Evolution vs. Creationism

Diaby wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: Why is it that whenever I flew my airplane at 50,000 ft that I never saw God? But then again, I never saw any UFOs either. It's quite rare for me to read something that offensive and ridiculous.

It is unfortunately quite common that people around PA cannot take a joke and get so easily offended

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: Diaby wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: Why is it that whenever I flew my airplane at 50,000 ft that I never saw God? But then again, I never saw any UFOs either. It's quite rare for me to read something that offensive and ridiculous. It is unfortunately quite common that people around PA cannot take a joke and get so easily offended

This was his second post in this thread referring to "somebody in the sky". Nobody laughed at the first one. So: he either really means it or he can't understand if something's not funny at all. 

One of the main reasons for getting offended was that I was reading an interesting debate and then came this unnecessary stupidity.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: p0mt3 wrote: ^ Dawkins himself has said that there may be evidence of a designer of some sort in things. A common thread in everything, almost like a 'signature'. Where did he say that - and in which context? There surely is not designer at work in the process of evolution, he made that abundantly clear in the book.

^ it was also the central premise of his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker"

Let me throw in an interesting anecdote here: Today I tested the signature generator at PF and one of my sigs (I think it was "most listened to artists in the last 12 months) showed Slayer and Neal Morse on neighboring slots. 

Epignosis wrote: Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said? Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!

If you re-watch that interview you'll notice that Stein does a voice-over commentaries over the parts where Dawkins clarifies his comments (Dawkins always clarifies any point he makes). I don't think any of us disagree with what Dawkins said, but I do disagree with Steins editting of the interview.

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said? Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!  If you re-watch that interview you'll notice that Stein does a voice-over commentaries over the parts where Dawkins clarifies his comments (Dawkins always clarifies any point he makes). I don't think any of us disagree with what Dawkins said, but I do disagree with Steins editting of the interview. sh*te, Dean- it was a http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke Also, I can't re-watch the interview because I didn't watch the damn thing in the first place.  So there. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke's on you. I need to quit drinking another beer.

I've had a humour bypass today.

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said? Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!  If you re-watch that interview you'll notice that Stein does a voice-over commentaries over the parts where Dawkins clarifies his comments (Dawkins always clarifies any point he makes). I don't think any of us disagree with what Dawkins said, but I do disagree with Steins editting of the interview. sh*te, Dean- it was a http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke Also, I can't re-watch the interview because I didn't watch the damn thing in the first place.  So there. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke's on you. I need to quit drinking another beer. I've had a humour bypass today. Yeah, KKK threads will do that to ya.

something else we agree on.

The word "proof" is being thrown around too much in this thread. Science doesn't prove anything, it merely (and hopefully) provides the best explanation given the evidence. Evolution could be wrong, certainly, but it's BY FAR the best explanation given the mountains of facts we have (fossils, DNA similarities, etc.). Furthermore, this isn't to say we know everything about evolution. Every day millions of scientists are testing and revising the theory and debating certain tenets. However, every biologist agrees EVOLUTION HAPPENED AND IS A FACT. (Some scientists do disagree, but a couple hundred out of millions of scientists is incredibly insignificant.)

Also, a minor beef with the poll choices, there is more to evolution than natural selection! Someone said that the theory has gone pretty much unchanged since the days of Darwin; this is most definitely false! Darwin completely screwed up heredity and it wasn't until the 1930s that Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics were synthesized. Ideas like genetic drift (another major force in evolution alongside natural selection) and the neutral theory have been added to the theory since.

(Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't think genetic drift is that big of a deal...)

Edit: Not to toot my own horn, but I consider myself well-versed in evolution, so if anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to try to answer them.




Edited by Kestrel - November 28 2009 at 18:04