Athiest bus campaign

[kleinboet]

Cory, Could it be proved when Darwin first introduced it?

 

You had people saying in theory, flight was possible and others saying they were mad - then came the Wright brothers.

 

I theory is a theory until it is proven to be without doubt - then it becomes a fact!!

[Ken Davison South Wales]

A theory is a framework of facts, from which predictions can be made. If a prediction turns out to be false, then this might falsify the whole theory, it would certainly put the theory in jeopardy. The Theory of Evolution predicts that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I have previously posted video evidence in this thread that shows common descent to be a fact, and this adds more weight to the Theory of Evolution. This evidence has also stood up in a court of law. The molecular genetic and DNA evidence supporting the Theory of DNA evidence is so overwhelming that we do not really need any more transitional fossil evidence to support the theory. It is nice when new fossil evidence shows up, because it is easier to explain fossil evidence than molecular evidence to the general public.

 

Common descent is a FACT. The Theory of Evolution is a FACT.

 

Just for 'balance' here is the website of Michael BEHE. He is a Professor of Biochemistry who does not believe in the theory of Evolution.

 

He is the pet biologist of the Discovery Institute. A think tank dedicated to having Intelligent Design (creationism by another name) taught as science in American Public Schools. Teaching Creationism in American public schools would be illegal, because it would be against the Constitutional Rights of the students.

 

Here is a dramatisation of the Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. trial where you can see Michael BEHE make a complete clot of himself (not for the first time) in the witness stand.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_09_220.html

 

The people in the clip are actors, but the words spoken are from the trial transcript (which makes very interesting reading, hilarious at times).

 

You can see the entire film that the clip was taken from here, but you need to watch it as 12 separate chapters.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch09

 

Judge John E. Jones III ROCKS! The Discovery Institute assumed that he would be a 'pushover' because he is Republican and a Bush appointee. But Judge John E. Jones III put his politics and his religion behind him and came down on the side of the Law and the Constitution.

 

As a fence sitter I do find this debate interesting

 

Cory,let me put forward another possible theory for life on earth.

 

You know this big nothing before the big bang, supposing in that nothing a grand creator existed and he sparked the big bang. And he is sat up there watching it all take shape and looks on little old earth as it develops and says "Hmmmm those monkey things are interesting let's create something which can think and behave more intelligently. So he starts messing around and takes some aspects of the monkey, straightens it up a bit, shortens the arms, enlarges the brain, tinkering around until he comes up with what we now call a human. He also did a lot of tinkering on other animals, gave our feathered friends a singing voice.

 

It is only a theory, some genes would obviously be duplicated between species one would not want to start from square one again, hence the link and it would give a possible idea for what happened prior to the big bang.

 

Just a thought from a crazy engineer

Edited January 14, 2009 by Ken Davison South Wales

[DavyR]

you can walk around with your fingers in your ear singing "la, la, la, I can't hear you' until the end of eternity

 

Hah! Got you there, Cory! There IS no end to eternity. Thus all of your previous arguments are rendered completely invalid, and KB wins!

[Steve Walker]

The problem I have with the more circuitous explanations ("It's a metaphor" / "it doesn't say how long a day is" / "it doesn't say how exactly it was done", etc) is that it seems unlikely to me that these collected creation myths of Iron Age middle eastern desert dwelling peasants were understood in that way when they came about. I don't think they were creating metaphors, I think they were trying to explain the world in a very literal sense, as best they could with the intellectual tools they had.

[kleinboet]

Cory, I do believe that other people watching this threads are thinking this debate is a "one-upmanship" contest. I do sincerely hope that that is not so. I am an old man and set in my ways and I have a THEORY that discussion on forums broaden the mind!

 

But not at the expense of anyone else!!!!!!!!!!

[corydoras]

Cory, I do believe that other people watching this threads are thinking this debate is a "one-upmanship" contest. I do sincerely hope that that is not so. I am an old man and set in my ways and I have a THEORY that discussion on forums broaden the mind!

 

But not at the expense of anyone else!!!!!!!!!!

KB, No one-upmanship intended on my part, it just annoys me to see the life's work of one of England's finest scientists dismissed as some kind of half-assed guess that's all my friend. No hard feelings at all. Edited January 15, 2009 by corydoras

[corydoras]

As a fence sitter I do find this debate interesting

 

Cory,let me put forward another possible theory for life on earth.

 

You know this big nothing before the big bang, supposing in that nothing a grand creator existed and he sparked the big bang. And he is sat up there watching it all take shape and looks on little old earth as it develops and says "Hmmmm those monkey things are interesting let's create something which can think and behave more intelligently. So he starts messing around and takes some aspects of the monkey, straightens it up a bit, shortens the arms, enlarges the brain, tinkering around until he comes up with what we now call a human. He also did a lot of tinkering on other animals, gave our feathered friends a singing voice.

 

It is only a theory, some genes would obviously be duplicated between species one would not want to start from square one again, hence the link and it would give a possible idea for what happened prior to the big bang.

 

Just a thought from a crazy engineer

That wouldn't be a theory though Ken, only a hypothesis. If I gave you funding, how would you go about testing your hypothesis? What predictions would you expect to make from it?

[Angly]

I read this somewhere a while ago, and like it so much I copied and saved it:

 

'What is often described as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory, is in fact a debate between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.'

 

Neil Butcher, Brighton

 

Says it all really.

 

What I really love is when some twirp says something like 'wow, we found the ark, now we know the bible and god is real'. Sure, I found Baker Street so we know Sherlock Holmes is real too right?

Edited January 14, 2009 by Angly

[corydoras]

I read this somewhere a while ago, and like it so much I copied and saved it:

 

'What is often described as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory, is in fact a debate between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.'

 

Neil Butcher, Brighton

 

Says it all really.

 

What I really love is when some twirp says something like 'wow, we found the ark, now we know the bible and god is real'. Sure, I found Baker Street so we know Sherlock Holmes is real too right?

That Mr Angly sums it up quite succinctly. Thanks for that. Now safely tucked away in a text file for posterity. Edited January 15, 2009 by corydoras

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Surely the creation road is just a way of decribing things not a set time table ?

 

That wouldn't be a theory though Ken, only a hypothesis. If I gave you funding, how would you go about testing your hypothesis? What predictions would you expect to make from it?

 

Call it what you like to say there is no form of superior benevolence guiding evolution is a rather presumptuous attitude and some thing you cannot prove.

 

'What is often described as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory, is in fact a debate between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.'

 

Neil Butcher, Brighton

 

That I am afraid is an arrogant statement and up their with all of the other fanatics. It is accept that it is a story for the populace written not by goat herders but the philosophers of the day. One could belittle early science in the same way and this is the type of arrogant attitude which makes a large section of society fear the intentions of atheist.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Ken Davison South Wales