Two fights for the price of one

[Perd Hapley]

Human-caused Global Warming and Evolution.  Compare and contrast.

For the record, I'm skeptical of both theories. 


Keep the gloves on, gentlemen, and stay above the belt.  Cheers.   

[El Tejon]

I say the HMS Beagle caused Global Warming.

[Gewehr98]

Cow farts.

http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html

[Iain]

I say all those spouting off on matters of which they know little (evolution being a prime example) are causing global warming. At least things certainly tend to get pointlessly and destructively hot.

[mustanger98]

I say all those spouting off on matters of which they know little (evolution being a prime example) are causing global warming. At least things certainly tend to get pointlessly and destructively hot.

But consider that if someone screams at the top of their lungs for approximately 7.5 years, they've only generated enough sound energy to heat one cup of coffee. This leads me to believe global warming is a psychological problem... people use so much energy and heat themselves up and then think "may-annn, iuht's hhhot in here".

Evolution... hmmm... Man came from monkeys, right? I don't know. Seems to me a bunch of folks are making monkeys of themselves trying to find the missing link.

[cordex]

Cow farts.

I've long advocated putting pilot lights on both ends of livestock.

Not for any environmental reason, just because I think it would be funny to see while driving down the road at night.

[Iain]

I say all those spouting off on matters of which they know little (evolution being a prime example) are causing global warming. At least things certainly tend to get pointlessly and destructively hot.

But consider that if someone screams at the top of their lungs for approximately 7.5 years, they've only generated enough sound energy to heat one cup of coffee. This leads me to believe global warming is a psychological problem... people use so much energy and heat themselves up and then think "may-annn, iuht's hhhot in here".

I see your oft-quoted stat and raise you - my mother.

Seems I may need to rethink my theory, but perhaps friction goes a long way to explaining all the heat with such little light.

[Perd Hapley]

I say all those spouting off on matters of which they know little (evolution being a prime example) are causing global warming. At least things certainly tend to get pointlessly and destructively hot.

That's pretty much why I started this thread.  Ian and I have discussed this similarity before.  I think maybe I'll get interested in evolution threads again after one of two things happens:

1.  I read enough from the evolutionary stand-point to feel sufficiently informed.  I've read enough creationist stuff to last me for a while.

2.  The evolutionary-minded posters decide to read up on what the Creationist and Design movements actually believe.  I'm tired of answering dumb questions like, "Where did Cain's wife come from?" and "Why are you guys afraid of science?"

[roo_ster]

I say all those spouting off on matters of which they know little (evolution being a prime example) are causing global warming. At least things certainly tend to get pointlessly and destructively hot.

That's pretty much why I started this thread.  Ian and I have discussed this similarity before.  I think maybe I'll get interested in evolution threads again after one of two things happens:

1.  I read enough from the evolutionary stand-point to feel sufficiently informed.  I've read enough creationist stuff to last me for a while.

2.  The evolutionary-minded posters decide to read up on what the Creationist and Design movements actually believe.  I'm tired of answering dumb questions like, "Where did Cain's wife come from?" and "Why are you guys afraid of science?"

On point #1, I am in the opposite boat.  I have deliberately avoided most explicitly creationist tracts.  I figure faith has to enter my religion somewheres & thats another fine point of entry.  Perhaps I ought to explore the creationist viewpoint some more.  I'm in a similar boat WRT ID.  I read their exposition of the data & I'm good with that.  Once they get going into the arguments, however, I feel I am more into theology.  Theology is fine by me, but proving God via science and disproving God via science are two non-starters with me.

As to point #2, I hear ya.  I have taken the time to train myself in empiricsm, a potful of science, & metric tons of technology.  Got the sheepskins & awards on my wall at work.  When I get the equivalent of the "How can you not be for legal full-auto revolvers and consider yourself consistently pro-gun?" type questions I shake my head and wonder about the poster.  Part of meaningful debate is knowing the other side's argument, being able to state it fairly, and knowing where its weaknesses lie.   If you don't, you come off looking foolish, at best.

[Iain]

fistful - you could always play 'Evolutionist Bingo'.

Model it on this

[BakerMikeRomeo]

fistful - you could always play 'Evolutionist Bingo'.

Model it on this

When I am king, anyone who does something which shall cause me to read something in the Firefox status bar which will then cause me to giggle will be beheaded!

~GnSx

[jnojr]

Evolution and "global warming" are actually good contrasts.

Evolution is a theory.  The idea arose from observed phenomena, and has grown and changed as new phenomena are observed, or new facts are found.

"Global warming" is the end result.  We start with the answer, and then work backwards, making the "facts" fit.  Facts that are not explained by global warming are ignored or discounted.

A scientist who believes that the theory of evolution is most likely correct could change his or her mind and support creationsim, if the facts supported creationism and discounted evolution.  Supporters of global warming will not let go of their belief in global warming, no matter what facts come to light.  If a new Ice Age were to start tomorrow, they would claim that it was brought about by global warming somehow, and the fact that we're now buried in ice would be proof that they were right all along.

[Iain]

fistful - I suspect my 'Where did Cain's wife come from?' moment may have already arrived.

[Antibubba]

For the record, I'm skeptical of both theories.

I'm sure you'll be relieved to know that your skepticism doesn't bother me at all.

As for Creationism vs Evolution, it isn't that simple.  If the universe were created by a deity in the manner described in a holy book, why should a student not be required to read The Mahabharata, or be conversant in The Dream Time, or know how the trickster Coyote fooled Eagle, or whatever?  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different Creation legends.

There is also recorded evidence of microbial evolution, such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  It may not prove we are descended from apes, but it provides a model for the path that other organisms might take.  It works.  It is reproducible.  It leads to something.

Honestly, Fistful, I've never understood the need of the faithful to have a world that narrowly conforms to the confines of their religious dogma.  That is the trap that Islam has fallen into. 

Look at it this way:  Science leads me to knowledge.  Religion leads me to wisdom.  Thay are not the same.

[Perd Hapley]

Link don't work, Iain. 


Antibubba, the first part of your post seems to be jumping to conclusions.  The second part is just folderol.  I could just as easily say that evolutionary theory is a product of limiting one's world-view to a world that doesn't include divine involvement.  If you think the Christian point of view is narrow, then you just don't know it very well. 

 

[Matthew Carberry]

In the NYT this Sunday they asked 5 writers in various parts of the world to write a brief article on how global warming is changing their area.

It absolutely demonstrates that most lay folks are unable to comprehend a world which existed prior to and will exist after their lifetime.  Unable to accept that the world of their lifetime is not necessarily the "right one".

The lady from Iceland was bemoaning the receding of the glaciers on, and warming of, Iceland.  Which she says is proof of global warming since it has been happening since we've been keeping records.

Apparently she is unaware of Iceland's ice-reduced period, along with neighbor Greenland's, of just a few centuries ago.

The ignorance is frightening.

[Antibubba]

Antibubba, the first part of your post seems to be jumping to conclusions.

How so?

I could just as easily say that evolutionary theory is a product of limiting one's world-view to a world that doesn't include divine involvement.

You could say it, but evolution does not explicitly remove divine involvement--at least, it doesn't have to.  Whereas Creation Science flat out refuses to accept the idea we've changed over time; a time I should add, of only a little under 5800 years, using the Biblical model.

[Perd Hapley]

Antibubba, the first part of your post seems to be jumping to conclusions.

How so?

1.  fistful et al are skeptical of evolution ===> they're advocating that Biblical Creationism be taught in schools.
You'll note that no one has suggested that in this thread.

2.  Bacteria can adapt to new conditions ===> therefore they can turn into giraffes and pediatricians.

I could just as easily say that evolutionary theory is a product of limiting one's world-view to a world that doesn't include divine involvement.

You could say it, but evolution does not explicitly remove divine involvement--at least, it doesn't have to.  Whereas Creation Science flat out refuses to accept the idea we've changed over time; a time I should add, of only a little under 5800 years, using the Biblical model.

Because you don't understand Creation Science, you make the false claim that it rejects natural selection and is "narrowly confined to religious dogma."  I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, just ignorance of which you can easily cure yourself. 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.icr.org/topics/

I could "just as easily" make claims as I made above, based on a similar ignorance of evolutionary theory.   Not that I was wrong, necessarily.  It's arguable. 

[BrokenPaw]

Bacteria can adapt to new conditions ===> therefore they can turn into ... pediatricians.

Well duh, fistful, that's why there are always so many sick kids around pediatricians' offices. 

The same points you're making can go the other way, as you point out:

1. Evolution theory cannot account for irreducible complexity ===> therefore Creation must have occurred according to [Insert Religious Text pursuant to the beliefs of the one making the point].

So what's the point of the debate?  Creationism cannot disprove that organisms can and do evolve.  Evolution theory cannot disprove that organisms may have been created through some supernatural means.  Yet proponents of each of these viewpoints put forth any evidence that supports their position as proof that the other position is false.

Why?  It's all heat and no light...

-BP

[K Frame]

The biggest argument against human evolution?

You.

[Iain]

The biggest argument against human evolution?

You.

If by 'you' you mean Sebastien Chabal...



...then I agree. Bloody neanderthals hiding out in France, pretending not to exist.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm tired of answering dumb questions like, "Where did Cain's wife come from?" and "Why are you guys afraid of science?"

I was too harsh back there.  In the proper context those aren't dumb questions and I'm perfectly happy to answer them when they proceed from genuine curiousity.  A lot of those "gotcha" questions actually have very good answers.  I'm only annoyed when they come from blustery know-it-alls who think they've really blown apart the book of Genesis.  In the same vein, I try not to do the same with evolution.

[Matthew Carberry]

I don't mind "gotcha" questions in general.

What I have utter disdain for is when they are spouted off by folks who read them in a book/internet/song lyric and think that they have somehow "discovered" a winning argument.  Especially when they then pop up into a higher-level argument between folks who obviously are better versed on the subject than they.

Stop and think knucklehead.  If the guy arguing your side, and using all the precise arguments and polysyllables to do so, hasn't used your "winning" one liner yet, perhaps it is because it doesn't really hold up.

You learned it from someone else fool, so it stands to reason that that particular argument has already been made and answered many times before, and probably dismissed by the competant people on both sides of the question.  Shut up and learn, don't be the college kid in the "Good Will Hunting" bar scene.

[K Frame]

"Where did Cain's wife come from?"

It's always amazed me, that question.

The answer is simple.

God created her for Caine.

Not everything God ever did is documented step-by-step in the Bible. For Cain's wife, it didn't need to be. She was, at best, a supporting player, and her full back story didn't need to be known, or told.

[Perd Hapley]

1. Evolution theory cannot account for irreducible complexity ===> therefore Creation must have occurred according to [Insert Religious Text pursuant to the beliefs of the one making the point].

I agree it would be wrong to say that that argument can prove one religion's creation story over another.  That's one of those things that annoys me about these threads.  But it can show that natural selection is an insufficient mechanism for creating complex structures. 

So what's the point of the debate?  Creationism cannot disprove that organisms can and do evolve.  Evolution theory cannot disprove that organisms may have been created through some supernatural means.

  I don't think serious debaters on either side would make such claims.  The real argument seems to be over which side is best supported by the evidence.