• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

Melendwyr said:
Not true, unfortunately. I believe you're trying to express the idea that the two words were not formally considered to represent a single concept before it was accepted.
Click to expand...

Not true? Can you point me to a pre-evolutionary biology source using the term "Natural Selection" or a reference which states that this term was used in some other way at ANY time in the history of man? The only unfortunate fact here is that you've tried to substitute rude language for facts.

Melendwyr said:
"Gravity is the force which pulls living things towards the center of the Earth."
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware gravity was defined that way ANYWHERE. Can you point me to such a source? Hmm... I'm noticing a pattern here...
 
Melendwyr said:
"Gravity is the force which pulls living things towards the center of the Earth."

Does that specify action upon living things, or not? Is the sentence false?

It can be used elsewhere. What else can you call it when nature causes some traits to be more persistant than others?
Click to expand...


Hmm. I don't know if I agree with that definition. What's your source?

From dictionary.com we have:

grav·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grv-t)
n.
Physics.
1.The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
2.The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
3.Gravitation.
4.Grave consequence; seriousness or importance: They are still quite unaware of the gravity of their problems.
5.Solemnity or dignity of manner.
Click to expand...

Though I could speculate you intended to mean the first definition, surely you see the gravity in that mistake?



(edited to number definitions.)
 
Last edited:
Melendwyr, if someone discovers a natural process that has all the earmarks of biological natural selection, I'm sure no one will arrest him if he uses the term natural selection in reference to it. Meanwhile, what is the point of this discussion?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Melendwyr, if someone discovers a natural process that has all the earmarks of biological natural selection,
Click to expand...
It's already happened.
Meanwhile, what is the point of this discussion?
Click to expand...
The point seems to have been that, as a board, we're far too dependent on arguments from authority. Drawing conclusions from thought seems to have been deemphasized, which is a shame.

The original point was that, although biology does not currently make claims about the origin of life on this planet, the concepts of natural selection and evolution clearly leave open the possibility of abiogenesis. This is why so many creationists are opposed to the teaching of evolution (I suspect): it's not because they abhor the idea of organisms changing over time, it's because the best explanation for this fact implies that their God is unnecessary and is therefore not favored by rational thought. There was a time when a reasonable, educated person could believe that divine intervention was not only possible but necessary to explain the observed world. It's not true any longer.
 
Melendwyr said:
.. snip ..
The original point was that, although biology does not currently make claims about the origin of life on this planet, the concepts of natural selection and evolution clearly leave open the possibility of abiogenesis. This is why so many creationists are opposed to the teaching of evolution (I suspect): it's not because they abhor the idea of organisms changing over time, it's because the best explanation for this fact implies that their God is unnecessary and is therefore not favored by rational thought. ...
Click to expand...
Is not the main reason they object because they can't accept that man is just another animal, and not specially created in God's image?
 
Dragon said:
Is not the main reason they object because they can't accept that man is just another animal, and not specially created in God's image?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, there are parts of the Bible that specifically recognize humans as being animals... and "created in God's image" is subject to many different interpretations, some less literal than others.

Although the biological fact of evolution in itself says nothing about anything outside biology, the reasoning that lead to an understanding of that fact is pretty much the final nail in God's coffin. This is why creationists try to represent the teaching of evolution as being about "the origins of life" - it's the origins of life that they really want to argue about. That's what I think, at least - who knows what's actually going on inside their heads?
 
Just reverting back for this post, to a previous discussion.
Evolution. I think this is Richard Dawkins' definition, but as an urban legend despiser, I do apologise if the source is wrong, so check it! Similar defintions exist, e.g. in Wikipedia.
"A change in the allele freqency".
 
Delphi.
Recently in this thread, on this page and the previous one, discussion about evolution and whether it could apply to inorganic things too (i.e. the uiniverse from the big bang) was raised and debate over several posts focussed on this.

Result was basically that inoganic evolution was, whilst literarily widespread, technically inaccurate and confussing, favouring the creationists in discussion (who already take too many liberties and misconstructions in their policies).

I was browsing the threasds and just stuck it here for anyone who had followed this.
 
teacher said:
Delphi.
Recently in this thread, on this page and the previous one, discussion about evolution and whether it could apply to inorganic things too (i.e. the uiniverse from the big bang) was raised and debate over several posts focussed on this.

Result was basically that inoganic evolution was, whilst literarily widespread, technically inaccurate and confussing, favouring the creationists in discussion (who already take too many liberties and misconstructions in their policies).

I was browsing the threasds and just stuck it here for anyone who had followed this.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Which side would you say Dawkins' definition supports, or do you have an opinion?
 
teacher said:
Result was basically that inoganic evolution was, whilst literarily widespread, technically inaccurate and confussing, favouring the creationists in discussion (who already take too many liberties and misconstructions in their policies).
Click to expand...
Broadening the definition to encompass things outside of strict biology (which simply involves examining traits other than those traditionally biological ones) not only reinforces the concept that order in living things does not need to be imposed by a designer, but that order in the natural world does not need to be imposed by a designer.

How you figure this aids the Creationists, I'll never know.
 
Hey! There's a page on the forum site linking to the court transcripts on the ACLUPA site! When did that go up?
 
Mojo said:
Hey! There's a page on the forum site linking to the court transcripts on the ACLUPA site! When did that go up?
Click to expand...

How did you find that?

The ACLU gave me permission to download the files to this server (after a suggestion from Luke T.) so I'm in the middle of doing that and then I'll be adding a page linked from the home page and the copy of this thread in Forum Spotlight. But it isn't meant to be live yet. (No harm done and feel free to use the links they will either link to the their copy of the files or to ours as I go through the links.)
 
Mojo said:
Hey! There's a page on the forum site linking to the court transcripts on the ACLUPA site! When did that go up?
Click to expand...

I think Darat did it ages ago when I asked him to make this thread a sticky.
 
Darat said:
How did you find that?

The ACLU gave me permission to download the files to this server (after a suggestion from Luke T.) so I'm in the middle of doing that and then I'll be adding a page linked from the home page and the copy of this thread in Forum Spotlight. But it isn't meant to be live yet. (No harm done and feel free to use the links they will either link to the their copy of the files or to ours as I go through the links.)
Click to expand...

Whoops - perhaps it was the whopping great big link on the forum portal page that hinted at it's presence - oh well that will teach me! :D (I didn't know that navigation link module would auto-update itself - that's clever.)
 
Anyway consider it officially there (now)!

I'll smarten it up a bit sometime and if anyone would like to come up with a paragraph that explains what the trial was about to head up the page...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom