Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bigsky on January 17, 2004, 01:32:28 AM
-
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm
Racism and Darwinism
The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.
In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such 'official' founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:
-
(http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/mrcoffee/omfg.jpg)
-
racism goes back further than darwin, lol.
just for chits and giggles let's take it to noah's ark.
discuss.
-
Charles Darwin invented racism, just like Al Gore invented the internet.
-
the 1st case of recorded racism was between cro-magum and the neanderthal.
-
So is there going to be a Holiday for Darwin?
One more day my trash dosen't get picked up!
-
IN!
-
The article is incorrect practicallly from the first word.
-
Who has this much time of his hands to attempt to connect Darwin and racism.
Stupid ****ing people.
-
All kinds of idiots selectively grasp little snippets of science and attempt to use to justify their position. Darwin is just one example of somebody whose work gets continually misrepresented in order to support some bogus logic.
Hooligan
-
Racism is present only when people unjustifiably believe that other races are different or even inferior.
miko
-
So if I justifiably believe in my superiority to you I am okay then...
:)
There is massively more difference among individual representatives of the same race than differences between the races themselves. Therefore no justification exists.
-
Miko, please tell me you are just 'trolling' for an argument again.
If you really believe this you are one sad, self-absorbed, and pitiful human being.
If this post causes me to be banned, its worth it.
Originally posted by miko2d
Racism is present only when people unjustifiably believe that other races are different or even inferior.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Racism is present only when people unjustifiably believe that other races are different or even inferior.
miko
Does the fact that you categorize the groups as 'other races' make you racist?
-
Originally posted by bigsky
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm
Racism and Darwinism
The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.
In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such 'official' founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:
Having a really boring winter up there in Montana are we?
-
If you scratch deeply enough, you generally find "racism" is motivated by financial gain. It has nothing to do with science or religion. In the past, religious groups have been perfectly capable of supporting racism if it lends to their agenda.
curly
-
go read jesuses tips on slave keeping in the creationist idea the ideal morality.
racism started when one race first met another its human nature.
the "Darwin was and stunninghunk" argument is tired.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Having a really boring winter up there in Montana are we?
Actualy it hasn't been that bad, just a little snow and some fog. oh ya and some 30 below 0 temps. Keeps the homeless out of trouble.
-
Originally posted by storch
Well, what I can say about darwinism (The Religion of The Leftists) is that it takes much more faith to be a darwinist than it will take to be a Christian.
What a wonderful use of evidence. Allow me to retort.
No it doesn't.
Ha, I showed you!
-
Really? bring forth 1 sample of evolution please.
Bring forth 1 sample of evidence of there being a god. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
go read jesuses tips on slave keeping in the creationist idea the ideal morality.
racism started when one race first met another its human nature.
the "Darwin was and stunninghunk" argument is tired.
I'm sure you're trying to say something intelligible but it's just not getting across.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Bring forth 1 sample of evidence of there being a god. Thank you.
Doh, the bible! God is just playing with us, he planted all those dinosaur bones in the earths crust just to confuse us and see if we are strong in our faith! I dont believe otherwise unless you show me the evidence, that there once was duck with giraffes neck.
-
Bring forth 1 sample of evidence of there being a god. Thank you.
====
Go to a mirror and look into it. There you will find your sample.
And no, you are not God, just proof that one exists.
-
Sheeple, you are all a bunch of sheeple, can't find your way to water unless you have someone telling you where to go.
Open your minds, not your eyes, the proof is right here. The bible is a good fable, with some important lessons, nothing more. There might be a god, but it isn't the one that exist in moderen religions....
By the way, Darwin was right until modern society messed things up. With modern medicine and welfare we are saving people that should have been thrown to the wolves long ago. The whole picture has changed, we are slowly killing our own race off by saving the weak and sick. It has been proven that stupid people have more kids than intelligent people, therefore the population of stupid people is growing faster than any other portion. We are sooooo screwed. If you want evidence of this go do a ridealong with either the police or ambulance. YOu will see the proof. The human race is doomed...
(stirs the pot)
-
I'm not sure if anyone has a sample to spare, even if they did I'm not up to speed on laws and regulations regarding their transport. Perhaps an example would do instead?
-
Originally posted by medicboy
Sheeple, you are all a bunch of sheeple, can't find your way to water unless you have someone telling you where to go.
Open your minds, not your eyes, the proof is right here. The bible is a good fable, with some important lessons, nothing more. There might be a god, but it isn't the one that exist in moderen religions....
By the way, Darwin was right until modern society messed things up. With modern medicine and welfare we are saving people that should have been thrown to the wolves long ago. The whole picture has changed, we are slowly killing our own race off by saving the weak and sick. It has been proven that stupid people have more kids than intelligent people, therefore the population of stupid people is growing faster than any other portion. We are sooooo screwed. If you want evidence of this go do a ridealong with either the police or ambulance. YOu will see the proof. The human race is doomed...
(stirs the pot)
Next time you're in the ambulance ... medicate yourself ... heavily. :D
-
neo-platonic philosophy is fun.
Oh and storch, just because biological organisms are not shrinky dinks and it takes more then 5min for them to change before your eyes dosnt mean evolution is sham. Maybe if you did some reading you might understand how darwin came to his conclusions, and what the scientific method is.
-
Originally posted by storch
look into your heart, the little God void is there, only he can fill it. Go ahead and distract yourselves looking far and wide over the whole of the the universe to try to disprove him all you come up with is more proof that He is. Science is rapidly proving evidence of intelligent design in all of creation, or don't you read?
as an athiest.....this makes me laugh.....the length's people will go to 'BELIEVE'.....there's a hole there....only god can fill it....my prettythang chump.....I'd rather a beautiful blonde to fill it:aok
-
Originally posted by storch
There are samples of a complete biological engines available. perfect examples of intelligent creation,
Yeah, like deformed babies or guy getting a cancer because of his genetics that pass in the family. Very intelligent design indeed.
-
Am I imagining this or is there a tendency for people on this thread who consider themselves right of centre to be religious and a tendency of people who consider themselves left of centre to be non-religious?
Ravs
-
Storch, what makes you so utterly certain there is a God?
Also, you call Darwinism 'the religion of the leftists' - wasn't Jesus the most left wing of them all?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by storch
Take the time to read the instruction manual for humanity. I know, I know manuals are soooooooo dull. But your answers are found there. If you are seeking earnestly, if not blow me off as being a weak moron with issues. justify your mistaken decisions any way you please. you can adjust your course anytime while you are still breathing. eternity is such a long time, how can anyone just flip a coin on such a monumental decision. it is truly beyond my comprehension.
When things like that pop up in my mind, i know its time to take my medication.
-
Storch,
I can understand that you are devout Christian, but don't you think that it is going a bit far (the sin of 'pride' springs to mind) to say that the Bible should be taken as a universal manual of human behavioral norms when there are other great religious texts which touch people as much as the Bible touches you?
Should not religious belief (or the lack of it) be an entirely individual decision?
Would it not be a cruel and evil God which punished people people about their beliefs if they didn't chime with what God wants them to belive?
Would it equally not be an extremely vain God which punished people because they refused to supplicate themeselves before it and praise its name?
just curious...
Ravs
-
One would even go as far to say that Storch is guilty of idoltry.
-
This storch character is a riot. So certain in things he can't prove other than using half baked examples (a hole in your soul... right) while saying that the evolutionary theory is without a doubt wrong.
Ah, irony.
-SW
-
Did you know that BIBLE is an acronym?
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
And here I was always thinking it was an anglicanization of the latin word for Book ... Biblios.
silly me.
-
You mean those foldout pages in the back are actually UFO diagrams?
-
if charls darwin helps raceism...and humans started out in africa...wouldent tat mean the africans are more evolved than the non africans...and therefore if anyone should be slaves to anyone else it should be whites to blacks not the other way around???
-
look into your heart, the little God void is there, only he can fill it. Go ahead and distract yourselves looking far and wide over the whole of the the universe to try to disprove him all you come up with is more proof that He is. Science is rapidly proving evidence of intelligent design in all of creation, or don't you read?
Storch, yet you ask for evedence of evolution and in the same breath you post this quoted above...
Thats one of the gripes i have about religious people, they want evidence of evolution and all the evidence you have to offer is :
"look into your heart"
"the bible"
"when you see your child get born you will understand"
etc etc...
Great evidence, you know what, if there was a god he certainly wouldnt be this passive as he seems to be at the moment...
And why play games? if he wanted mankind to belive in him he easily could convince everyone in a second... why does he do this? to test our faith? in that case why? why do he have to test our faith in him?
If he will resurrect all the men/women who belived in him after they died.
And he will not resurrect the equally good hearted men/women djust because they had a doubt that he existed then he aint a "good" god... in that case he plainly sucks....
Hey, i want to belive in a life after this, but to me theres NO evidence of a God anywhere... But heck im not stupid everyone must want there to be a god...
If he exists, why play games?
-
who knows? maybe everthing darwin or some other scientist "feels" is right will turn out to be the absolute only truth of the matter.... maybe the mormons are ded on... maybe it is someone else... maybe no one is completely right. Does it really matter?
To see someone believe someone elses theory and then act smug about it because they know the "truth" allways cracks me up...
The ones who believe the current "science" are allways the funniest tho. guess they gotta justify all that money mom and dad spent on their education.
lazs
-
lol i bet storch dosnt even know the history of his own religion. other then the one in the bible written by the romans that he believes to be true. lol at neo-platonic ideas and philosophy.
i hope you do realize that jesus wasnt even considered to be a god untill the emporer of rome converted to christiananity. because its not befitting for a ceaser to worship someone that isnt a god.
-
Ah allus thot Bill France was the father of race-ism.
:confused:
-
Say what you want Storch.
Not a single "sign" since Jesus... And god expect us to belive in him?
Its different times, its at the best 50/50 by the youth growing up today that belives in god.
Whys this? the teaching of evolution in Schools? lack of signs from God? corruption of the society? Mankind being able to re invent themselfs (DNA etc).
Does God really have the right to label all this people as "non-belivers", after all the kids today get tought evolution in School!!!
The fact remains... When judgement day comes if theres an God and he judges people by Bible then alot of GOOD folks wont make the cut for resurrection...
You Storch, wont see your family in the afterlife because you said that they were non belivers...
I find this to be a sick God indeed... A sadist...
-
Oh storch now your using info out of the bible. Not a very good source for historical facts. Have you ever studied the real history of christianity? or are you just hopping that a book written hundreds of years after jesus died and translated poorly into english is correct?
-
This thread is getting interesting.
Storch...you mention that there are a number of prophesies in the bible which are correct, what are they? Are you referring to the 'hidden prophesies' which a professor claims to have found by running computer programmes through the text?
Of the events you describe, I am most interested in the the geneological tracing of all human DNA to one specific female living in ethopia not more than 10,000 years ago. I can check this out with a friend of mine who was the director of museums in Kenya.
I am also interested in this statement:
"I won't have to respond because my sins have been paid for. Jesus put them on his Master Card for me. "
By this, do you mean that you can sin as much as you like, but as your sins have been 'paid for in advance' you don't need to worry about sinning?
To answer a few of your questions to frogman:
The apocrypha:
Funnily enough I am reading a book at the moment called 'Rubicon' about the death of the Republic. The Sibylline oracle is mentioned (the one about the crone who brings the scrolls to the Roman King ('pre republic so they had kings then') and in it, fortold the trojan war. But we will never really know as the scrolls were destroyed.
Whilst Christ was alive (assuming that he was born in 0 AD of which there is some doubt), the Emporor was Augustus - although I'm not sure where that takes us.
The Praetorian Guard:
I'm sure we all have at least a vague idea of whom the Praetorians were, if only by seein the movie 'Gladiator'. Certainly, Gibbons, in 'The Decline and Fall' paints them out in their later years to have been king makers and only after lining their own pockets. It was, as you know, the Praetorians who 'crowned' Claudius Emperor of Rome, amongst many others.
Jesus claiming to be the son of God:
I don't think there is a passage in the bible where he makes this claim. The closest he gets is at his trial with Pilate. However, if one is familiar with the times, prophesies of a new messiah abounded and it is not beyond the bounds of thought that Jesus acted out some of the prophesies (the inconvienent ones were forgotten) such as riding through the eye of the needle on a Camel.
There is a fairly solid body of thought that the term 'Jesus of Nazereth' was in fact an afterwriting of his true moniker 'Jesus the Nazerene' - the Nazarene's being the Roman equivalent of 'terrorists' who wished to see Judea released from the yoke of Rome.
As for the ressurection, again there is a fair chance that Christ was not actually dead when he was removed from the cross. It was more common in those days to tie people to the cross rather than to nail them to it. Also it is common thought that the Romans allowed followers to feed those being crucified for the duration of the crucifixion.
My sources for much of this is a book called 'the messianic legacy' which was written by two historians about the life of Christ by looking at as much historical evidence that they could find about the time (including the bible in many of its iterations).
I do not decry your belief, but I do think that if you are going to commit yourself heart and soul to something, you ought to be extremely sure about it, particularly when what is alleged flies in the face of common sense and our experiences.
Ravs
-
Saurdaukar: Does the fact that you categorize the groups as 'other races' make you racist?
Not really. Whether I am right or wrong that the race concept exists, I would only be a rasist if I unjustifiably believed that a group I condider "other race" is inferior to mine.
was hoping perhaps one of the leftist priests of darwinism might be able to provide a physical sample of one type of micro-organism evolving into another completely different micro-organism.
Just like astrophysics cannot provide you a sample of our Sun fizzling out, so is the evolution theory cannot came up with an evolution of a "completely different" species overnight.
Both work with processes that unfold over long periods of time.
There are samples of a complete biological engines available. perfect examples of intelligent creation
Did you know that the human eye has its nerve wiring on the front of the retina - nesessitating a blind spot - while the squid and many other species have their eyes wired up correctly.
ravells: Storch, what makes you so utterly certain there is a God?
Evolution theory, memetics and other sciences offer very good explanations as to how people evolved a propensity for blind faith. Such propensity is very real and serve(d) to increase surval in (majority of) the population.
miko
-
and make the rest roll their eyes.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Say what you want Storch.
Not a single "sign" since Jesus... And god expect us to belive in him?
Its different times, its at the best 50/50 by the youth growing up today that belives in god.
Whys this? the teaching of evolution in Schools? lack of signs from God? corruption of the society? Mankind being able to re invent themselfs (DNA etc).
Does God really have the right to label all this people as "non-belivers", after all the kids today get tought evolution in School!!!
The fact remains... When judgement day comes if theres an God and he judges people by Bible then alot of GOOD folks wont make the cut for resurrection...
You Storch, wont see your family in the afterlife because you said that they were non belivers...
I find this to be a sick God indeed... A sadist...
good saying maniac, but you know the world still looks at us as vikings/idiots :)
but so true it is ............ (whatever that is) ?
people always been afraid of dying, so they need a comfort for living. religion is in the bottom line a need for "rescueing errors people do in life" But ofcourse if people wanna belive That is ok, I have no problem with that because if people followed the 10 commands there would not be that many problems in the world.
I would say it was invented by practial reasons , but it gave us hell with religion wars and purusing individuals/people for beliving diffrent.
hehe well who lives will not see but the dead ones will.
how many god`s have the human beeings had since the day of the beginning and who was the right one ?
what abou the cro magnon people and the neanderthals (lots of people otherwise too)they had never heard about god and could not choose, did they go to hell ?
(but I guess god created the world after that right ?)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Not really. Whether I am right or wrong that the race concept exists, I would only be a rasist if I unjustifiably believed that a group I condider "other race" is inferior to mine.
miko
I believe the dictionary definition does not add the qualification "unjustifiably".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist
2 entries found for racist.
rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
-
jeez... all i did was ask about the ark...
:D
-
Whether you like it or not, it takes just as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does to believe in "intelligent design." Evolutionary theory is rife with holes, which are filled (inadequately at best) with pure supposion. The lack of transitional fossil types is just one example, as is the chronological mixing of those fossils in the sediments they're dug out of. While evolution is touted as a "theory" (which implies a complete or nearly complete explanation, backed up with experimental confirmation), it has never truly earned a stronger epithet than hypothesis. Whether the "intelligent designer" was a supernatural being, or simply a tremendously more advanced being than ourselves, the hypothosis that we were created (engineered, if you will) should be taught in the schools with the same furvor that the hypothosis of evolution is. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Whether you like it or not, it takes just as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does to believe in "intelligent design." Evolutionary theory is rife with holes, which are filled (inadequately at best) with pure supposion. The lack of transitional fossil types is just one example, as is the chronological mixing of those fossils in the sediments they're dug out of. While evolution is touted as a "theory" (which implies a complete or nearly complete explanation, backed up with experimental confirmation), it has never truly earned a stronger epithet than hypothesis. Whether the "intelligent designer" was a supernatural being, or simply a tremendously more advanced being than ourselves, the hypothosis that we were created (engineered, if you will) should be taught in the schools with the same furvor that the hypothosis of evolution is. Just my opinion, of course.
so cro magonon and neanderthals was a fake, and they went to hell because they was born before God created the world, and did not follow his words ? :D
-
Originally posted by storch
1. casting of lots for Jesus' garments foretold in Psalm 22:14
Psalm 22:14 - "The open their mouths against me like ravening and roaring lions."
Originally posted by storch
2. none of his bones were broken foretold in exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Psalm 34:20
Both Exodus and Numbers state "the breaking of its bones"... if it was "it", "it" wasn't Jesus... because Jesus is the human form of God and would therefore not be an "it".
Psalm 34:20 - "Many are the troubles of the just man, but out of them all the Lord delivers him"
Originally posted by storch
3. his side pierced foretold in Zechariah 12:10
"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a first-born."
House of David? Jesus came from Mary, technically the house of Jospeh. Or a House of Stable.
I would like you to tell me why you believe the following you are stating is correct:
Originally posted by storch
The more material is recovered from the fossil record the more the THEORY is disproven. Psuedo science at best.
Lets also remember something: The Bible has been translated some thousand times from a dead language. Lots of it has been re-edited time and again (hence the versions and editions). Given the lack of knowledge of a dead language, it'd be pretty easy to translate it however is needed.
-SW
-
Not faked, Airguard, but rather simply missenterpreted (perhaps by blind belief that evolutionary theory must be true in total).
The supposed hominids' (creatures in-between ape and human that evolution supporters believe used to exist) bones and skull records used by scientists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though those who support evolutionary theory present them as if they were. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids (put forth as supposed “transitional” species) are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. The final three supposed hominids originally put forth as evidence of transitional evidence are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between. Of these last three, we have the following:
- HOMO ERECTUS: #10 was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's. One Homo Erectus find, called Peking Man, was based on but one tooth. "Davidson Black...became convinced that it (the one tooth) was a human tooth...He then confidently announced a new genus of man."
- NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.
- CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.
Interestingly, when new evidence is found that debunks some cherished "fact" of evolutionary theory, you never hear about it in the popular press, and it receives little more than a footnote in the supposedly objective scientific jounals. You never hear of the original discoverer publishing a retraction, as it were. And they don't bother to revise the text books, either.
Answer me this simple question: Why do you (whoever you are) believe in the theory of evolution? Have you seen it first hand? Have you witnessed the first instance of a new species, and seen its completely new feature (i.e. wings on a cow, or a snake with eyes on its tail) passed on to its progeny? Have you even examined first hand the fossil remains, as well as all the information on how and where they were found? Finally, have you actually looked at what the alternate explanations for such discoveries might be, or have you simply taken the intellectually lazy approached and taken someone else’s word for it? Face it. You have accepted without question the teachings of ancient and not so ancient texts, written by the high priests and priestesses of a religion, that of evolutionism. As I said, your belief is based on faith as much as Storch’s.
Some parts of the greater grouping of scientific hypothesis known collectively as “evolution” are undeniable, such as natural selection improving the survival process of a species. This goes on today, and its examples are everywhere. However, the origins of life, and the natural evolution of simple organisms to complex through the process of beneficial mutation are not. They are instead guesses based on suppositions based on pure conjecture.
-
AKIron: I believe the dictionary definition does not add the qualification "unjustifiably"....
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Prejudice is an unjustifiable discrimination. If you believe that italians are weak and do not hire them to do work that germans can do, you are prejudiced.
If you believe that pigmys are short and do not hire them to do work in places designed for average european, you are not prejudiced - just taking accounf of the facts.
storch: Ah yes memetics, sure another icon of the leftist's religion. I could argue from the same book Miko.
You could - but you do not. You just throw around stupid labels and refuse to elaborate your assertions once they are questioned.
What does believing in evolution or memetics has to do with adherence to the state ownership of means of production and being against private property and limited government? How come I could not be an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist libertarian and a darwinian at the same time?
You are a just dumb windbag.
You believe there is Jebus out there talking to you, other people believe all kinds of even stranger stuff. So what?
miko
-
Sabre, are you saying that all known species have been created and they lived side by side for billion years, those who didnt make it are now in the sediment?
If they werent created, then how did they form?
Why does mines reveal lots of fossils, is that or isnt it an evidence of chronology, which you said that were not present?
-
I got a good answer to this question one time :
Why is there so many old fossils ?
Cause god created earth old to fool the unbeliever and test our faith.
What can you answer to this ?
-
i can only ask this...
you presume to understand god's motives?
is your name metatron? no, not the vossatron or metavoss, but the actual metatron?
oh yeah, i'm still waiting for some to explain the fish and the flood.
read up on it before you answer out of hand. read vewwy, vewwy carefully.
while on the subject, didn't racism first come about on the ark? (this was the original point raised that brought the bible into this thread.)
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Sabre, are you saying that all known species have been created and they lived side by side for billion years, those who didnt make it are now in the sediment?
No, I'm not say that. I would not presume to know the order in which different species came into existence. You misunderstand my meaning here. The existence of fossils does not indicate chronological progression, in and of itself. The point I was trying to make is that absolutely no transitional forms, either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life, have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. Trillobites are a good example. These are very simple creatures, yet hugely complex compared to single-cell organisms, which all other life (plant and animal) supposedly came from). Yet there are no fossils showing earlier evolutionary steps leading up to trillobites. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all.
Regarding chronology, proponents of evolution have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top, showing a chronological evolutionary progression from simple to complex. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years. The rock strata consists of a plethora of contradictions and reversals. Often the strata that is supposed to be old is found on top and vice versa. Often they are horizontal with one another. That's what I meant when I referred to the mixed up fossil records.
-
Yawn... didn't we do this once?
BTW Sabre... you need to read "other" books too. The Bible ain't a science text.
-
Sabre: The point I was trying to make is that absolutely no transitional forms, either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life, have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.
It seems to ba a common misconseption that the transitional species are some kind of special non-fully functional species compared to the "stable" species.
There is no such thing. Any species is a transitional form. Evolution is a change in frequency of gene alleles, so any species existing at any time is just a slice on the evolutionary branch. Gene allele frequency changes all the time - sometimes faster than others, under influence of natural factors. Any species at any time is a fully formed specie and a transitional step towards future species tham may come out of it - if it does not end up extinct.
Trillobites are a good example. These are very simple creatures, yet hugely complex compared to single-cell organisms, which all other life (plant and animal) supposedly came from). Yet there are no fossils showing earlier evolutionary steps leading up to trillobites.
Maybe because the evolutionary forms leading to trilobytes were all soft parts and did not preserve well over billions of years? Unlike micro-organisms with hard skeletons and trilobites themselves with hard exo-skeletons?
The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all.
The fossil record that we obtained is not complete and what we have is subject to classification and interpretation. Just because we name some species B instead of "A transitional step between A and C", it does not mean there was no transition between A and C.
Regarding chronology, proponents of evolution have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top, showing a chronological evolutionary progression from simple to complex. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years. The rock strata consists of a plethora of contradictions and reversals. Often the strata that is supposed to be old is found on top and vice versa. Often they are horizontal with one another.
Only few decades ago the very concept of plate tectonics and continantal drift was considered a funny nuicance. Since then we discovered that Earth crust plates do all kinds of tricks, flops, slides under each other, accumulating sedimant, raising on top, being covered with volcanic material from layers that are supposed to be below, etc. And that is just over the last few hundred million years.
When we are talking about billions of years and not completely understand processes involved, making any claims where the layers should be is at best uninformed.
miko
-
People should do/join a religion/belive in whatever makes them happy:D
-
Paul33: People should do/join a religion/belive in whatever makes them happy:D
More correct statement would be "peope should be able practice any religion that makes them happy unless it harms others."
Joining a religion is not a matter of free choice for a human. One is either religious or not. Religion is instilled in a human mind by upbringing and interaction with other people though some are more suceptible to being afflicted by it.
The science of memetics treats religions as a kind of mental software virus that uses our minds to propagate. It's a facinating science about how various beliefs evolve features that make them more spreadable or resistant to elimination.
miko
-
The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all.
Plant to Animal - Coelenterata, Blue Green Algae, Fresh water Diatoms.
Fish to Amphibian - lungfish, walking catfish
Amphibian to Reptile - Eryops
Reptile to Birds - You can't be serious? Archaeopteryx
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000810071719.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item154.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s161710.htm
Reptile to mammal - How about the monotremes? You know, mammals that lay eggs.
-
Why do people worship a god that clearly is evil? he aint no better then satan imho.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yawn... didn't we do this once?
BTW Sabre... you need to read "other" books too. The Bible ain't a science text.
Neither are most books on evolution:). Yawn, indeed. I never mentioned the Bible, btw.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
It seems to ba a common misconseption that the transitional species are some kind of special non-fully functional species compared to the "stable" species.
There is no such thing. Any species is a transitional form. Evolution is a change in frequency of gene alleles, so any species existing at any time is just a slice on the evolutionary branch. Gene allele frequency changes all the time - sometimes faster than others, under influence of natural factors. Any species at any time is a fully formed specie and a transitional step towards future species tham may come out of it - if it does not end up extinct.
So, the first flying animal was born with fully functional wings? The first amphibian had fulling formed and functional legs? Does not evolutionary theory say that such increases in complexity, the addition of completely new capabilities happened gragually? As an example, the formation of eyes over millenia, which began only as a light-sensitive spot on the skin? I'll admit it; you've got me baffelled with this one.
Maybe because the evolutionary forms leading to trilobytes were all soft parts and did not preserve well over billions of years? Unlike micro-organisms with hard skeletons and trilobites themselves with hard exo-skeletons?
Again, so the trillobites evolved in a single evolutionary leap from a completely "soft" form into one with a complete skellitol structure? How about the use of that most damning of words, "Maybe"? When you try to support a hypothesis with other hypotheses, you've built an intellectual house of cards.
The fossil record that we obtained is not complete and what we have is subject to classification and interpretation. Just because we name some species B instead of "A transitional step between A and C", it does not mean there was no transition between A and C.
This is exactly the point I was making about how things presented as facts in the past have been proven wrong as time goes by, but are never acknowedged to have been proven false. And here you admit that the data is incomplete, and subject to interpretation, i.e. not adequately proven. That's my main point regarding evolution. It doesn't deserve the classificaiton as a "theory" by your own admission. You believe it based on faith, nonetheless. You embrace it with all the fearvor of a religious zealot, because you find any other explaination goes against your view of the universe.
Only few decades ago the very concept of plate tectonics and continantal drift was considered a funny nuicance. Since then we discovered that Earth crust plates do all kinds of tricks, flops, slides under each other, accumulating sedimant, raising on top, being covered with volcanic material from layers that are supposed to be below, etc. And that is just over the last few hundred million years.
When we are talking about billions of years and not completely understand processes involved, making any claims where the layers should be is at best uninformed.
"Not completely understood..." Exactly! Just like the theory of evolution. Couldn't have said it better myself. Some fossil finds that fit the chronological patterns are touted as proof of an evolutionary progression. Those that don't are theorized away as the result of natural occurances. Yet the later are much more prevalent than the former. How can anyone say which is the correct interpretation of the evidence? Thanks again for making my point, that is, that evolution is but one possible explanation for the existance of complex life on this planet, one that requires just as much "faith" as a divine being or super-advanced beings form another world.
-
I will check out those passages Storch. I'm not religious, but I went to Catholic schools up through High School. So I do have an interest in the religious aspect of life. If for nothing else, the Christian principles are an excellent guide to get through life.
Also, do you know in which part of Revelations it mentions God handing power over to Satan to show that he's a just God and this eventually results in WWIII(Armageddon)? A friend and I were looking for it last night but gave up after a brief search.
Thanks.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sabre
So, the first flying animal was born with fully functional wings? The first amphibian had fulling formed and functional legs? Does not evolutionary theory say that such increases in complexity, the addition of completely new capabilities happened gragually? As an example, the formation of eyes over millenia, which began only as a light-sensitive spot on the skin? I'll admit it; you've got me baffelled with this one.
Basically your argument is that you don’t understand how this could have happened so it must not have happened.
Personally, I don't understand how planes fly or computers work. But many on this board do. If I came here and said planes can't possibly fly because they’re too heavy, I would be ridiculed relentlessly…and with good reason.
If you are truly interested in answers to these questions (and not just regurgitating creationist’s clichés, as someone more cynical than I might suspect) a good place to start is “ Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins. There are excellent chapters on evolution of wings and eyes.
-
Hey Storch don't bother yourself with looking for it. I was simply wondering if you knew where it was for easy reference. I can find it on my own - when I have some time I'll look for it. I was just wondering if you could point me to it because my friend (and although he claimed he knew what passage it was in, it wasn't) was talking about it and I wanted to read exactly what it said.
I'll find it on my own, thanks though.
-SW
-
Originally posted by storch
Lets discuss origins. would it be possible for me to say that we can agree that there is a point of origination or am i way off base here? Is there an answer to the question of origin?
[Carl Sagan Voice]
Approximately 15 billion years ago, a quantum event caused matter and energy to suddenly appear out of the original singularity. The E=Mc2 equivalence was maintained, and inflationary theory caused the rapid expansion of spacetime until the end of the first epoc.
At this time, 1.2 x 10-23 seconds after the big bang, the first seperation of the weak and strong nuclear forces began to appear as the average temperature lowered to 16.5 e 15 degrees K. Quantum mechanics still ruled this early universe, ....
[/Fade Carl Sagan Voice]
-
[Carl Sagan Voice]
The quantum event which caused matter and energy to suddenly appear out of the original singularity is popularly known as the Big Bang.
This event is peculiar as before it, there was no before. The Big Bang created not only the matter and energy, but the time and space into which it expands. So time itself started at the singularity and there was no time prior; as prior connotes time which did not yet exist... and no empty space.
There was not even nothing and the not nothing did not exist in the before time period which could not exist in and of itself because time itself did not exist.
Clear?
[/Fade Carl Sagan Voice]
-
god farted then bailed to another dimension, not to be seen or heard since except in drug induced states by the occasional hairless sex-ape known as "human."
shouldn't that be [stephen hawking][/stephen hawking]?
-
I can mimic Carl's voice... I need to get digital help to do Stephen's.
So it is Carl's vioce I use when discussing the finer points of cosmology, so: [Carl Sagan Voice]
In an infinite universe...which has always been infinite in its 3-d spatial volume even at the big bang...as you run this collapse back to moments after the big bang, you are still left with an infinite volume to 3-d space, but the density of matter and energy in the neighborhood of each point, becomes infinite. So, unlike the nearly point-like initial 3-d state of the closed universe with its nearly point-like initial singularity, for an infinite universe you end up with an infinite surface, which has an infinite density of energy and mass at each point.
This 'classical' description of the initial singularity breaks down when you add quantum mechanics to the picture. The minimum size becomes the Planck length of 10^-33 centimeters, and the density is no higher than 10^95 grams/cc. So, in both open and closed cosmologies, you reach a limiting density of 10^95 gm/cc everywhere. Also, various kinds of phase transitions may come into play to produce inflation once the universe reaches a size of 10^-25 cm.
[/Carl Sagan Voice]
-
Storch you are a bad christian indeed.
Dumb and bad.
-
carl sagan? Oh yeah... he was the guy who, during the first gulf war, predicted that if the sadman lit even half the oil fields on fire we would end life as we know it on this planet ... be blanketed by winter for a dozen years...etc. the doom and gloom spouting from him went on and on and on and.... until the fires wer lit and then he kinda just.... vanished.
yeah.. science is cool... lets all live our lives according to science.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
Naso never said I was either smart nor a good christian, you are an italian. er idiot.
I love you too :D
Anyway, hoping Hawking's death as you have done in your post is one of the lowest thing i've ever seen here.
You will go to hell, bad bad bad.
(psst, and a racist, too ;) )
Not a surprise from a fundamentalist, anyway.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
So, the first flying animal was born with fully functional wings?
Its an observed fact, that species charasteristics change over long perioids of time when there is selection pressure. Genes make up our physical properties and fittest properties tend to survive compared to others. Do you see something problematic with this theory, ie. are certain physical features left unchanged no matter the pressure to change them? Simply, are arms unable to transform to better and better airbrakes when there is enough time and need for them?
Forget the fossils, if there were no fossils at all, evolution theory would still be the best around to explain the biodiversity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
"The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. "
As an example, the formation of eyes over millenia, which began only as a light-sensitive spot on the skin?
Is there something special about the eyes, arent they generated by the same DNA coding that changes from human to human, to adapt its surroundings? If man was furred short time ago, why eyes could not have been just light sensitive single spots on skin, billion years ago?
This is exactly the point I was making about how things presented as facts in the past have been proven wrong as time goes by, but are never acknowedged to have been proven false.
So, evolution has been proven false, or atleast you suggest that evolution did not happen in some particular time but new species appeared some other way?
And here you admit that the data is incomplete
How could it be complete? If we would find fish with wings? No, then we would need data about transition species of fish and fish with wings, and so on.
and subject to interpretation,
As the very basic theories, like theory of gravity is open to interpretation. This is the one basic thing that makes the difference between religion and science, no taboos, no stone written facts.
i.e. not adequately proven.
This is false. Because there is nothing even remotely as consistent as evolution theory, it remains as the best explanation how we appeared on this cooled magma ball.
evolution is but one possible explanation for the existance of complex life on this planet
Point is, what explanation has most scientific data to back it up? Some things require more assumptions than others. Its pure fact that ie. flood theory requires that mathematical energy calculations are left away from it, so earth would not transform to magma ball when earths crust gets flatten in 100 year timespan. There are observed things that explain why some fossils can have reversed chronological "depth" order (id like to read more about the reversed layer order on the same fossil). There are no observed events nor theoretical events in our current knowledge of physics, that support the second runner up, flood theory.
-
Sabre: So, the first flying animal was born with fully functional wings? The first amphibian had fulling formed and functional legs?
No. By saying that every species was fully functional I mean that it was a species with all organs working and none organs flapping around and not-working because they are not evolved yet.
There was never "the first" flying animal. There were species of an animal that could stay in the air better than it's predecessor species - maybe jump further or glide. At some point a species evolved fron that one that could hop small distances and then the one that flew.
A chicken today is not a "transient" species with non-functional wings. Chicken wings are functional - they help it run and hop and fly a little bit. Just because the chicken does not fly as well as an eagle, it does not mean it is a different category of the species.
It is possible that under proper condictions an eagle-like species would evolve from a chicken.
It is also possible that an oistrich-like non-flying species would evolve from a chicken.
It is possible that both would evolve if the conditions are right.
As for the first amphibian having fully-developed legs, the seals and walkruses are amphibians and they have fully developed legs - not good by the earth standards but not a useless appandages waiting to be evolved into real legs. They are fully functional.
A seal may evolve into a fully legged creature by having it's legs/flippers change very gradually over millenia into the appendages that are less suitable for swimming and better suitable for walking or climbing.
But just because a new species can evolve from a seal, it does not mean the seal we have now is some kind of a special "transitory" half-baked species. It is superbly adapted to it's environment and living conditions - which involve a lot of swimming and a little walking. Once the ratio of swimming to walking had to change under some natural influence, the seal would gradually adapt.
Again, so the trillobites evolved in a single evolutionary leap from a completely "soft" form into one with a complete skellitol structure? How about the use of that most damning of words, "Maybe"? When you try to support a hypothesis with other hypotheses, you've built an intellectual house of cards.
We do not find completely sceletal structure. We find all kinds of skeletal structures of varying hardness and complexity. Naturally we find fewer of the softer transitory forms because they were less likely to preserve for two reasons - existing earlier by billions of years and being less preservable.
As for "maybe", you are playing with words. If you assing a different meaning to the word than I use, you get all kind of stuff that I never said. When I said "maybe" it ment I could not trace the process in detail. When rain falls, we have no idea and no guarantee which drop will fall where and in which order.
Maybe this spot on the ground got wet first and maybe that one. But we can be pretty sure that every single spot will get hit by a raindrop or two after a serious rain. Just because I used the word "maybe" here, it does not mean you can claim that the ground may stay dry after a downpoor since I have not proved it conclusively how exactly each spot will get wet.
by, but are never acknowedged to have been proven false
That's pure BS. Scientists make their careers mostly by proving previous suppositions false.
If you listen to the mass media to make your opinion about sceince, no wonder you hear no retractions and upsets of the old theories. If you read the industry journals you would see it all teh time.
It doesn't deserve the classificaiton as a "theory" by your own admission.
I would call it a working hypothesis.
You believe it based on faith, nonetheless. You embrace it with all the fearvor of a religious zealot, because you find any other explaination goes against your view of the universe.
You are just throwing labels around. Just because I post a reply in a tread once a few months - not even initiating one - you call me a religious zealot.
That's plain stupid and shows you as a religious zealot yourself - not accepting any gradations of gray and only seing it in black or white.
If I am a religious zealot for posting a few paragraphs, what would you call people who activally and intrusively profess their faith, who cimmit violence and murder against those who do not share it? Do you call them "Double-plus super-mega religious zealot"?
Some fossil finds that fit the chronological patterns are touted as proof of an evolutionary progression.
That's BS. Just because someone made a bad choice of words you do not have to take the idiocy and run with it. The fossils do not "prove" anything.
They are consistent with the theory of evolution. They are aso constistent with the hypothesis that God created the whole universe yesterday and planted all the stuff - and our memories - to make it look old.
When a hypothesis predicts an experiment, a negative outcomes proves conclusively that a hypothesis is wrong. But a positive experiment does not usually prove it is right - just that it is consistent with the result.
There is a whole science of epistemology dedicated to the subject of what is knowlege and what is knowable and how.
I do not have blind faith in evolution. I am just using it as a guide in my actions to get practical results. Plenty of people do - the selection and directed evolution process is going on on a massive scale. It yields results.
Once you find some other theory that explains everything that happens and also allows to make better predictions, we all will be happy to adipt it.
What do you really expect us to do if we admitted creationism? What would I have to do if I adopted creationism? Stop engaging in genetic manipulation and selective breeding and start praying to God to make my cow more productive or corn resistant to pests?
You really think that would work?
miko
-
lazs2: carl sagan? Oh yeah... he was the guy who, during the first gulf war, predicted that...
Iv'e read his book "Candle in the dark". I was not impressed in the least - and I did not know anything about his stupid predictions.
yeah.. science is cool... lets all live our lives according to science.
That's a nice trick. Scince is not a personal opinion. In fact the Sagan's opinions were completely faith-based irrational beliefs. So they fall under religion, not science.
As far as I know, he never produced any calculations or models of how a know given amount of oil burned would affect the climate. If he did that, his view would be a correct sceintific prediction even if proven wrong - because it would have allowed us to examine his premises and come up with a better models. In sceince a negative result is as valid as a positive one.
In religion any result is meaningless in this world, because you would only supposedely know the difference after death.
When you call a religious practice "science" and then proceed to badmouth science, it's hardly a valid argument.
miko
-
Miko, your post here has degenerated into a form that is no longer cohesive enough for me to answer in detail. I will merely re-iterate that evolutionary theory is full of holes and suppositions; a hyposhesis that happens to fit the facts, if the facts are arranged in the proper way, and the pieces that don't fit disgarded.
I would call it a working hypothesis.
Thank you! In a previous exchange on this topic, when I called evolution a hypothsis, rather than a theory, you attacked that statement, claiming it was much stronger than that, that it had passed all the scientific hurtles to earn the title of theory. I never pushed you to accept creationism, nor do I propose to stifle scientic progress. That's dumb. I merely point out that you, as with many (but not all) scientists have grown intellectually lazy in regards to looking for other possibilities. In all, I've enjoyed our exchange. While neither one of us convinced the other, I hope that the exchange will prompt those on both sides of the argument to look deeper at what they believe, and why. Thanks, and cya in the arena. and signing off.
-
miko... as i recall.... carl friggin sagan did show a computer model complete with maps about how the world was gonna end when the fires were lit.
If I had a dime for every scientific theory that has been shown to be total bull**** since I've been able to read... I would be a rich man.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Miko, your post here has degenerated into a form that is no longer cohesive enough for me to answer in detail. I will merely re-iterate that evolutionary theory is full of holes and suppositions; a hyposhesis that happens to fit the facts, if the facts are arranged in the proper way, and the pieces that don't fit disgarded.
Please provide us the theory which explains biodiversity and is not "full of holes".
Should we proceed to look in the holes of, for example, genesis stated by the bible? That is more or less the ONLY other theory there is for my understanding.
Your implications to "flood" suggests, that you are creationist and somehow i am not suprised to find a creationist who suddenly fails to answer in detail to the questions as the discussion progresses to the roots and smoke screens stop working. In fact, i presume you will soon start to hibernate and will not respond to this thread anymore, only to wake up on another thread with exactly same discussion two months later, with the same "You aint got nuthing but apparently i don't either" answers.
-
or... the reality may be even different than any theory so far.
lazs
-
lazs2: miko... as i recall.... carl friggin sagan did show a computer model complete with maps about how the world was gonna end when the fires were lit.
Did you see my recent post on Bush and black-white abilities gap?
Just because some religious nut (and I believe environmentalism to be a cult) uses numbers and claims his stuff "sceince", it is not necessarily so.
scientific theory that has been shown to be total bull****
By scientific method. That's how the sceince works. People usually heve some opinions on everything, so most scientific progress is breaking down the old ones and replacing them with the new ones more accurately predicting the nature but not necessarily the ultimate ones.
Gallileo made a lot of sceintific discoveries still thinking that light was particles. Then radio was invented based on the idea it was waves.
Now we do not even know what to call the damn thing but the use we've got from the old ideas is still with us. They were working in their range of applications and when the range shifted, their deficiencies were exposed.
By definition a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Any sceintist will tell you "show that this happens or does not happen and I will admit my view is wrong".
The evolutionary paleontology and history and geology are hostorical sceinces - so by definition one cannot make experiments or even observe what happened. That poses a natural limit on the accuracy we can get. That hardly ever matters in natural sciences. We know how genes and ineritance and mutations work and we could easily breed a new species of, say, mice by selection that would not be able to interbreed with the original species. Anyone can do that. All you need is a few hundred mice, some ingenuity and a few hundred or thousand years to run through a few hundred generations.
Now if we only could somehow expose deficiency in religious beliefs. As soon as you people sort out which religion is true and convice the rest of the earth's population - even without atheists - I will take your religious beliefs more seriously. :)
miko
-
you have no idea what my religious beliefs are... suffice it to say that they do not involve the religion of science or any other organized religion.
so far as science goes... I will use what is useful and works at the time. Most of the theories have very little importance to me one way or the other so long as they are not used to justify taking things from me. When I hear a new scientific theory my reaction is .... "well... isn't that special". No need to get all excited about it. someone will come along soon enough to prove it wrong.
Most religious belief is just that.. faith. Can't be proved or disproved. Not in our lifetimes in any case.
My "belief" is that it doesn't really matter... we will all know the truth soon enough. I will deal with it then. In the meantime... best to live your life in a way that you are comfortable with.
lazs
-
Science unlike religion is inherently provable or disprovable. The basis for Sagan's prediction was obviously wrong... that doesn't make him a bad scientist, just wrong. (Take note of Einstein's decades long attempt at a unified theory, bad scientist?)
"Historical science" as miko calls it is not impossible. Instead of using direct cause and affect experiments, scientists use models and hypothesize the results of theories to see if they match the models.
We have one helluva model in our biodiversity on planet Earth. Evolution when modeled through great eons of time fits this model very well. It is a physical activity that can be defined and tested through modeling. The problem with "creationists" is that there can be no question of the process. If the process is questioned, God is questioned.
-
Ok MT... I will play the semantics game with you...
scientists are not bad people... they are just wrong.
lazs
-
you really cant mean that laz, they had a great deal of right too.
Its more like you call all scientist, to be doing somthing wrong or lie about they work. (they work hard and have proof (usually mathematical proofs about their work)
Ok they might do errors but they admit it after all.
Yes they are wrong from time to time but we would not been this far in evolution if we been whitouth them.
Blind faith in god/allahs did not bring the world much improvent either did it.
I take more faith in proven math/scientce provment, than a bible written by people with blind faith of somthing we dont know much about. ( for not saying how many times it have been changed)
-
midnight Target: that doesn't make him a bad scientist,
He may be a good scientist in his field - which is astronomy.
In environmentalism he is probably not a scientist at all but a cult member.
He was not just wrong. There is a scientific process for submitting a new idea to a review of peers before publishing it. He just went public with nonsense without exposing it to the scientific scrutiny.
The heart of the scientific process is not coming up with a new exting stuff - anyone can do that. The real issue is exposing it to skeptical peers and defending its premices and conclusions to their satisfaction.
lazs2: you have no idea what my religious beliefs are... suffice it to say that they do not involve the religion of science or any other organized religion.
No offence intended. I was referring to a general reader.
"Historical science" as miko calls it is not impossible. Instead of using direct cause and affect experiments, scientists use models and hypothesize the results of theories to see if they match the models.
Not saying it is impossible. What is impossible is using experiments and obserwations which are the only way to establish correctness of a hypothesis in natural sciences.
miko
-
There is a scientific process for submitting a new idea to a review of peers before publishing it.
The act of publishing IS a review process. There is no formal "peer review" for scientific studies or announcements! The 1st to publish gets the credit. I figured you would know this.
Now some scientists might bounce their ideas off each other or have another lab check their work. But publishing is owning. Period.
-
Geochronometers. How old is the earth?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/858867134.Es.r.html
-
Wow great move Storch. Not reading it sure proves your point!
:aok
-
what sect of the religion is he?
the retoric sounds like american bible belt. with a odd tang.
-
Geochronometers is apparently the use of the Bible to say how old the earth is. It has way too many holes, however, and uses a lot of guessing as its "proof".
http://www.eadshome.com/Geochronometers.htm
Radioactive decay of rocks on Earth show it is atleast 3.8 billion years old. The moon is 4.5billion years old.
If we were to get the radioactive decay of Venus, it would be extremely young because the surface is constantly changing due to its high heat leaving the surface to be re-made by lava flows. This leaves young rock on the surface and the old rock gets melted away.
If the earth is only 10,000 years old, as the Bible states - where exactly do the dinosaurs fall into place as they've been carbon dated to several billion years old?
-SW
-
Its based on the radioactive isotope decay in moon rocks.
-SW
-
Uranium decays into lead. Thats ONE method, the other method is radioactive potassium. That decays into calcium and the gas argon. The latter is the method they are using to determine earth and moon rock's age.
-SW
-
First part: No, not that I'm aware of. If it can be proven that it is flawed, then mathematics is in serious trouble.
Second part: No, otherwise radioactive decay would propel itself into a logarithmic type of destruction (multiplying at constantly higher rates as time goes on) because radioactive decay emits gamma rays. Cosmic radiation is a generic term as there are several forms of radiation in the cosmos.
To truly understand this, you shouldn't consult me since I will be consulting various references (my memory only goes so far) to better explain it.
Also, by looking at the microwave background of the universe we also see how it was several billion years ago. This doesn't refute the Bible's 10,000 (atleast I think thats the age) age of the Earth, however, we know that light has a speed and that there are stars (suns) out there that are so far away we are actually seeing the light they emitted billions of years ago. So, when you look up in the night sky - that isn't a real time rendering of how the universe is really sorted but instead we are looking into the past (by billions of years).
-SW
-
Originally posted by storch Well i'm still wondering about the origins question and no one seems to want to bite.
Well Larry,
Apparently you did not see the humor in my explanation of how not noting could not exist in the non existance of not time. So I shall attack the argument in another fashion.
Scientific: The universe was created is by ther big bang.
Creationism: God Created the universe.
Science at least attempts to answer how, Religion says who.
At the bottom line, when the scientific mind asks the question of how God was created, the religious dogma sidesteps the issue by saying His origin is indeterminate, He has always been.
The ultimate answer remains uncertian in the mind of mortals.
-
there is a web site,,ill have to find the link that offers a 100,000 bucks to any one person who can prove the big bang is true with out any scientific dout,,but i dout anyone will ever collect that money,,impossible to prove
The ultimate answer remains uncertian in the mind of mortals.
yup and i think it will allways be that way,,,im not a bible thumper,,but i dont think science or anyone will figure this one out,,hydrogen atoms cant be made from nothing,,let alone explode for no reason at all
i beleve in micro evo<~~its been proven,,we all change to are envierment a little more each gen,,get darker skin,,lighter for cold zones,,i seen a deal on a scientist late one night that was very interesting,,,,he did test on flies for the goverment<~~sence flies only live a week,,,with in 5 years of his test,,he went threw hunderds of gens of flies,,he radiated them,,he inbreeded them,and kept them away in a sealed enviroment,,,he had flys with legs growing out there eyeballs,,and kept it going,,but after a while the genetics figured them selfs out,,and soon he just had a room full of normal flies again,,was very interesting
science or god created the universe<~~i guess toss a coin in the air and pick one
-
Originally posted by hyena426
but i dont think science or anyone will figure this one out,,hydrogen atoms cant be made from nothing,,let alone explode for no reason at all
And you have studied quantum physics to say that? You can't argue this stuff with common sense, because when you leave this planet common sense do not apply.
-
Originally posted by storch
To me intelligent design is way more palatable.
Finally! Someone is being honest.
And that’s really it. The reason most creationists believe in creationism is because they want to. They like it. It’s comforting to believe that some intelligent being created everything for a purpose. And frankly it’s easier to understand. Just like it’s comforting to believe that you will live forever, good people will be rewarded, bad people will eventually be punished, etc.
You don’t like evolution. That’s fine.
Personally, I don’t like relativity. Because I would like to travel faster than the speed of light. But oddly enough, physics doesn’t seem to care what I like or dislike.
The only problems I have are people who use bad science to argue against biologic evolution and for creationism. And when they want to teach our kids a scientifically useless explanation just because people with a particular religious belief like it.
-
Originally posted by storch
hence we return to my original statement. in my opinion it takes more faith to accept what science is teaching with regard to origin and evolution than to accept the creationist view. to me intelligent design is way more palatable.
By saying this you mean, that creationists have more hard data to support their theory, than evolution. Then one wonders why creationists have lots of ridiculous claims like the great flood or ark, for which they are unable to provide even simple basic models how they could've worked. Yes, evolutionists can explain with real life events why _some_ fossils are on top when they should be under. Creationist can't even explain where the water to the flood came and where it went, which should be easy if such major thing has ever happened.
-
double post
-
Storch "Tally Ho" for keeping up the fight, but argueing with them is doing no good. Let them live there life like they have for years and years in a dark corner staring at a blinking computer screen for hours and hours playing a video game of a world that has come and gone. Let them think that they are correct and everyone else is wrong, it is there choise to look for God.
-NOD (yah i'm a devout Catholic):p :p
-
you guys miss the point... someday someone will prove that the theory of heat transfer is all wrong. I don't have anything invested in the theory and don't care if it is right or wrong.. I care that If I touch the other end of a piece of metal that I just welded that I will get burned.
I am glad that scientists create things for me and don't care that they mostly blundered into em. We all experiment in our own ways. I build ammo and fast cars. I am often wrong and don't know why... I am often right and don't fully understand why. pretense is what I abhor. To claim to understand or to even be able to understand the universe is the hieght of arrogance to me.
religion or more accurately, faith... does not make things but it has been know to improve lives personaly and on a global basis. I have no more scorn for someone who explains the universe in religious terms than one who claims to know the answers scientificaly.
they are both full of it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
hence we return to my original statement. in my opinion it takes more faith to accept what science is teaching with regard to origin and evolution than to accept the creationist view. to me intelligent design is way more palatable.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Is your "Creation" open to study and possible debunking? Science is full of errors and reformations BECAUSE it is science. Debunking is INVITED.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
The ultimate answer remains uncertian in the mind of mortals.
The ultimate answer is:
[SIZE=8]42[/SIZE]
Give me my 100.000 bucks.
-
exactly do the dinosaurs fall into place as they've been carbon dated to several billion years old?
A correction, there is no carbon dating of dinosaurs. There's nothing left to date, all biological material has been replaced by stone.
Even if it were (anything left) C14 is only good for about 40000 years IIRC.
-
...Jesus' geneology is very clearly spell out in Matthew 1: 1-16 back to Abraham and in Luke 3: 23-37 back to God
Miko get a spell checker then call me dumb. I dismiss the theory of memetics even more off hand than i do darwinism.
Meme: An information pattern held in inividual's memory which is
:rofl
I can see why miko didn't think this worthy of a reply but I couldn't resist.
Hence my original statement: It takes much more faith to be a darwinist than it does to be a creationist.
Occam's Razor.
2. No way in hell I'm going to hell because I'm saved by Grace. (fire away, and no it ain't a girl)
Don't be to sure, while not very well versed in the Sin manual I seem to recall that pride is one of the biggest ones :)
-
And you have studied quantum physics to say that?
go get your money if you have studied it,,i guess its a million dollars,,i was alittle low there,,lol,,here is what you need to prove to get your money
Criteria for winning
Major issues
Applicants must provide
A. a well-conceived, detailed hypothetical mechanism explaining how the rise of genetic instructions sufficient to give rise to life as defined in "Definitions" below might have occurred in Nature by natural processes, and an
B. empirical correlation to the real world of biochemistry and molecular biology - not just mathematical or computer models - of how the prescriptive information characteristic of all known living organisms might have arisen.
The mechanism must address four topics:
The simplest known genome's apparent anticipation and directing of future events toward biological ends, both metabolic and structural;
The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products;
The indirectness of recipe-like biological "linguistic" message code - the gap between genotypic prescriptive information (instruction) and phenotypic expression. How did the first genetic instruction arise in its coded format prior to phenotypic realization of progeny from which the environment could select? If a protobiont's genetic code and phenotype were one and the same, how did such a simple system self-organize to meet the nine minimum conditions of "life" enumerated below under "Definitions"? How did stellar energy, the four known forces of physics (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravity), and natural processes produce initial prescriptive information (instruction/recipe) using direct or indirect code?
The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things - how did a relatively pure population of left-handed amino acids or right-handed sugars arise out of a chemical environment wherein reactions ordinarily give rise to roughly equal numbers of both right- and left-handed optical isomers?
http://www.us.net/life/index.htm
-
midnight Target: The act of publishing IS a review process. There is no formal "peer review" for scientific studies or announcements! The 1st to publish gets the credit. I figured you would know this.
:) I figured you know what "the act of publishing was" when talking about scientific publishing.
It works like that. A scientists submits a paper to the serious industry journal. That journal sends the copies of the paper to several experts - without supplying the author's name in many cases. The experts make a conclusion whether the work has any merit. Only after that the paper may be published and subjected to further peer review. After a few rounds of publications and counter-publications the resulting point makes its way into popular publications and to the politicians.
Many scientists post their unpublished works on the web right now for anyone to make comments.
If Mr. Sagan followed that venue, somone like Bjorn Lomborg could have saved him from making a total fool out of himself.
storch:is it not also true that radioactive decay of every sort is not as constant as it was once thought to be
The rate of radioactive decay is based on the so called weak forces acting inside the nucleus of an atom. If there is anything more stable in the universe over the last ten billion years, it's the universal constants reflecting those forces. Any change in them that would affect any results noticeably would probaby be a good indication of a supernatural influence. I am sure God could affect intranuclear interactions but not much else.
The change in constants affecting intranuclear interactions would have been clearly wisible in change of the way stars burn - if they burned at all or kept from exploding. If you claim that there were such changes within last few billion years, we would still be able to observe the difference in behavior of stars light from which takes hundreds of millios of years to reach us.
myelo: Personally, I don’t like relativity. Because I would like to travel faster than the speed of light.
That sentense while being semantically correct does not make sence because you use the wrong concept of "speed" where it is not applicable. There is no speed faster than speed of light. Speed of light is the infinite speed and only seems finite from our perspective. If you traveled with the speed of light you would arrive anywhere in zero time - which means that it is infinite speed.
It may be hard to comprehend untill you realise that the concepts of time, space, distance and speed that we use in everyday vernacular evolved to denote a very narrow environment that our ancestors lived in.
hyena426: How did the first genetic instruction arise in its coded format prior to phenotypic realization of progeny from which the environment could select
That presumes that the DNA->protein self-replicating machinery was the original one to exist. Most likely it was not the case. It many have been some other - or even many other stages that produced complexity and eventually DNA and proteins - which then took off and used the previously existing forms for food, which is why we do not have any examles of non DNA->protein lifeforms around.
For all we know, the first self-replicating entities may have been silicone crystalline types to which ferr-floating organic molecules eventually attached and concentrated.
miko
-
"...aight. I put on my robe and wizard's hat..."
-
Only after that the paper may be published and subjected to further peer review. After a few rounds of publications and counter-publications the resulting point makes its way into popular publications and to the politicians.
Do you just make this watermelon up?
-
Originally posted by storch
I'll make it easier for you than the hyena has.
1. Take a couple of boxes of the game scrabble
2. Remove the letter blocks
3. Toss into the air until what lands on the ground is a grammatically correct and punctuated short sentance in perfect spacing and in perfect sequence.
if you can do that I'll believe in the big bang.
Miko I'm reading up as fast as i can Thankyou for your response.
Silly math.
What were the chances of you talking to someone named Midnight Target on the internet?
Midnight Target = 14 letters
26 possible letters in each slot = 26*26*26*26.. 14 times.
Basically, it is impossible for us to talk... but we have!
I must be god.
-
Go read-up on your thermodynamics. Entropy exists in a closed system. The input of energy opens the system. Even if you consider the entire universe as a closed system you can have the exact opposite of entropy in many areas of the system based upon the energy input.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
myelo: Personally, I don’t like relativity. Because I would like to travel faster than the speed of light.
That sentense while being semantically correct does not make sence because you use the wrong concept of "speed" where it is not applicable. There is no speed faster than speed of light.
That was my point .. it was a joke.
-
Originally posted by storch
You expect me to accept this unprovable idea, that out of an unimaginably huge explosion came all of the SYSTEMATIC order of the universe. From the cosmos to something as marvelous and complex as a blade of grass. Spare me.
Think about that. What Darwinists expect me to believe is that out of an explosion in a print shop came the first bound edition of Webster's dictionary which was also auto updated periodically so as to remain perpetually current. Tell me where I'm wrong there.
Glad to :-)
Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Plase don't lump all your strawmen into one big strawman.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only after that the paper may be published and subjected to further peer review. After a few rounds of publications and counter-publications the resulting point makes its way into popular publications and to the politicians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you just make this watermelon up?
Don't know what to say here ... Doing the Jester today MT ?
Submission to Science Journal -> peer review -> publication is *the* way of publishing new science hypothesis.
Has been throughtout the 20th century and the only reason I don't go earlier is that I don't know for sure, but likely in the 19th as well.
While certainly not a scientist, everything I ever read & heard support this. Just recently I read a debate on the high cost of subscribing to all the journals which is a neccesity to keep up in your field because thats where the new stuff is published.
Next step, popular publications -> politicians makes perfect sense.