Election Day

[glunn]

How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

 

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

 

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.

 

It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

[Squirrel]

How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

 

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

 

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.

 

It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

 

Some would call that faith. I wouldn't, but some would.

[biggentleben]

It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

 

Some would call that faith. I wouldn't, but some would.

 

I believe in an educated faith. I find researching my faith to be one of the most important parts of enhancing the strength of my faith. It makes me sad to know how many people would try to rip me a new one for stating that Jesus was born in a house, even though that is factually correct.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Honestly, there isn't a lot of data. The problem with hard data and evolution is two-fold:

 

1. Evolution happens quickly in the grand scheme of things. Large periods of inactivity bookending short periods of rapid change.

2. The fossil record is woefully incomplete and will always be that way.

 

But that doesn't mean that evolution isn't correct. The data we do have all points at the evidence of macro evolution, we just can't draw a linear line through most species because we simply don't have a physical record to track each genetic change along a billion year line. And we never will, if only because of the rarity of natural fossil preservation the enormous amount of time and species we're talking about here.

 

Yet at the same point you say "it's in the bag" so to speak? I never quite get reasoning such as this because you in turn bash creationists for taking things on faith. You just admited to two really big problems with the theory of evolution, yet you basically say people are just pandering for not taking it as fact... Seems kind of odd Brock.

[diehardtwinsfan]

As you point out, to pass on mutations so that they become part of a species, those mutations must happen in gamete cells. The sex cells are a great place for DNA to mess up (or do unintended good). Mutated gamete cells that harm a genome never develop into a zygote (a fertilized cell), or that zygote never develops into an adult, etc.. Meaningful mutations need to happen pre-fertilization, fertilization or during the zygote's differentiation. When the mutations happen to be good, the beast lives!

 

Evolution is NOT breeding. There is no active invisible hand guiding cells to know what mutations are advantageous.

 

New genetic material is added in the form of viruses for one (cool ****), but it's also added through the process of mutation. A change of one nucleotide will result in a whole different protein.

 

In my opinion, a lot of your problems is a misunderstanding of cellular biology. How DNA gets copied, how RNA is transcribed and than made into amino acids, how sex cells differ from other cells.

 

Pseudo, I would argue this is your exact problem. I understand how a new protein can be created by simply changing an A to G or something along those lines. That doesn't create additional genetic material, it simply alters exiting genetic material. You mentioned viruses as a way of adding material, and while this is true in that it injects its own DNA into your DNA, it doesn't do it uniformly across all cells (i.e. the reproductive cells aren't going to get genetic data from the flu virus), and it most certainly is not beneficial to you.

 

In your last statement, you alude to another major problem. DNA is copied using a chemical manufacturing process and a number of proteins (DNA polymerase being the big one,but not the only one). It has built in error checking (kind of odd that this would evolve), and is a process that requires a number of other proteins. RNA production is very similar (except with different enzymes) and is used to build the very proteins that these cells depend on. The problem lies in the fact that in order for life to work, your genetic matieral has to have a copy of these exact same proteins, while at the same time having working copies that can be made without the luxury of having a cellular factory to make them. These aren't simple proteins that can just form. They have to be manufactured in a controlled process, much like product is made in today's manufacturing environments.

 

It's really easy to make broad generalizing claims that time+chance=life, but when you look at the details, that is where the theory has problems. It has it's own "chicken or the egg" problem, and it does not adequately explain where all the extra genetic material comes from.

[diehardtwinsfan]

It's always fun to ask fundamentalists to tell you about where the Old Testament came from -- who wrote it down and where did they get it from, and when. They base much of their lives on something that they don't know much about. Of course they are just trusting their leaders, who often have a pretty lucrative gig.

 

It's always funny when I see people mentioning this, because more often than not, they don't know either.

[glunn]

It's always funny when I see people mentioning this, because more often than not, they don't know either.

 

I freely admit that I don't know who wrote the Old Testament, who wrote it and when. There are lots of theories, but after researching this rather extensively I have found nothing close to definitive in terms of who the authors were and when and how and why they wrote it. What bothers me is that people are so willing to believe folk tales written by unknown ancient authors that are inherently implausible and often inconsistent. And I give some credence to the theory that a king or two may have been behind the first five books, as part of strategy to control his subjects. This is merely a theory, but if you read the such books, as I have done several times over the years, it makes a lot of sense

 

The fact that no one really knows much about the authors and the circumstances suggests to me that "believers" should at least have some healthy skepticism. The Old Testament has some aspects that are positive and admirable and some that are not, and the fundamentalists have historically exploited the aspects that are negative, including slavery, condemnation of homosexuality and subjugation of women. Without knowing who wrote all this and why, it seems to me that they should be more open to the possibility that the Old Testament is the writings of some ancient people who may have been a lot like Joseph Smith and his elusive golden tablets, i.e charlatans.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I freely admit that I don't know who wrote the Old Testament, who wrote it and when. There are lots of theories, but after researching this rather extensively I have found nothing close to definitive in terms of who the authors were and when and how and why they wrote it. What bothers me is that people are so willing to believe folk tales written by unknown ancient authors that are inherently implausible and often inconsistent. And I give some credence to the theory that a king or two may have been behind the first five books, as part of strategy to control his subjects. This is merely a theory, but if you read the such books, as I have done several times over the years, it makes a lot of sense

 

The fact that no one really knows much about the authors and the circumstances suggests to me that "believers" should at least have some healthy skepticism. The Old Testament has some aspects that are positive and admirable and some that are not, and the fundamentalists have historically exploited the aspects that are negative, including slavery, condemnation of homosexuality and subjugation of women. Without knowing who wrote all this and why, it seems to me that they should be more open to the possibility that the Old Testament is the writings of some ancient people who may have been a lot like Joseph Smith and his elusive golden tablets, i.e charlatans.

 

At least you admit that these are theories and that no one can say for certain (which most don't, hence my comment)... The big reason why no one knows for certain is that the books in question don't have authors attached to them. Exodus-Deuteronomy can be reasonably said to be Moses or someone close to him since they cover that timeframe, though other theories certainly persist. That said, these books claim no authorship. Genesis makes no such claims either, but I think the idea that a King could have authored them to control the subjects is kind of odd. It sounds nice when one considers human nature, but just looking at what we know about them makes it hard to digest.

 

For one, the dead sea scrolls proved that a number of the books are much older than originaly thought... and second, the law was incredibly restrictive and thereby impossible to enforce. It will never entice people to start keeping it, which is why even orthodox Jews today don't keep it. Why would someone make it up, and why would they make up so many books at a time when books were sparce? The other problem is that if they were written hundres or thousands of years later, how is it that they are very accurate historically?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yet at the same point you say "it's in the bag" so to speak? I never quite get reasoning such as this because you in turn bash creationists for taking things on faith. You just admited to two really big problems with the theory of evolution, yet you basically say people are just pandering for not taking it as fact... Seems kind of odd Brock.

 

Because 99% of peoples' problems with evolution do not stem from scientific issues with the theory... They don't believe it in because they don't want to believe in it. There's the key difference.

 

What has always amused me about evolution nay-sayers is that to debunk the "theory", they have to apply their own faith-based logic to science. Instead of saying "I don't like the basic tenets of evolution because of scientific evidence A, B, or C", they apply "well, you're just using faith to believe in evolutionary theory". Wait, what? So, because I believe that science will ultimately come to the correct conclusion about evolution based on the evidence we have, the future evidence we will acquire, and the nature of scientific debate and its quest for following where the evidence leads, that it is therefore reduced to the equivalent of a book that has been translated dozens of times and was written by goat herders 3,000 years ago? Those same goat herders that thought stars were pinholes in the sky, rats were spawned from filth, and that internal disease was either a demon, magic, or both?

 

No, man. No. That's not how this works. Just because you don't have 100% of the answers for everything does not mean both theories are equally sound. One is based on reason and evidence. The other, uh... Not so much.

 

No one here is claiming that evolutionary theory is perfect... Hell, it changes pretty radically every ten years or so. But after over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and ridicule (incredible ridicule), it has yet to be toppled. All notable evidence points toward this singular genetic mechanism that allows us to change over time. Is it perfect? No, I'm sure we have some stuff wrong about it. But in time, we'll gather more evidence and 200 years from now, evolutionary debate will be viewed the same way we scoff at geocentrism.

[Shane Wahl]

Because 99% of peoples' problems with evolution do not stem from scientific issues with the theory... They don't believe it in because they don't want to believe in it. There's the key difference.

 

What has always amused me about evolution nay-sayers is that to debunk the "theory", they have to apply their own faith-based logic to science. Instead of saying "I don't like the basic tenets of evolution because of scientific evidence A, B, or C", they apply "well, you're just using faith to believe in evolutionary theory". Wait, what? So, because I believe that science will ultimately come to the correct conclusion about evolution based on the evidence we have, the future evidence we will acquire, and the nature of scientific debate and its quest for following where the evidence leads, that it is therefore reduced to the equivalent of a book that has been translated dozens of times and was written by goat herders 3,000 years ago? Those same goat herders that thought stars were pinholes in the sky, rats were spawned from filth, and that internal disease was either a demon, magic, or both?

 

No, man. No. That's not how this works. Just because you don't have 100% of the answers for everything does not mean both theories are equally sound. One is based on reason and evidence. The other, uh... Not so much.

 

No one here is claiming that evolutionary theory is perfect... Hell, it changes pretty radically every ten years or so. But after over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and ridicule (incredible ridicule), it has yet to be toppled. All notable evidence points toward this singular genetic mechanism that allows us to change over time. Is it perfect? No, I'm sure we have some stuff wrong about it. But in time, we'll gather more evidence and 200 years from now, evolutionary debate will be viewed the same way we scoff at geocentrism.

 

Boom. This was really good.

 

It amazes me that evolution nay-sayers point to flaws and then stammer around when they are asked what their competing explanation is as an alternative.

 

I have been shocked by fresh-out-of-high-school students and their attitudes toward evolution. Granted, this is Indiana youth we are talking about, but still.

 

I honestly don't take people seriously as rational thinkers if they deny evolution just because it makes them happier to believe in a creation story. Truth doesn't bend to one's happiness. Anyway, I make it clear that people can have their gods and evolution too. No reason to be . . . crazy.