of neutrons, and since Nitrogen had 7 protons, It also had 7 neutrons.

So when you have an element with 7 protons and neutrons, and you add a neutron but take away a neutron, you have 6 protons and 8 neutrons. This new element is called carbon 14 (6 protons + 8 Neutrons = 14 particles in the atomic nucleus.) Well because this element doesn't have the same number of protons and neutrons, it's unstable. Well this unstable element seeks an equilbrium through a method called Beta Decay. Beta Decay in this instance is initiated because the nucleus has too many neutrons, and not enough protons, and what Beta Decay does is, it essentially turns a neutron into a proton. So remember how we have that new special carbon 14 with 6 protons and 8 neutrons, well that carbon is seeking to turn one of those neutrons into a proton so it will return to equilibrium, in other words the Carbon 14 is decaying back into Nitrogen.

Now, carbon 14 is being created in our atmosphere every day, and is absorbed by plants and thereby animals, and the levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere at any given time is the same as the levels of carbon 14 in any LIVING organism, because as long as they keep living, they'll keep absorbing energy and thereby keeping thier levels of carbon 14 equal to that of the atmosphere. Now when an organism dies, it ceases to absorb carbon 14, so the amount of carbon 14 in the specimen at that time becomes finite (or limited). Now why is any of this important? Because we know all organisms have carbon 14, and we know carbon 14 decays. Well also know the rate at which carbon 14 decays. This rate is called a half life.

A half life is the amount of time it takes for a substance to decay into half the amount that was previously. To put this in terms of percents and fractions, let's say right now since your alive you have all of your carbon 14 still, well that fraction can be written as 1/1 (or 100%), since you have ALL of your carbon 14. Now let's say one half life passes, all you do is multiply that bottom number by two, so you end up with 1/2. So after one half-life, you have HALF the carbon 14 you had when you were still alive. Now let's say a second half life passes. So now, 2 x 2 = 4, now replace the 2 in 1/2 with a 4, and you have 1/4 the Carbon 14 that you had when you were alive. What if yet another half life passes? Well 2 x 4 = 8, so you'll have 1/8 of your original carbon 14 after 3 half-life(s) have passed.

Why does this matter? Because we can measure the rate at which carbon-14 half lifes occur, and carbon-14 has a half life of roughly 5,500 years. Meaning each half-life = 5,500 years. So when scientists discover a fossil, and measure the amount of carbon-14 inside, they are carbon-dating the fossil to discover the age of the fossil. Other methods of dating can be used, such as potassium or argon dating, which have longer half-lifes to allow us to measure the age of much older fossils or rocks. These methods have been used to date rocks up to 4 billion years old! Now these methods of dating are not only accurate, but more importantly they can be tested, held up to scrutiny, and still pass!

So now we have carbon dating, which can tell us how old objects are. Well let's use carbon dating in conjuction with prehistoric fossils, in this case we'll use the Homo Genus as examples. Homo is the name for our genus, the human genus.

Now let's go back in time. Before humans, modern chips and gorillas evolved. At one point in time, all of these animals shared a common ancestor, or a species that would in time evolve and diverge into three different species. While which species is our last common ancestor isn't known for sure, we've found an extensive list of fossils that link us to the past. The Orrorin tugenensis is an early species of Homininae (that is a sub-family of hominidae that includes gorillas, humans and chimps) that was discovered in 2000, and has been dated to have lived roughly 6 million years ago.

Now, as time passes and Orrorin tugenensis faces different environmental pressures and genetic mutations, the species changes. Think of it as a family tree. You start at the base, in this case the Orrorin tugenensis, and as time passes the tree grows and branches out. Some branches don't work, or don't reproduce, so they end. While other branches thrive and reproduce, so they continue to grow. Well one branch of the tree grows and becomes chimps, another branch grows and becomes apes, while yet another branch grows and becomes humans. Now, it might be hard to imagine that a single species evolves into three different species, but when you consider that not only did all of this happen over the course of thousands of years, but also countless species existed between point A and point B, most of which went extinct, then you'll see that this change was VERY VERY gradual.

So eventually, and i'm making a huge jump here, but we end up with Homo Erectus. Now take a look at this image:



Do you see how Homo Erectus diverges? Homo Antecessor and Homo Heidel not only evolve from homo Heidel, but they also lived alongside them! But do you see how eventually Erectus and Antecessor stop? That means means those species went extict, in other words those branches ended there. Yet Homo Heidel continued to evolve, or change over the course of many years. Eventually you see that branch splits yet again into Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis, But do you see how those branches grow into Homo Sapiens?

Well it's theorized that Homo Sapiens were smarter then the other Homo Species that they lived alongside, and competed for resources. Over many thousands of years, Homo Sapiens either interbred with the other species of Homo or out-competed them for resources, so you are left with only Homo Sapiens, or us!

So next time you think, well if we share a common ancestor with chimps, how come we don't see other more human like species running around? Well the thing is, we used to live alongside other human species, but as it happened we kind of either bred them out or competed for resources. Remember biology class, if your teacher ever gave you a punnet square?

Well let's use flowers as an example. Let's say we have 50 yellow flowers and 50 blue flowers. Now, let's say that the genes to produce either blue or yellow are co-dominate. So Yellow and Blue flowers give you green flowers. Well, it turns out the Blue flowers are actually better at absorbing nutreiunts from the ground, so as all the flowers compete for food, the blue flowers thrive while the yellow flowers begin to dwindle. Eventually, you'll have a some yellow flowers, a few green flowers, and a lot of blue flowers. Well the Blue, Yellow and green flowers continue to compete and interbred. Eventually, the yellow flowers can't keep up, so you are only left with green and blue flowers. Well as the green flowers and blue flowers reproduce, the genes for the blue flowers are added to the gene pool at a faster rate then the genes from the green flower, simply because there are more blue flowers. Eventually, the green flowers are breed out of the population.

I completely butchered how recessive, dominant, and co-dominant genes actually work, but the principle remains true. Homo Sapiens out competed or bred out the other species of humans that were walking around during that time, and even if their offspring shared and equal amount of genes from both species, the fact that you stopped adding Neanderthal genes and kept flooding the gene pool with Homo Sapien Genes effectively meant you 'purified' the gene pool for lack of a better term.

When you look at all the evidence backing evolution, continuing to believe in creationism seems a tad silly.

Brand said
Is that a book, or was it a user wirtten story? That's pretty awesome.

It's a short story in a book collection called The Gods Laughed by Poul Anderson

this is not a furry friendly zone.

xAsunaWolfx said Interesting enough, but a question is never pointless, although you may or may not answer - yes, even the ones with grammatical errors.

A question is never pointless, no.

xAsunaWolfx said It sort of how we, as either scientist or non-scientist, learn and experience.

Right! Which means that in order to broaden the purview of our knowledge, we cannot allow things like offense to be used as legitimate reasons to silence people who dislike a scientific thread, right? Right???

xAsunaWolfx said Because it can be offensive.

Fuck.

In all seriousness though: It doesn't matter if you are offended. Your being offended doesn't give you or anyone else the right to censor something. Being offended is perfectly fine, it's legal, it's allowed... It's just a horrible reason to say that something cannot be taught or laughed at. Like evolution. In a science class room. Because it's a science. Used everywhere.

xAsunaWolfx said You don't seem them promoting one certain religion ( Don't mix this up with them giving the history of it, think of it as a church sermon way. However, religion has influenced that past heavily with ancient empires, etc, etc.).

They are absolutely promoting a Judeo-Christian, monotheistic creator, right down to including events from the bible as core parts of the theory! I've read Intelligent Design, it's terrible as a scientific theory!

xAsunaWolfx said It's almost respectful to give both equal grounds if it needs to be talked about. Or don't talk about it at all.

From now on, all history classes will teach the Nazi perspective of World War 2, and how the Jews are subhuman scum to be wiped from the Earth.

From now on, all English literature classes will also contain a French of Spanish quotient in order for students to pass.

From now on, all church sermons will include a one hour seminar about evolution and atheism.

Do you see how insane this line of logic is? It's not respectful: It's delusional. I'm sorry but it is. Creationism, Intelligent Design--these things are not scientific theories, they do not belong in a science classroom. Period. End of discussion. Really.

xAsunaWolfx said I bet schools do not want to deal with mobs of angry parents/ students.

That just makes the education system run by incompetent cowards. Which isn't new, really.

xAsunaWolfx said I myself am in school, and history is... often on the back burner by many students. It isn't worth changing what is already there :/.

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," --George Santayana.

xAsunaWolfx said ~~~anywho,I read something today. It went sort of like this " In spite of evidence, evolution has been rejected by members of religious groups who prefer creationism. This attempts to explain some of the features of plants and animal life through an interpretation of the bible. In the scientific field, however, there is little doubt that the general outline of Darwin's theory of evolution is correct...a recently proposed modification of evolution theory suggests that from time to time, evolution may proceed rapidly. These bursts of activity are followed by long periods of no change. This modification is called punctuated equilibrium, which goes a long way toward explaining what has been called incompleteness of fossil record, that is, the scarcity of the fossils,"No matter where you look, there is uncertainty somewhere, a "scarcity of information".

[Citation needed]

Though, to address this: No, we have plenty of fossils, especially of our own ancestry. Yes, it's true, some parts of history had explosions of activity while others did not, it likely had a lot to do with the environment during those periods of time.

And religious groups tend to reject evolution because it conflicts with how they believe the world to be. They use faith in place of evidence. There's nothing wrong with that, that's a personal choice that they, as adults, are allowed to make... But a child should be taught science in a science classroom. Evolution is entirely relevant to science, especially when explaining biodiversity and biology.

If a parent doesn't want their child learning evolution, they have the choice of sending them to a private facility, or home schooling them, or any other number of things than attempting to censor science because they're offended by it and it hurt their precious feelings... Look science made modern medicine, and the Internet, and radio, and airplanes, and pretty much everything we use in our day to day lives, is some byproduct of science... So I guess you could call it an irony that the people who condemn science are the same people who pop anti-depressants while driving an automatic gear-shift SUV, all the while tuning the radio to listen to their favourite christian rock band which was recorded using sound capture hardware developed in a laboratory somewhere.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

xAsunaWolfx said Of course, most do not feel uncertain with their own belief.

Of course. Because nobody wants to be wrong about this sort of thing. It's terrifying to accept that you can never possible know for certain, absolutely. Not for now, anyway.

I simply take the side of evidence because, well, evidence leads to prosperous conclusions, generally...

xAsunaWolfx said All this really shows me is that I guess when you die, you'll find out whether you've been living a truth or a lie.

What? Living a truth or a lie? My life is not a lie. I live it just fine thank you. What happens after I die is the question, not my life.

xAsunaWolfx said I'm also curious about the future of the numbers of creationist/ ones of evolution. Words out that Democrats number of evolutionist are increasing, and republicans are decreasing. I say there's going to eventually be a /huge split/ in the USA nation since beliefs influence well.... other beliefs- a bigger split than has what already been presented if people do not resort back to the foundations, the so called "original political/law times." I almost wonder if it would be topics like this that will eventually destroy the stability of the government.

You think the US Government is stable as is when they nearly rammed the economy into the ground playing chicken over Obamacare? You really think the US Government is stable when the President can order people arrested without a warrant, and break every single constitutional right of its citizens on a whim? You think the US Government is stable when there's non-stop doom prophecies coming from every sector of society?

Uhh... Hate to break it to you, but the US Government is fucked. It has been for several years now. It's barely hobbling along, like some... Horrifyingly obese... Thing... Just... Rolling down a hill and hoping it doesn't hit something and bruise itself again. It might recover. It might not. As it stands though? Religion won't be the death knell of the US Government, but it sure isn't helping things with these divides over really dumb shit.

Look people are we going to be putting our trust in some thousand year old books that have no scientific evidence what so ever, and has been on countless occasions be proved to be anything but a historically accurate book, or put our faith the brightest and sharpest minds of our day and age?

And btw most Governments of the world are fucked but yes Murica has a special fucked up quality about it.

Vortex said
Look people are we going to be putting our trust in some thousand year old books that have no scientific evidence what so ever, and has been on countless occasions be proved to be anything but a historically accurate book, or put our faith the brightest and sharpest minds of our day and age?And btw most Governments of the world are fucked but yes Murica has a special fucked up quality about it.

For someone that seemingly prides themselves on being 'progressive' and 'enlightened', that statement was rather ignorant.

Ah, about evolutionism. There is this book called "The Emperor's New Mind". Alas, i'm am too undereducated to fully understand it, but the subject it regards one of the most interesting features of a human being - the mind. As far i now, it is somewhat a stub, why our mind is so diffrent from that of other creatures, so this might bring rise to more discussion on the subject of evolutionism.

ASTA said
For someone that seemingly prides themselves on being 'progressive' and 'enlightened', that statement was rather ignorant.

Would God approve of your avatar? lol.