|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2004 : 11:10:28
|
I'm not a wise man. I'm 19 years old, and have yet to experience even a portion of what life has to offer me. I am curious about the evolution V creationism debate. I will state that I am a creationist, but my question refers to the whole "hoaxes and exaggerations" side of the evolution theory. The main problem, so to speak, that I have against evolution being taught in schools deals with this topic. I am curious as to why, if a "fact" or idea or experiment has been proven to be falsified, then why is there a lot of information included in textbooks now that would be classified as "disproven" or falsified? Again, I don't know much about it and would like to find an answer to this. I know that maybe no one knows, because most of you are probably not the writers of these textbooks, but maybe someone has an answer.
Jarrid Davis
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 11:43:56 [Permalink]
|
Grettings Jarred! Welcome to II!
I am 64 and not a wise man, either, Indeed, the older I get, the less I realize that I know. Therefore, I will first reccommend you to those far wiser than I:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
There you will find the answers and explanations to most if not all of your questions. It is an excellent site maintained by volentarly (sp?) by scientists.
The hoaxes, like Piltdown Man (and boy, don't I wish I'd pulled that one off!  ), are simply that; hoaxes. A simple fraud does not prove nor disprove anything. It's merely someone's idea of either a pratical joke, or a dishonest attempt to support a falsehood.
I strongly reccommend that you visit the above site.
Again, welcome!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 12:05:45 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you for replying to my topic. I have been sitting here for quite a while and no one had said anything to me yet;) I will visit that site and see what they have to say. Also, just for clarification purposes, I by no means am using the hoaxes to disprove the Evolution Theory, but rather am curious as to why these hoaxes are still in textbooks. Is there not a law against lying to students in textbooks? Because basically, using "evidence" which has been disproven or shown to be falsified is lying to students. That is the basis of my question. I am curious as to why it is allowed? Creationism is not allowed in textbooks because it is a religious doctrine, and I understand that, and I agree with that, because the government should not be allowed to regulate religion. I am a Christian, but if the government starts to put Christianity in textbooks, who's to stop them from later on changing their minds and regulating Hinduism or Buddism or another religion into the minds of young people? So my argument is not along that lines, it is along the lines of I want to find out why they are allowing lies in the textbook. If they can put these lies, so to speak, in textbooks, who's to stop them from saying that Elton John was the first President of the United States or that Christina Aguilera was the first person on the moon? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 12:34:22 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid wrote:quote:
Also, just for clarification purposes, I by no means am using the hoaxes to disprove the Evolution Theory, but rather am curious as to why these hoaxes are still in textbooks.
I would challenge you to find any textbook which uses a fraud or a hoax as anything other than a lesson about frauds or hoaxes. For a simple example, find a current textbook which refers to Piltdown Man as a factual "missing link," and not as a hoax from which students can learn about how the hoax was discovered (among other valuable lessons).
If I were a betting man, I would wager that you've read Icons of Evolution. The talk.origins site which filthy directed you to has quite a bit to say about that book. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:16:16 [Permalink]
|
Glenco Biology 1994 P. 306-307
--Uses Circular Reasoning: Says that we date rock layers by the fossils we find in them, then on the next page says we use the fossils found in the rock layers to date the rock layers.
Heath Biology 1991 Table of Contents
--Several Sections are mentioned "Evidence For Evolution": There is no evidence for Evolution, just as there is no evidence for Creationism. It is a THEORY, no evidence or proof to back it up.
Heath Biology 1991 P. 221
--Talks about mutations being evidence of evolution. Mutations don't bring about a new species. When a woman has a child, it can be referred to as a mutation, but is generally referred to as a defect. There isn't a new species that comes out of that. Eventually they die off, although new "mutations" do replace those, but to evolve would mean that it has to be better than the previous model, so to speak. Mutations don't make a species better, but rather are a disability for that one subject. A mutation doesn't add anything new, either. Mutations are just scrambled up DNA. They take what is already there and scramble it around. Mutations are not evidence for Evolution.
I am still finding more, but I am going to go ahead and post this and reply to more later.
Jarrid
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 13:32:40 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid wrote:quote:
Glenco Biology 1994 P. 306-307
--Uses Circular Reasoning: Says that we date rock layers by the fossils we find in them, then on the next page says we use the fossils found in the rock layers to date the rock layers.
Any chance you could provide actual quotes from the book?quote:
Heath Biology 1991 Table of Contents
--Several Sections are mentioned "Evidence For Evolution": There is no evidence for Evolution, just as there is no evidence for Creationism. It is a THEORY, no evidence or proof to back it up.
This simply isn't true. A scientific theory is an explanation for observed phenomena which has withstood critical examination and testing. It is not a fancy word for "guess." Not only that, but we see evolution happening all over the place, today. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.quote:
Heath Biology 1991 P. 221
--Talks about mutations being evidence of evolution. Mutations don't bring about a new species. When a woman has a child, it can be referred to as a mutation, but is generally referred to as a defect. There isn't a new species that comes out of that. Eventually they die off, although new "mutations" do replace those, but to evolve would mean that it has to be better than the previous model, so to speak.
No, this isn't true. You clearly do not understand what "evolution" is. Evolution is defined as any change in allele frequency in a population over time. It is not defined as "change for the better." Evolution has no pre-determined direction.quote:
Mutations don't make a species better, but rather are a disability for that one subject. A mutation doesn't add anything new, either. Mutations are just scrambled up DNA. They take what is already there and scramble it around.
You also do not understand what scientists mean by "mutation," and your definition is a poor one, indeed. A mutation is a change. Most mutations are, in fact, single-point mutations, and not "scrambled up DNA."quote:
Mutations are not evidence for Evolution.
Since you don't understand what mutations are, or what evolution is, it is not surprising you've reached such a conclusion. Unfortunately, it is based upon false premises.quote:
I am still finding more, but I am going to go ahead and post this and reply to more later.
You have yet to provide an example of a single know hoax or fraud being used as fact in a textbook. All you have shown is that your understanding of what is in the textbooks is poor. Continue if you like, but I don't think it will be a productive use of your time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 14:14:30 [Permalink]
|
Ok, lets keep this simple. I'm not here to make fun of you and what you know and I expect the same from you. Do not attack my intelligence. If you want to scroll up you can see that I did state that I am not a wise man. I'm only 19. I'm just trying to find out what all this is about. You haven't really done so yet, I am just stating this before it becomes a situation where you bash me and I try and counter by bashing you.
"Not only that, but we see evolution happening all over the place, today."
How would you define evolution? There are 2 types of evolution: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, from my understanding, is the difference between a big dog and a little dog. Both of them are still dogs, though. Macro-evolution cannot be seen as easily. It would be, again from my understanding, that man evolved from apes(i know, generic line, but its the best i could come up with. no need to comment on the ape/man thing). I one hundred percent agree with Micro-Evolution. It is a real thing. It can be observed. But I disagree with Macro-evolution. It cannot be observed. It seems that quite often Micro and Macro evolutions are interchanged, when they are 2 totally different things. Micro evolution is a variation in a species, while Macro evolution is a slow change from one species to another (Apes to man, "The Missing Link", that kind of thing).
"It is not defined as "change for the better." "
If it is not a change for the better, then the new species would die off, according to Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest. For the species to survive as it evolves, it must be a change for the better.
After typing this, I decided that I don't know enough to argue with you. I had a textbook in high school biology that showed the peppered moth experiment or whatever. It has been proven to be falsified, yet in my book it said it was factual and was given as evidence to support evolution. Questions are stated on the assumption that I believe in the evolution theory, such as something like "Since the peppered moth experiment proves evolution to be true, what species do you believe human beings evolved from?" Or something of the like where if I answer what I believe to be true, then I get bad grades. If i say, "Well, I believe that God created man 6000 years ago, and that we haven't evolved from other species," then I fail the class. I just want a fair chance. It takes faith to believe in the Creational Science(as it has been called...) and it also takes faith to believe in the theory of evolution. I'm not asking that creation be taught in schools as a fact, but rather that I am not force fed something that isn't true. I'm gonna stop now, but if you really want to talk to someone and debate about creation, get ahold of Kent Hovind. His number is (850) 479-3466. You can call him Monday through Friday between 8am and 5pm CST. Its not fair for me to sit here and debate you about this because I don't know enough to make a lot of sense. Right now he is offering 250,000 dollars to anyone who can show him irrefutable proof supporting evolution. His website is www.drdino.com, so if you want to debate someone, debate him.
|
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 15:20:15 [Permalink]
|
To be fair, Jarrid, I don't believe Dave was attacking your intelligence. He was simply pointing out that your understanding of the topic in question is poor.
I'm certain you'd agree Stephen Hawking is an intelligent individual. But if he ventured into an engine repair website and demonstrated a lack of the basics of that subject, it would be just as proper to point it out to him.
Try to understand that most of here have heard just about every argument ever made against the scientific theory of evolution. What you've posted here is nothing new, and is simply a sampling of some of the more popular ones many of us have heard time and again.
We're also quite familiar with Kent Hovind's bogus offer. Read the qualifications carefully for the contest, and objectively ask yourself if it's possible at all for anyone to meet them.
Jarrid, if you're sincere about wanting to discover the truth about these issues you've brought up, I highly second the recommendation that you visit the Talk Origins Archive. You'll find discussions of these and many more objections and so-called 'disproven' aspects of evolutionary theory. There's even a section on Mr. Hovind. 
Welcome to the SFN, Jarrid. I hope you find the answers you're looking for.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 15:51:56 [Permalink]
|
Jarrid,
I won't to add some points to some of your examples:
quote:
Glenco Biology 1994 P. 306-307
--Uses Circular Reasoning: Says that we date rock layers by the fossils we find in them, then on the next page says we use the fossils found in the rock layers to date the rock layers.
If this was true then, yes this would be circular reasoning, but it is not true.
First we do date rock layers by the fossils found in them in 3 situations:
1. Upon preliminary discovery and observation to give the paleontologists a point of reference.
2. When in a particular strata there is no suitable sediments for radiometric dating.
3. Various technical aspects use fossils to help identify certain sediments (e.g. oil well drillers).
However this means there are many times where we do not simply just use the fossils to date the rocks and we rely upon radiometric dating to give a actual numerical date value with some error range. Again here multiple samples are carefully collected and different techniques are often applied to the samples.
(Since you have obviously been exposed to some creationists propaganda, I will share with you a great article on the reliability of radiometric dating:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
If you would please scroll down about half way to page 10 to the table of different dates using different techniques from some of the oldest rocks in the world in Greenland.
After a particular fossil species is found in certain sediments always with certain radiometric date ranges then we can use that species as an "index" fossil to date other sediments where radiometric dating is impossible, for quick preliminary analysis, and for technical aspects where accurate dating isn't required.
Thus there is no circularity in this technique because the dates for the fossils are not based on the sediments they are in, but instead the radiometric dates that are obtained from the sediments they are in.
quote:
There is no evidence for Evolution, just as there is no evidence for Creationism.
I think others have address your misunderstanding of science and theories, but I would like to add two short articles on the subject.
http://wilstar.net/theories.htm
and
http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
As you can see from the articles and the others' replies, theories are not guesses, but are explanations of related facts. In other words a theory without evidence would fall apart very quickly since there would be no facts for it to explain. Theories also make predictions that can be tested. These tests become the litmus test for the theory and slowly they accumulate and the theory is either rejected or becomes more and more accepted (usually with modifications).
Finally dealing with mutations. First in some cases single mutations do bring about a new species especially in plants, but must of the time this is normally not the case.
Secondly there are many documented cases in the literature of beneficial mutations improving the survivability of a lineage.
In fact the majority of all mutations are neutral with no beneficial nor negative effect. In fact the benefits or damages a mutation causes is quite evenly spread out over a bell curve with about half being neutral or beneficial and a little over half being neutral or detrimental.
Mutations are the driving force of new variation within a species. Reasons why for example humans have a whole range of hair colors, skin tones, body shapes, etc. Natural selection is the pruning shear that weeds out the detrimental mutations and increases the percentage of the beneficial ones within a population (e.g. pale skin in the northern climes and darker skin in the tropics). |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:02:07 [Permalink]
|
Hovind?
Oh dear. Oh dearie me. Ye gods and little fishes! Anybody but Hovind!
The big quack about micro and macro evolution is crap. It's picking nits over the same, freakin' thing: evolution. And furthermore, I hope rabid bats devour every peppered-stupid-moth in the world and defecates them into a volcano.
The peppered moth is not a hoax. It is simply a study, and not a recent study, siezed upon and distorted by YECs in an attempt to debunk the ToE. They have not been successful, and TO has a page on it.
Hovind -- where do I start? "Dr. Dino" is probably the most outrageous charliton ever to to pollute the ether with nonsense. He is an embarrassment even to other Young Earthers and has recieved admonishments from such as Ken Ham, et al. Again, TO has a page on him and here's another link:
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ Hovind closely examined.
Hovind claimes a PhD, but his doctorate is from a diploma mill, Patriot University, not an acredited institute. PU (chuckle), at last report, was a suburban residence in, if I'm not mistaken, Denver. His scientific credentials are non-existant.
Please don't bring up this turkey's $200,000 reward deal; like his doctorate and indeed, his ministry, it is a fraud. More info can be found at the sites given and here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ Mainly an AiG site, but with a page on Hovind.
You have much study to do, my friend, and da filth is hoping for the best of the truth.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:03:52 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you for taking the time to reply. If you will scroll up you will see that I did not accuse Dave of insulting my intelligence. I said I wanted to state that before things got to the point where its just bashing one another rather than discussing. I am a creationist, plain and simple. I've never had anyone change my mind yet, and it is not because I have a closed mind. I have a very open mind, and I think so should everyone else. I have looked at this website, and I find it disgusting so far in reference to Kent Hovind. Half of the articles about him are attacks on him, not on what he has to say. There is an article attacking his tax history, there is an article talking about arguments creationists shouldn't use which is also an attack on him, there's an article questioning his integrity....honestly I plan on reading most of the articles listed, but the ones that seem from the beginning(the intro paragraph) to be a personal attack on a person rather than an argument for evolution I will stop reading--that statement is in regards to the Hovind articles. I have read a number of other articles already as well, and plan to continue to research this. I didn't walk in here trying to start a debate, I walked in here trying to find answers and then suddenly it turned when dave replied to my email and then after that the conversation turned to trying to prove evolution rather than the original topic. The original topic is textbook lies, and there ARE lies in textbooks, sorry about all you who say there aren't. I had a textbook like that in my biology class, so I know that they are out there. My question would be posed the same if creationism were to be taught as a fact in school books: why are textbook writers and teachers allowed to lie to students? That is the root of this discussion, not whether or not evolution or creationism is the correct "doctrine." |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:07:57 [Permalink]
|
| and who is stephen hawk? lol |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:09:38 [Permalink]
|
| and also, i am willing to stay here and talk about this issue for as long as you guys want to talk about it, because i do want the information, but again i've talked to people before and it became a bashing contest rather than a discussion of whats true. this is not saying i feel like that now, just saying i hope it doesn't become that. i don't see myself unreasonable in this because once it becomes a personal attack either on me or on you neither one of us will listen to the other. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:15:10 [Permalink]
|
| oh...and what is a "diploma mill"? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:20:02 [Permalink]
|
Welcome, Jarrid. 
I'll leave you in the capable hands of the science experts here. My understanding of evolution is rudimentary comared to theirs.
My advice: chill. People rarely get personal here. The most difficult person you're likely to encounter is ME. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 16:22:42 [Permalink]
|
| haha i'll definitely keep an eye out for you then renae;) don't want to have any trouble here...jk:) |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
