Rayman Pirate-Community

Tobbe wrote:It was a lame joke anyway...

It wouldn't have been that bad if I didn't have to explain it

Tobbe wrote:Any creationists here? Shawn?

Sarah Palin is a Creationist. It would have been awesome if she became Vice President, she would've said something hilarious every day!

spiraldoor wrote:

Tobbe wrote:It was a lame joke anyway...

It wouldn't have been that bad if I didn't have to explain it

I understood it, and I didn't find it funny.

spiraldoor wrote:

Tobbe wrote:Any creationists here? Shawn?

Sarah Palin is a Creationist. It would have been awesome if she became Vice President, she would've said something hilarious every day!

Indeed, but we're better off with Obama and Biden than Grandpa and Diva. Sarah Palin may not be Vice President, but she will probably still get plenty of opportunities to make a fool out of herself.

To be honest, i don't see what's so funny about creationism. It's just a theory like Evolution after all.

Evolution does have some backbone to it, though. It's a scientific certainty that some things evolve from one thing to another, it just cannot be concretely proven to be the case on humans. You are right, both are merely theories, but evolution is more likely to have happened than a supernatural force creating everything in existence - that's unscientific bare daydream, if you want my opinion.

The only reason it's still called the Theory of Evolution is because you need to able to scientifically proove the theory under controlled circumstances to define it as law. Naturally, that's not possible with a theory like Evolution, as it takes millions of years for any species to evolve. The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically correct name, but it is misleading. I, like Richard Dawkins, like to call it The FACT of Evolution.

Okay, but i still don't see why creationism is funny, really. And besides, does species evolving have anything to do with the creation of the universe ?

Tobbe wrote:The only reason it's still called the Theory of Evolution is because you need to able to scientifically proove the theory under controlled circumstances to define it as law. Naturally, that's not possible with a theory like Evolution, as it takes millions of years for any species to evolve. The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically correct name, but it is misleading. I, like Richard Dawkins, like to call it The FACT of Evolution.

That's exactly why it's a theory. It's impossible to model the progression of the species over such a vast amount of time and proxy records aren't reliable enough to draw the theory up as fact, ergo it is only a scientific conception and nothing more.

And besides, does species evolving have anything to do with the creation of the universe

Not really, evolution doesn't clash with the belief of God being the creator, but some do believe that God created everything, so there are similarities. The 'belief' aspect is certainly as ridiculous, I think

wiki wrote:Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity

Creationism is the belief that god created everything, Joshua.

@Xenon: It may not be technically possible to prove Evolution, but we've gathered so many many pieces of the puzzle that we can safely say that we've got it right. Just because it's not possible to scientifically prove it doesn't mean that there's a good chance it's wrong. This is a common mistake many Agnostics make; they think the chances of god existing vs. chances of it not existing are 50-50, because it's not possible to prove it's existance or non-existance.

Some more survey stats for you: 20% of US citizens think American schools should teach Creationism only. This pretty much proves that at least 20% of the population of the US have got their heads stuck way up their arses.

Yeah, it is far easier to prove the hypothesis to be true, I was just pointing out that it is, as of now, still only a theory.

And with teaching creationism, do you mean teaching the THEORY of it, or do you mean they support the theory and teach it as 'soft' fact?

I have no idea. The latter I suppose. The poll question was "What do you think American schools should teach in science classes?", and the topical poll option was "Creationism ONLY".

The other options were: "Evolution only", "Evolution as commonly supported theory, creationism as alternative theory", "evolution and creationism equally" and "creationism as commonly supported theory, evolution as alternative".

About 20% answered "Evolution only", btw.


The "Evolution vs. Creationism battle" was excellently satirized by The Simpsons a few years back. In season 17, episode 21; The Monkey Suit. Imo one of the best Simpsons episodes from recent years.

I think that both should be learned to children. Christians want to destroy the theory of Evolution . The followers of evolution want to destroy creationism. But that is wrong. Let children choose what to believe. That only proves that 20% of the people in America are stupid.

Joshua822 wrote:That only proves that 20% of the people in America are stupid.

Exactly what I was saying...

I agree with you, Joshua. Let the children have the freedom to choose what to believe. A freedom which is taken from them by any parents bringing them up as Christians, Muslims, Jews or whatever. The children should have the freedom to choose, but they should also be presented with all the facts; that Evolution has plenty of evidence to back it up, and that all Creationism has got is a dusty old book full of contradictions and tells you to kill anyone gathering sticks on a Sunday.

There's one thing about evolution that I don't understand: in order for one species to evolve from another, that species would need to produce a significant mutation (significant enough to turn one species into another) in both a male and female specimen, at around the same time and the same place. And even then the species won't last unless they mate.

There is probably some scientific explanation for this, but I don't know what it is...

spiraldoor wrote:There's one thing about evolution that I don't understand: in order for one species to evolve from another, that species would need to produce a significant mutation (significant enough to turn one species into another) in both a male and female specimen, at around the same time and the same place.

No, the genetic mutation would only have to produce a dominant gene. It would "override" any other gene filling the same locus, and would have a very good chance of being passed on to future generations if it made the individual carrying that gene a better hunter/runner/flyer or whatever.

And turning one species into another isn't done by a single mutation, but by many.

But the definition of a species is that a member of a species can not produce fertile offspring with a member of another species. So when a creature finally has made the mutation which (together with any other inherited mutations) makes it different enough to be considered another species, it needs another member of its new species to reproduce with. I can't see how this would work without some serious inbreeding

Joshua822 wrote: Christians want to destroy the theory of Evolution . The followers of evolution want to destroy creationism.

That's not really right though, is it? It's an entirely scientific view of how life on Earth has progressed and developed, but evolution does absolutely nothing (and can do nothing) to point to, prove, disprove, or in any way show there is otherwise a supreme god of some kind. It can infer that there is one, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is one or that it supports any religion. The two are not contradictory.

I agree with you about the point of children being able to choose what to believe, though. Schools should teach facts as facts and theories as theories. These should not be overlapped in any way.

Anyway, moving on. I'm really poor at biology if I'm honest, and the only way I see a change in specie normalities is either through inbreeding, or through genetic modification (obviously by human beings). I'm unaware of the details of the evolution theory, so are these the only factors that are believed to have changed species over time? Or are there more? I'm interested.

Of course there are more. Random mutations are the main cause of evolution, I think.

spiraldoor wrote:But the definition of a species is that a member of a species can not produce fertile offspring with a member of another species.

That's not correct. Species with almost identical DNA can produce fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys can mate and produce offspring (mules), and they don't even have the same number of chromosomes! (in 99.9% of the cases, the mule isn't fertile, though).

Tobbe wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:But the definition of a species is that a member of a species can not produce fertile offspring with a member of another species.

That's not correct.

Damn dictionary

Joshua822 wrote:That only proves that 20% of the people in America are stupid.

That was Bush's fault.