Holy War Breaks Out at Public Univers...

Holy War Breaks Out at Public University Over Atheism, Evolution and Intelligent Design

There are 207 comments on the TheBlaze.com story from Oct 4, 2013, titled Holy War Breaks Out at Public University Over Atheism, Evolution and Intelligent Design. In it, TheBlaze.com reports that:

When atheist activists launched a battle over intelligent design at Ball State University earlier this year, they sparked a holy war in higher education that has university officials scrambling to critically examine courses and professorial credentials.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TheBlaze.com.

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#21 Oct 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That's twice you made this claim. Please provide a link to the evolution syllabus that includes abiogenesis.
I read and look up a lot of things. I don't exactly remember where I saw it at but if you want to Google it and wade through the 1000's of sights that creationists have clogged the web with, help yourself. I am not doing it again lol.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#22 Oct 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I kind of see what you are trying to say but yet I still look at evolution by natural selection which is change in a population which is a variant from what it was to what it became.
Selection itself is just the force that pushes an individual in the population to have greater or lesser fitness. It can take the form of environmental conditions as well as a host biological parameters such as physiology or biochemistry. The variation of genotypes and the resultant phenotypes means that some members of a population will be available to respond positively to the selective pressure. Others may respond negatively or perhaps not at all. Extinction of the negatively selected individuals is not necessary in the short term so much as their fitness is reduced. This isn't uncommon and actually happens in species going through episodic climatic changes like droughts. Under certain conditions a particular variant is positively selected and when the pressure is reduced there is no longer a selection benefit.

The variation you mentioned exists naturally in the population or enters the population as a result of mutation. It is on this variation that selection acts. What we can easily see in the living organisms is the so called microevolution. What we see in the fossil record is macroevolution.

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#23 Oct 8, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
The variation you mentioned exists naturally in the population or enters the population as a result of mutation. It is on this variation that selection acts. What we can easily see in the living organisms is the so called microevolution. What we see in the fossil record is macroevolution.
Which goes back to what I first said "Most would agree that (natural or artificial) selection produces variations in living things."

Natural would include mutations in genes. It is not a planned or purposely made mutation, it is a natural mutation. Which as you say natural selection acts upon. Thus from that we have variations and speciation.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#24 Oct 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Which goes back to what I first said "Most would agree that (natural or artificial) selection produces variations in living things."
Natural would include mutations in genes. It is not a planned or purposely made mutation, it is a natural mutation. Which as you say natural selection acts upon. Thus from that we have variations and speciation.
No. The variation has to exist prior to selection. Mutations are not natural selection. Natural selection can act on a mutation positively if it is beneficial or negatively if it is not. If selection caused variation that would be akin to Lamarckism where acquired traits enter the genome. That isn't the case in natural selection.

Agreed speciation can result given time, mutations, variation and selection.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#25 Oct 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Which goes back to what I first said "Most would agree that (natural or artificial) selection produces variations in living things."
Natural would include mutations in genes. It is not a planned or purposely made mutation, it is a natural mutation. Which as you say natural selection acts upon. Thus from that we have variations and speciation.
A mutation can be neutral and not be acted on by natural selection. Single nucleotide changes that don't contribute to alterations in the protein coded for would be a neutral mutation.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#26 Oct 8, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No. The variation has to exist prior to selection. Mutations are not natural selection. Natural selection can act on a mutation positively if it is beneficial or negatively if it is not. If selection caused variation that would be akin to Lamarckism where acquired traits enter the genome. That isn't the case in natural selection.
Agreed speciation can result given time, mutations, variation and selection.
Yes, and to add on a bit. Mutation adds variation to a species, as does sexual mixing of cells, natural selection reduces variation in a species. And selective breeding reduces variation even more.
redneck

Glendale, OR

#27 Oct 8, 2013
If god and science didn't go together, how do you explain scientology? Checkmate Atheists

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#28 Oct 8, 2013
redneck wrote:
If god and science didn't go together, how do you explain scientology? Checkmate Atheists
Not really, that made no sense.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#29 Oct 8, 2013
redneck wrote:
If god and science didn't go together, how do you explain scientology? Checkmate Atheists
"Scientologists"?!?!

Really?

You associate Scientology, a group of half-baked, new-age pseudo-religionists, pseudo-science whackos with SCIENCE?

This is not to say that ultimately, IF there is a Supreme Being of any description in the Universe, that He/She/It is not the author of all the forces described by science.

But the story as told in Genesis and Exodus is not scientifically or historically accurate.

Sorry.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#30 Oct 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to life The ONLY thing we have empirical evidence of is that living things come from other living things. That is biogenesis. Abiogenesis is a living thing coming from a non-living thing.
Yes. So?

You have a point to make, or are you going to try to invoke magic (god) again?

Just because the details on abiogenesis haven't been worked out yet, doesn't mean they won't be.

But even if that turns out not to be the case?

It won't make your magic (god) real.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#31 Oct 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read and look up a lot of things. I don't exactly remember where I saw it at but if you want to Google it and wade through the 1000's of sights that creationists have clogged the web with, help yourself. I am not doing it again lol.
Sure, sure.... more magic (god) from you?

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#32 Oct 8, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, sure.... more magic (god) from you?
Are you even capable of having a discussion or are you just an asshat all the time?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#33 Oct 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and to add on a bit. Mutation adds variation to a species, as does sexual mixing of cells, natural selection reduces variation in a species. And selective breeding reduces variation even more.
Good points. You hit on the example I should have used in response to Replay's posts. Your mention of selective breeding or artificial selection reminded me. Replay mentioned it, but I didn't key in on it at the time.

In artificial selection of crop plants for instance, traits of interest are identified and through controlled breeding are selected for. Thus selection is pushing for variation and not creating that variation. Should have thought of that example before.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#35 Oct 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Which goes back to what I first said "Most would agree that (natural or artificial) selection produces variations in living things."
Natural would include mutations in genes. It is not a planned or purposely made mutation, it is a natural mutation. Which as you say natural selection acts upon. Thus from that we have variations and speciation.
make no mistake, Its because you're a cowardly creationist liar for your failing cult, that you cannot present any evidence for god or any evidence agains evolution.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#36 Oct 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you even capable of having a discussion or are you just an asshat all the time?
Are you religious liars capable of proving the god you choose to lie about? or are mentally all of the time?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37 Oct 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, look at research done on psilocybin also look at research done on the "god" part of the brain.
You need to educate yourself instead of being an ignorant asshat.
By the way you are getting a slaughtering in the other thread.
Science doesn't concern itself with non-scientific concepts.

How can there be a "God" part of the brain if God - by your own assertion - does not exist? It's just called "The Brain". Ya know, that thing you don't have.

By the way, no I ain't.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#38 Oct 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
To all you idiots,,,, When teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection it includes the origin of life (abiogenesis).
Wrong.
replaytime wrote:
It is not limited to natural selection right? YES or NO?
Answer - No. There are other mechanisms involved too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechan...
replaytime wrote:
If it is Yes, then shut the hellll up.
If it is No, then keep complaining right along.
Fact is when evolution is taught so is the origin of life through abiogenesis. LIKE IT OR NOT!
Wrong. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Just as the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass. Or the germ theory of disease doesn't rely on the origin of germs.

You are simply wrong, period. You refuse to accept this because you're stupid.

Not our problem.
replaytime wrote:
If evolution would have stuck to evolution it would not have been such a big deal. But to also try to teach abiogenesis to rule out God is where you met the brick wall. For many believe in evolution, but not abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis does not rule out God. God may or may not have been responsible. Evolution is not atheism. Abiogenesis is not atheism. Weather prediction is not atheism. Scientific concepts are not "atheistic" just because they don't invoke God. Science makes no theological claims either way. As for abio, evolution doesn't care if:

1 - Goddidit.

2 - Natural chemical development.

3 - Panspermia.

4 - Aliens.

5 - Something else which no-one has thought of yet.

Of course "God" could still be compatible with all or none of those last four possibilities. But there's no way to tell. Know why?

God is simply not scientific, period.

So stop complaining that science doesn't mention your favourite magical Jew wizard.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#39 Oct 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to life The ONLY thing we have empirical evidence of is that living things come from other living things. That is biogenesis. Abiogenesis is a living thing coming from a non-living thing.
And that IS what the evidence shows, which contradicts your first sentence. 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago we see the first biology on Earth. Previous to that, we don't. Ergo life from non-life is supported by the evidence.

Of course you are also neglecting to mention is that IF this God of yours is real, and God being an alleged "living thing" (ignoring the fact WE all apparently have to be DEAD to go see Him), this God of yours (I am sure you would claim) did NOT come from another living thing.

Which uh, would also contradict your first sentence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40 Oct 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you even capable of having a discussion or are you just an asshat all the time?
We leave that to you.

Oh, and Skippy the "Skeptic".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#41 Oct 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
make no mistake, Its because you're a cowardly creationist liar
Although I agree in this instance, your post still blew an irony meter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr John 631
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr replaytime 76,826
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 19 hr Dogen 4,281
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... Wed Eagle 12 - 10
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jul 18 John 32,164
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Jul 17 Eagle 12 - 6,123
More from around the web