How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[brownjenkins]

and i'm just a glutton

[Spock]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Spock, I realised that I flame-baited him, but god, is anyone getting annoyed at this repetitive force-fad they keep posting on all the threads?

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I hear you! I've been through a few myself, including the big slinging matches with Wayfarer et al. Those were exciting, and frustrating all at the same time. But I'm definitely burnt out from the subject.

We will take under advisement, the shutting down of the thread for a day or so, in order to divert tempers, spammers and ideology wars.

[Count Comfect]

Unlike my colleagues BoP and IR, I do see why abiogenesis (the study of the origins of life) is connected with evolution - or rather, with this thread, because the link is that both are opposed to creationism, which posits that neither one's theories are true.

On the flying babies post, I think I made my point about how the example given is not scientific, even drawing from the limited world in which no creatures exist but babies - because babies can swim, so the flying would be an unnecessary conclusion. And I've also stated that I feel that, in such a hypothetical world with no actors besides the baby, it WOULD be correct to assume the baby crawled and swam (perhaps over the straits of Dover, then over the polar ice cap?) to New York from London.

EDIT: Rian, I'm the leading poster in this thread . However, that's because we're in thread 2 of 2 . You have by far the most in thread 1 (291 to bj's 157), and also the most in Evidence for Evolution (95 to my 55).

[Spock]

It's!

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: Rian, I'm the leading poster in this thread . However, that's because we're in thread 2 of 2 . You have by far the most in thread 1 (291 to bj's 157), and also the most in Evidence for Evolution (95 to my 55).

Yep, and I was the top poster for the anti-theist thread - one of the earlier ones before I got bored of debating the same old stuff over and over. Rian, you click on the post-count in the 'main' page where the thread is, in this case, in the general forum. Clicking on the thread post-count will give you the top posters.

[Rían]

Several more points to ponder about whether or not the two are linked:

1. If the chemical evolutionists finally did an experiment where they went from some chemical combination to a living cell, do you guys think Talk Origins would headline it? Why or why not?

2. Why is the Miller-Urey experiment featured in school textbooks in the evolution section?

Please think about these things

Another thing to do - google on Miller-Urey and read for yourself. I'm not saying they are the same field. All I'm saying is that they're connected.

Another point - go to the National Center for Science Education website, ncseweb.org, whose mission statement includes "... defends the teaching of evolution in public schools", and read articles, where you'll find, among other things, in discussions on chemical evolution, statements like this: "The first stage in the origin of life was chemical evolution." That's only one of many examples.

[Rían]

Thanks, Count - I couldn't figure it out. I was trying out all the clicks on the thread, not on the forum.

(and rohirrim, I think the force stuff is fun, but not on the more serious threads...)

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Certainly not. My comments were meant to be taken in context with the nonsensical comments that Rohirrim was making. It was he that implied that 'evolutionists' were the ones who studied the origins of life on earth, and you and I both know that these are two separate fields of study.

ooh ahh "nonsensical" big word....* gos to dictionary*

Originally Posted by m-w.com

Main Entry: 1non·sense
Pronunciation: 'nän-"sen(t)s, 'nän(t)-s&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2) : an instance of absurd action
2 a : things of no importance or value : TRIFLES b : affected or impudent conduct <took no nonsense from subordinates>
3 : genetic information consisting of one or more codons that do not code for any amino acid and usually cause termination of the molecular chain in protein synthesis -- compare ANTISENSE, MISSENSE
- non·sen·si·cal /"nän-'sen(t)-si-k&l/ adjective
- non·sen·si·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- non·sen·si·cal·ness /-k&l-n&s/ noun

something for ya'll to think about, kudos on the fake story Rian LOL.

[Rían]

Another place that links chemical and biological evolution to some degree - NASA's Astrobiology website.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not saying they are the same field. All I'm saying is that they're connected.

I understand what you are saying, and you are right in sayng that there are clear links between some areas of the studies. However, the theory of Evolution, as in the mechanics of biological evolution, are somewhat divorced from Origin of Life theories, IMO. The two are disparate enough that a biological 'evolutionist' would have very little overlap with most of the Life theories. But granted, there is a link, because evolution/creationism had to start somewhere, but that's as far as I'd take it. And I must reiterate that my comments were made in light of rohirrims, whereby he stated that an 'evolutionist' - I'm sorry but that word bugs me - would study the Origin of Life, which is an erroneous statement.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I understand what you are saying, and you are right in sayng that there are clear links between some areas of the studies.

I'm glad to hear you say that. All I was doing here was contesting the "they have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other" line that I hear, which I think is inaccurate.

However, the theory of Evolution, as in the mechanics of biological evolution, are somewhat divorced from Origin of Life theories, IMO. The two are disparate enough that a biological 'evolutionist' would have very little overlap with most of the Life theories.

I completely agree with you.

But granted, there is a link, because evolution/creationism had to start somewhere, but that's as far as I'd take it.

That's fine with me.

And I must reiterate that my comments were made in light of rohirrims, whereby he stated that an 'evolutionist' - I'm sorry but that word bugs me - would study the Origin of Life, which is an erroneous statement.

I am the one that started the use of that term here and I think it's entirely appropriate . If you stop using invisible mode to bug ME, then I might stop using that word to bug YOU!

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, and pigs will evolve to become aerodynamic.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I understand what you are saying, and you are right in sayng that there are clear links between some areas of the studies. However, the theory of Evolution, as in the mechanics of biological evolution, are somewhat divorced from Origin of Life theories, IMO. The two are disparate enough that a biological 'evolutionist' would have very little overlap with most of the Life theories. But granted, there is a link, because evolution/creationism had to start somewhere, but that's as far as I'd take it. And I must reiterate that my comments were made in light of rohirrims, whereby he stated that an 'evolutionist' - I'm sorry but that word bugs me - would study the Origin of Life, which is an erroneous statement.

i'm sorry i'm kind of out of it but, where did i say an evolutionist (what else do you want me to call them?) has to study the origin of life? if i did say so i must quite respectfully disagree with your opinion that it was erroneus, after all what is darwin's book called? the ORIGIN of species, perhaps? they can't help themselves but study it.

[Count Comfect]

Origin of species is not origin of life. There is a difference (although I am on record as believing there is also a connection). Origin of species about how different species evolve from already alive other species, not how that life came about.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

evolutionist (what else do you want me to call them?)

a scientist

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

a scientist

a "scientist" is a term that is abused and misused I try not to use it at all because, it means so little. i could post the dictionarys definition of "evolutionist" but i think someone has already done that instead i will post this just because i have a twisted sense of humor click here and how about this (random)

[BeardofPants]

A person who studies the theory of evolution studies the mechanics of evolution. Do you not understand that? The origin of life is another study field altogether, and is not studied by the 'evolutionist'. And before you start back with your ignorant arguments, I would remind you that I do have a degree in anthropology, so I do sometimes know what I'm talking about.

What do you mean by the term scientist being used and abused?

Wiki: A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses the scientific method in research. Upon the request of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1833, William Whewell invented the English word “scientist;� before this time the only terms in use were “natural philosopher� and “man of science.�

Wiki: In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

Wiki: Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiognesis" in this article.)

All quoted from wikipedia.com

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Origin of species about how different species evolve from already alive other species, not how that life came about.

Right. Having read the book, I agree with your characterization. In the book, Darwin speculates briefly about how life may have originally arisen, but the book is about how new species arise from existing ones.

Origin of species is not origin of life. There is a difference (although I am on record as believing there is also a connection).

I"m glad you say that

[hectorberlioz]

How about the term "naturalist"?

[rohirrim TR]

what i mean is that it gets thrown around with very little meaning, and i think it has been overused. in any event if i used the word scientist to mean evolutionist it would be terribly inaccurate at the very least, for there are just as many scientist out there who are supportive of ID and creation, and have just as much evidence to support their theorys as ToE claims to. Anyway i know BJ was joking because he had a * * in there.