Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[Klok]

" I can easily go along with variations in skin/hair/feather colors, some physical structures and behaviors as a function of natural selection. But Darwinian natural selection is clearly not at work in humans today"
Why would it be? most humans have basically removed ourselves from nearly any system of which a very small random genetic difference would help us survive.

"The point behind the creation narrative isn't to explain the nature of all life on earth, but the relationship of people to their creator,"
There have been people in this thread who don't take a moderate stance like this. and have claimed 100% of the bible is truth.

"Scientists are human and invest themselves in their beliefs as much as priests and ministers. It's pretty easy to find and interpret data that supports your claims."
There is a difference between a "Claim" and an accepted scientific "theory"

as for the wiki link. I ask you how many times do you think the macro evolution topic has already came up in this thread? Wiki links are lazy and gets the general point across.

 

[sideways]

Wikipedia is used by all sorts of people looking to get a primer or refresher on a topic. Do not underestimate how well the peer review system for Wikipedia actually works. Experts and laymen alike browse it, it also is not pay walled like most credible journals, so it is a good starting point.

Anyways for those who can access them and have a desire to dig deeper look into the journals focused on ecology. Here is a list of ecology journals I found.
And a different source.

Looks like the Ecology society of america's "ecology" journal can be accessed for free.

 

[Codger_64]

Accuracy and completedness of WIKI articles varies widely, so while it might give one a cursory overview of a subject, it is often quite filled with errors and false information.

 

[liamstrain]

Wiki is more akin to a card catalog with summaries, than a reference itself. A citation to wiki is a starting point, and a convenient shortcut to get to other information sources. Not the end citation itself. It's a research aid, not a research reference.

And as sideways points out, its error correction and peer review system is impressive. Errors are often quite quickly corrected, and the whole process is transparent and tracked so we know who made what updates and corrections when, and what their source material was.

 

[Codger_64]

I recently searched the web for new information on a particular knife. I do this periodicly, and this time a WIKI article appeared. It actually quoted, or rather misquoted, me. The information was not sourced. No one asked me to verify the information presented. IMHO, having no information presented is better than presenting wrong information, at any level of depth.

 

[jac8610]

Attacking the source and not data. That's a fallacy of some sort, wish I had paid more attention in philosophy.

 

[Codger_64]

The reliability of a source is best revealed in the accuracy, or lack threeof, in the data presented.

 

[liamstrain]

You should have flagged the article. That way it can be corrected. That's the way it works.

Your experience with that knife not withstanding, you can evaluate a wiki articles usefullness by the citations listed. Go to the sources. If they are not provided, then by all means be skeptical. If they are, then you can check for yourself. It's a shortcut to the sources, not a reference itself.

 

[Codger_64]

There was but one source listed, that of a magazine article of an interview with one user, a MC outlaw, to attribute a quote of his. I don't doubt that he said what is quoted. But it is not my business to go around correcting erronious information on the internet. Whether presented on Wiki by unnamed sources or by eBay sellers.

 

[liamstrain]

But it is not my business to go around correcting erronious information on the internet.

Fair enough. Some people like the cooperative aspect of improving access, availability, and accuracy of information. Some don't. Regardless, that there is sometimes inaccurate information, does not invalidate the process or the resource. We are always learning more, correcting what we "knew" and building our collective knowledge - errors and outdated information are inevitable. Wiki just makes that process of error/correction/revision more obvious than it may be in some other sources. That's a benefit, not a flaw, in my book.

 

[Codger_64]

One has only to look a few entries down from Wiki on a google search for the knife to find this site and the link to my indepth research in it's most recently revised form. Bladeforums is the definitive source for this information to date. As you suggest, it is being constantly updated as new information comes to light and old information is found to be in error.

 

[liamstrain]

Aye - nobody is claiming wiki is the only source for anything either. It's just convenient, depending on the type of information you are looking for. Especially if new to a subject and need a starting point to find better references.

 

[spraay]

" I can easily go along with variations in skin/hair/feather colors, some physical structures and behaviors as a function of natural selection. But Darwinian natural selection is clearly not at work in humans today"
Why would it be? most humans have basically removed ourselves from nearly any system of which a very small random genetic difference would help us survive.

Why would it not be? Taking the side of the evolutionist, are humans not mere animals? What makes us so special? I would submit that we are very much part of the natural order, we just build better nests. Or is there perhaps more? Maybe, but there's no scientific proof that humans are anything special.

"The point behind the creation narrative isn't to explain the nature of all life on earth, but the relationship of people to their creator,"
There have been people in this thread who don't take a moderate stance like this. and have claimed 100% of the bible is truth.

Well, if you would rather paint me with the broad brush of everyone else in this thread, than I would appreciate it if you wouldn't quote me. It also seems that you may have jumped to a conclusion, at least with regards to my beliefs. I do believe the Bible (with a capital 'B') is 100% true. My assertion is that the creation narrative in Genesis isn't intended to document the details of the creation of life. The Bible is intended to help us mere mortals understand the design of God's relationship with humanity. In that regard, I believe it is infallible. Notice I said 'believe' not 'I can prove it'. I also believe there are a LOT of people who try to make the Bible say things it does not say (through interpretation and expansion), which may be part of the problem.

"Scientists are human and invest themselves in their beliefs as much as priests and ministers. It's pretty easy to find and interpret data that supports your claims."
There is a difference between a "Claim" and an accepted scientific "theory"

Sure, but what makes a scientific theory 'accepted'? Isn't it just the number of people who think they can validate it? I would submit that science has postulated (and widely accepted) some pretty crazy and even horrific stuff over the centuries and that what we currently believe to be good science could easily be more of the same. I would invite you to use the ever convenient facility of Wikipedia to look up the word 'Hubris', and consider it's meaning as it applies to science.

For what it's worth, as a Christian, I don't look to the Bible to explain why we have frogs or toads, or why they look different from one another. That's not what it's for. And beyond simple curiosity, I'm not certain I even care. I do get interested when I see that people are absolutely dogmatic from either side of an argument. Most hard core evolutionists are also atheists (as several have pointed out in this very thread) and seem to want to explain that there is no way that God or anything like Him could have been involved in the chain of events that led from the vacuum of empty space to me sitting here with a keyboard contemplating the very same chain of events. From a cold, practical standpoint, I don't believe science has explained it. Not by a long shot. I would be very interested in that story though.

as for the wiki link. I ask you how many times do you think the macro evolution topic has already came up in this thread? Wiki links are lazy and gets the general point across.

As for Wikipedia, it once was the playground of anyone that wanted to write anything, including fairly malicious and false things. If it's grown up a bit that's great. And the fact that a topic has been covered over and over, doesn't prove anything. It just means it's a common point of contention.

I asked if you would offer a reasoned opinion in response to my post. What it appears you've done is post quotes and links to other people's writing and work, and snip one-liners at bits of my post taken out of context. I was hoping to engage in a thoughtful discourse of ideas. I guess I can always hope.

For my part, I'm not trying to pit the Bible against science. I used to play that game (poorly) and was eventually corrected by a fellow with a Phd in theology, not biology. He pointed out that God isn't trying to explain the nature and history of life, only the nature of His relationship to it. As for evolution, I think the theories and claims and evidence of a purely evolutionary path to life as we have it today leave a great deal to be desired. And for those who believe in such things, I think the way we view this issue informs us a bit on the condition of our heart (for the lack of a better word). If you choose to look at the wonder of life and nature, and conclude that it's diversity and richness is the result of a very (very) long series of cosmic accidents, then that is your perspective. Like many things in my life, my thinking in this regard is colored by my faith, and I believe that all the things we see were created.

And for the OP, I wasn't sure how to categorize my opinions within the bounds of the survey categories, so I just went with 'other'.

SP

 

[HeavyHanded]

" I can easily go along with variations in skin/hair/feather colors, some physical structures and behaviors as a function of natural selection. But Darwinian natural selection is clearly not at work in humans today"
Why would it be? most humans have basically removed ourselves from nearly any system of which a very small random genetic difference would help us survive.

Why would it not be? Taking the side of the evolutionist, are humans not mere animals? What makes us so special? I would submit that we are very much part of the natural order, we just build better nests. Or is there perhaps more? Maybe, but there's no scientific proof that humans are anything special.

SP

For evolution per natural selection to occur requires pressure that influences birth rates, and for it to occur among a relatively isolated community. Humans are capable of adapting to our environment, and health care advances mean far more of us live to reproductive age, mate, and have offspring. It fits with most of evolutionary theory that we would stop evolving at any sort of noticeable rate, and certainly to the extent that speciation might occur. Some highly successful animals have basically remained unchanged for millions of years. Evolution doesn't occur as an inevitable process, its a response to environmental changes that are marginally survivable for a given organism in a small community (or a larger community that becomes a very small one, depending on how 'marginal' are the given organism's survivability). Humans might prove to be special in the same way as cyanobacteria and horseshoe crabs if we are very very lucky. We might well be creating the circumstances for our next evolutionary shift, or be forced to engineer them into our offspring - providing the mechanism that nature on its own is no longer capable of. Using the Monsanto model, people with favorable traits manufactured by biologists might only be allowed by contractual obligation, to mate with other such modified individuals...

 

[Shotgun]

Sure, but what makes a scientific theory 'accepted'? Isn't it just the number of people who think they can validate it? I would submit that science has postulated (and widely accepted) some pretty crazy and even horrific stuff over the centuries and that what we currently believe to be good science could easily be more of the same.
It's by the number of people who CAN validate it. Sure there's a lot that science can't explain but that doesn't mean the method is invalid. I would also speculate that the horrors you refer to(and there were) were from people practicing a mix of science and belief. Belief is a powerful emotion and can cloud a persons judgment and their research which leads them to conclusions that are in stark contrast to actual science.
Most hard core evolutionists are also atheists (as several have pointed out in this very thread) and seem to want to explain that there is no way that God or anything like Him could have been involved in the chain of events that led from the vacuum of empty space to me sitting here with a keyboard contemplating the very same chain of events. From a cold, practical standpoint, I don't believe science has explained it. Not by a long shot. I would be very interested in that story though.
I agree it hasn't been fully explained and the nature of the topic means it will probably NEVER be explained through science but that doesn't mean one should turn to myth to explain things. To me that's just turning off your brain to feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm a harcore believer in evolution but that doesn't mean I'm an atheist. Which I'm not. Agnostic here.
SP

See above. I'm not piling on as I respect your opinion and you seem to be a rational guy but these are things that drive me crazy about religious people.

I also wanted to comment on the wikipedia thing. It should be used as a quick reference to familiarize you with a subject. It should NOT be used as a reference. There is no acedemic person or entity that will accept it as one. Cody Lundin made changes to HIS OWN page and his corrections were deemed invalid by a "peer review." When he emailed them saying "I think I should know my own life" he got nowhere and the incorrect info is still displayed. Careful where you get your references fellas.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

For evolution per natural selection to occur requires pressure that influences birth rates, and for it to occur among a relatively isolated community. Humans are capable of adapting to our environment, and health care advances mean far more of us live to reproductive age, mate, and have offspring. It fits with most of evolutionary theory that we would stop evolving at any sort of noticeable rate, and certainly to the extent that speciation might occur. Some highly successful animals have basically remained unchanged for millions of years. Evolution doesn't occur as an inevitable process, its a response to environmental changes that are marginally survivable for a given organism in a small community (or a larger community that becomes a very small one, depending on how 'marginal' are the given organism's survivability). Humans might prove to be special in the same way as cyanobacteria and horseshoe crabs if we are very very lucky. We might well be creating the circumstances for our next evolutionary shift, or be forced to engineer them into our offspring - providing the mechanism that nature on its own is no longer capable of. Using the Monsanto model, people with favorable traits manufactured by biologists might only be allowed by contractual obligation, to mate with other such modified individuals...

Just had to say it's a pleasure to read something that describes the human condition so well.

 

[withanx]

For me, neither religion nor science can explain enough for me to be truly satisfied.

The bible explains a whole lot about god and how the earth and man were created, but even if I were to take this as fact, it doesn't answer the really meaningful (to me) questions like "where did god come from?" and "why is there a god?". "He has always been there" just doesn't do it for me.

I certainly believe in evolution as much as I believe in any other scientific discovery, but evolution doesn't answer the questions "where did I come from?" or "why do I exist?" for me. Yes, humans evolved from microorganisms and I may exist because my mother and father wanted to have me, but those are still too shallow of answers for what I really want to understand.

Science can do a great job at understanding how the things around us happen, and even answer some shallow whys, but there is still a lot to be desired for me. Science will never answer questions like "why does gravity exist?". it can tell us it exists, and that we wouldn't exist without it, but the "why" isn't really satisfied for me.

That being said, I don't lose much sleep over these questions. I'm very interested in science and the technology that it brings. I respect religions, but personally, I don't conform to any. I live my life in the pursuit of happiness, and contribute what I can to furthering the pursuit for those around me.

 

[SPL77]

Wierd question for a knife forum. Results probably wont mirror the general population and wont reach any level of statistical credibility. I dont get the point, but then again, I dont have to.

For me, it's easy. I flat out stopped listening to so called men of God when I figured out they lied to me a out the scope of their involvement about the systematic rape and torture of children. If you can lie about that, you can lie about anything, certainly something as trivial as a belief about where we came from, which really impacts nothing. I'll buy on evolution. It sure beats the crap they sell at my local church.

 

[Shotgun]

I would invite you to use the ever convenient facility of Wikipedia to look up the word 'Hubris', and consider it's meaning as it applies to science.
SP

I will take offense to this though as I see this more on the side of religious people. When you ask a scientist about something they show you proof and a good scientist will say "I don't know" if there is none. They may offer a theory but they will say in the end that they don't know for sure. On the contrary, you ask a religious person and they will say that their belief is "The TRUTH" and back it up with nothing. They will even go so far as to go to other countries to bring people to "The TRUTH" as if the beliefs of the people there are somehow inferior. I've even been to church services where the pastor said things about other religions in a condescending tone and got chuckles from the audience. Or the devout people who joke and laugh about other peoples beliefs as if their belief isn't as good as 'ours.' Frankly I don't give a crap what other people believe and generally stay out of it. However, when this arrogant crap springs up I argue the counter point with a hope of bringing some humility to the topic. Usually to no effect. We're all equals on this planet and NONE of our beliefs are above others. I suggest you take your own advice and see the Hubris in your own faith.

 

[Coad]

Im still hoping for someone who doesnt believe in evolution to explain our neandrathal dna. In the past we succesfully interbreeded with them. They are a seperate branch on our family tree. That proves a common ansestor. It seems to me that facts are unumportant here.