Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Realmfighter]

Because there are hundreds of them and you can see them from the Wikipedia page easier then me typing them all up.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because Wikipedia is a hub for those sources. If you really distrust wikipedia so badly, use it as a launching ground. It is also worth noting that Oxford currently tells it's students to use wikipedia. I certainly don't see why it's hated so badly. Any false changes are reverted within miniutes.

[Leafsnail]

It's usually seconds if it's really blatant.  People do stalk the "most recent changes" page.

[Urist is dead tome]

Oh I don't hate Wikipedia. I think it is very well ran I just think it's like going to a wedding in a Halloween costume.

[KaguroDraven]

People do that, often too. Besides in modern culture the 'traditional' wedding isn't really.....fitting anymore, atleast not for any of the reasons said traditions came into being in the first place. Especially the part about the white dress >.>.

[Shade-o]

For best results, combine the two.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What were we talking about?

[Zrk2]

I never said I agreed with them, I just pointed them out. Irreducible complexity is more than balanced out by the whole 'common genes' thing and carbon dating has been proven reasonably accurate, but there still are holes in the theory.

[Sowelu]

Irreducable complexity has been proven false in just about every case that it's brought up in, much like the whole "bananas are proof that God loves us" thing.  Immune systems, for example, were a big example of a "created" system:  There's one component that tags intruders, and another component that kills them.  How could one function without the other?  Well, they investigated it in a lot of other species that were less-complex, and discovered "Oh hey, here's one where the tagging system also attacks intruders, and here's one with no tagging system at all, just better detection".  Not hard to get from point A to point C once you've tracked down point B.

[FuzzyZergling]

All this talk about evolution has me thinking about The Panda's Thumb (Yes I am linking to the wikipedia page, I am a lazy person.) by Stephen Jay Gould.
Actually, it's more of a series of essays than a book, but I still found it both informative and entertaining.

[Zrk2]

I only brought it up to show there are (rational) arguments against evolution. See? Discussion. This is good.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The arguments against evolution aren't rational, they're ignorant. Not to mention that there are still a great deal of people who ascribe to not just intelligent design, but outright creationism, and that is a problem. The influence of pseudoscience on society wordwide is toxic to forwarding an intellectual and progressive civilization, somthing we need to make our world a better place.

[Zrk2]

Yeah, I know. But they do present the occasional not-totally-crack-pot theroies.

[Urist is dead tome]

So you think that the world will be significantly better without religion? I'm gonna be investigating this.

And I wouldn't call Creationism a crack pot theory. But that's just me.

And I would like to clarify again that Creationism and the theory of Evolution are not incompatible.

[ECrownofFire]

So you think that the world will be significantly better without religion? I'm gonna be investigating this.

And I wouldn't call Creationism a crack pot theory. But that's just me.

And I would like to clarify again that Creationism and the theory of Evolution are not incompatible.

I'd just like to point out theistic evolution here.

Also, funnily enough, Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept it more than Protestants

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So you think that the world will be significantly better without religion? I'm gonna be investigating this.

I didn't say that. I said that the world would be better without pseudoscience, and I'll say now that the world would be better without relgious extremism and theocracy. The negitive impact of moderate religion in a secular and democratic society is negligible.

And I wouldn't call Creationism a crack pot theory. But that's just me.

It's about as crack pot as theories that the majority of people accept get. There isn't any evidence for it, and it attempts to pass itself off as science.

And I would like to clarify again that Creationism and the theory of Evolution are not incompatible.

Yes they are. Creationism is defined as a pseudoscientific hypothesis claming the direct and instant creation of Earth and the life on it by a Prime Mover of some type (almost always the abrahamic god). Evolution is defined as the process through which life on Earth gradually came to where it is today. Creationism says it all was just created at once, making it incompatable.