Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on January 24, 2003, 09:34:14 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/01/22/coolsc.correct.fourwinged/index.html
Keeping chanting the mantra... there is no such thing as evolution... there is no such thing as evolution... there is no...
-
(best smug/smiling voice) "Ohh no... I dont need evolution... Ive got Jesus."
-
I'm still waiting for 'them' to explain a flounder...
-
Leave it to Sandman to foul (Fowl!) up a good story on evolution by taking a crack at people with faith.:rolleyes:
Again, the non-believers are always on the offensive. Insecurity.
-
Back down the road to 400 posts!!!
Run away!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Back down the road to 400 posts!!!
Run away!!!
(snicker)
-
try explaining the duck billed platapus
-
Originally posted by BEVO
try explaining the duck billed platapus
God had a hangover?
-
Until they are on their deathbed and they find their faith.
-
Dont let simple stories written by mortal men deceive you, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Until they are on their deathbed and they find their faith.
At that point I think I'd have faith in the nurse if someone told me she would grant me eternal life. (credibility increases proportionally with breast size)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Leave it to Sandman to foul (Fowl!) up a good story on evolution by taking a crack at people with faith.:rolleyes:
Again, the non-believers are always on the offensive. Insecurity.
I'm not religious in the least... big secret, huh? Anyway... If there indeed was a god, I don't believe it would mean that there can't also be the mechanism of creation... evolution.
IMHO... evolution is fact... regardless of the presence or absence of a supreme being.
-
Dont let simple stories written by mortal men deceive you
you referring to the bible?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
simple stories written by mortal men
You mean like the Bible???
GronK
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
you referring to the bible?
Stop that!
GronK
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Until they are on their deathbed and they find their faith.
Yeah, or in a foxhole, right?
GronK
-
For those interested, the entire article is available at:
Nature article (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01342_fs.html)
And a more accessible commentary from that issue at:
summary (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/421323a_fs.html)
It even mentions the aerodynamics.
Just wanted to get that in before this thread gets rolling (downhill, most likely).
-
Whohoooo!!!!
Here we go again!!!!!!!
:D
1000 posts this time!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Leave it to Sandman to foul (Fowl!) up a good story on evolution by taking a crack at people with faith.:rolleyes:
Again, the non-believers are always on the offensive. Insecurity.
Don't be so pessimistic, Ripsnort. Not every religious person is an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
God had a hangover?
More like a sense of humor.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO... evolution is fact... regardless of the presence or absence of a supreme being.
Since when? I think it is still called a theory. Show me an evolution event in progress.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Since when? I think it is still called a theory. Show me an evolution event in progress.
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings
Fact: There are major life forms on the planet today that were not present in the past.
Fact: There are major life forms of the past that are no longer living.
Fact: All living forms come from previous living forms.
Conclusion: All present forms of life arose from previous forms that were different.
The mechanism that made all this possible is the theory part. Evolution does indeed happen. The theory is in trying to explain how.
-
They just discovered a small four winged dinosaur fossil...never been seen before and it lends more proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs...interesting find!
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAWFBYN9BD.html
-
if i was an adult takeing the book of genisis seriously as literal truth.
id figure i had much bigger problems than thinkin evolution is not a fact.
"Dont let simple stories written by mortal men deceive you, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
yeager
friggin priceless.
-
MrLars... that may be the funniest post in the thread.
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
MrLars... that may be the funniest post in the thread.
:D
I must agree... :D
-
BEVO: try explaining the duck billed platapus
Design by committee?
2Slow: Since when? I think it is still called a theory.
Theory is fact - by definition. The word you have in mind is "hypothesis". Here is how it works for scientists, on the scale of confidence:
"Theory = Fact" > "Hypothesis" > "Speculation" > "Guess"
miko
-
Heh, if this keeps up, I am gonna read The Blind Watchmaker again.
-
But is it real this time? ;)
-
From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary…
“theory 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2: abstract thought : SPECULATION 3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances – often used in the phrase in theory 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle of body of principles offered to expain phenomena 6: an unproved assumption”
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a theory (and a theory is not a fact) that happens to fit the available facts as interpreted by humans with incomplete, imperfect knowledge. Many biologists may “accept” Evolution as fact, but that does not make it so. Deciding something is true by consensus does not make it irrefutable fact. The problem with proving or disproving Evolution is that we have not been able to observe it in action. Recorded human history simply is not long enough. We have not been able to observe the spontaneous transformation of a glob of primordial sludge into a simple life form, and from there into a slightly more complex one, and then into an even more complex one, and so forth. Unless you can observe the opening process of Evolution, it’s all just theory. We have probably observed mutation and adaptation of species, and we’ve certainly observed extinction; however, not the creation of a new type of life form from a radically different precursor. Neither can you prove or disprove Creationism. Creationism can also fit the facts, depending on how that theory is presented. Now understand, that I am an educated, scientific-type person. I hold a master’s in EE, and yet do not have a difficult time reconciling my scientific training with my belief in God.
There are some assumptions that go with any theory, and Creationism is no different. First, you have to assume that God (who for the sake of argument we’ll assume is the architect of Creation) has an understanding of science and the universe that far exceeds what humans have managed thus far. Here’s an analogy for you: I am not a mineralogist. Hence, I could not tell a manufactured diamond from one that was dug out of the earth and cut and polished to match it. Why? I lack the knowledge necessary to do so. Since we (human beings) are continuously learning new things about the natural universe, it is a safe assumption that we do not understand everything (not even close). So, when we determine the age of some object in geological terms as 1,000,000 years, how do we know we’re correct? Perhaps the artist who created that object simply used process we cannot comprehend, which our primitive (by His standards) scientific methods simply cannot account for.
Why all the earlier (by our reckoning, anyway) species like dinosaurs, Cro-Magnon man, and prehistoric horses and such littering the natural history museums? Well, one could hypothesize that even God follows natural rules when creating. The Bible only tells us that “God created the heavens and the earth,” not how he managed it. Perhaps all those earlier species are the leftovers from the processes God used to make the species here on Earth today. A sculptor (or an engineer for that matter) often goes from an idea in his/her head to a sketch, then to a wooden carving or clay model, then to the finished product of sculpted stone. Think of them as shavings from God’s workbench, or prototypes of the more refined finished product. God, the ultimate artist and engineer!
Scientists have put the age of the Earth at something like 4 billion years (or something like that...I can never remember), but how can they be sure? I work with satellites (yes, Momma did in fact raise at least one rocket scientist :)), and we often pre-age components before sending them into space. We do this to insure stable and predictable performance once on-orbit, and to insure reliability (we call that “getting beyond the bathtub curve). The very fact that species all fit so well into the natural balance argues for a guiding intelligence. If you want to set up a complex system to run with minimal operator input, why wouldn’t you design something like adaptation into it? Then there’s the natural tendency for things to go break down, rather than build up. Entropy and Chaos theory may not eliminate Evolution as a possible mechanism, but it certainly makes it less likely. Natural processes tend to go from the more complex to the less complex (like erosion and decomposition for example), and are certainly more typical and widespread then ones moving in the opposite direction.
In the final analysis, you can accept and believe Evolution, trusting in mankind’s limited and woefully incomplete understanding of the universe; or you can ask God. The promise that He made was that if you seek knowledge and wisdom, and ask him with pure and sincere intent, that he will answer. Now before any of the atheists call me gullible and naive, let me pose a final question to you. If you are so willing to accept the opinions of fallible human scientists you’ve never met, am I then any more gullible and naïve to accept the promptings and inspiration of a God I’ve never met? Just food for thought.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Leave it to Sandman to foul (Fowl!) up a good story on evolution by taking a crack at people with faith.:rolleyes:
Again, the non-believers are always on the offensive. Insecurity.
Way to take Sandman's attempt at starting a debate as a personal affront to your religion. Even better to make a blakent statement yourself about an entire group of people. Insecurity.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
Way to take Sandman's attempt at starting a debate as a personal affront to your religion. Even better to make a blakent statement yourself about an entire group of people. Insecurity.
SOB
My religion? Whatever are you spewing about? PUT DOWN THE McRIBB AND COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Leave it to Sandman to foul (Fowl!) up a good story on evolution by taking a crack at people with faith.:rolleyes:
Again, the non-believers are always on the offensive. Insecurity.
What makes you think you have to be a 'non believer' to believe evolution?
LOL, the comments of the NON EDUCATED always crack me up.
-Animal, firmly agnostic, believer of God, believer of evolution.
-
Wow Sandman,..you put some good bait out today.
Just be careful you toss back what is over the limit. Game wardens have a nasty reputation around here, or so I am told.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
My religion? Whatever are you spewing about? PUT DOWN THE McRIBB AND COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP!
That's all I could guess that you were blabbering about. It was hard to tell, as it didn't make any sense.
SOB
-
Basically, on any given UBB, the atheists are always the first to cast stones at religous folks. Now go take some pyschology courses in the school you're attending (assuming its a University or CC) and you'll understand WHY that happens. ;)
-
Hey Sabre,
WRONG!
ok, go back to what you were doing.
-
We've been over this before, and I don't need a course in psy to know roadkill when I see it.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
We've been over this before, and I don't need a course in psy to know roadkill when I see it.
SOB
(Shrugs) Suit yourself.
-
Those psychology classes you didnt take will lead you to the conclusion that on the most part both atheists of a certain kind and theists of a certain kind tend to be insecure, and thats why they love to argue with each other.
I dont really care about that.
What bothers me is when some people latch on to something so hard and refuse to let go, in a way that it harms the advancement of technology. All the scientific evidence is there showing you that evolution is a fact, but most still refuse to believe it because they are so insecure about their beliefs that anything that threatens their simple to understand dribble to fill a void in the mind and make you believe you have the answers has to be wrong.
I know many christian scientists. Hell I know PRIESTS who also dedicate themselves to science. When I talk to them about these subjects they explain to me that when your faith in God is so strong, any scientific revelation is not evidence AGAINST GOD, on the contrary, it more strongly reaffirms their belief that there must BE a God.
Hell, the only reason the Christian Church adopted the Big Bang theory as "Official" is because it could be bent to fit the belief of creation. Fine by me.
Did you know that this same paranoia and denial of advancement is what lead to the dark ages, where scientists who where studying things that would have been amazing breakthroughs where burned or jailed.
Not only that, but hardcore theists, many of orders similar to the Templars, would raid Muslim/Hindu cities only to burn libraries, univercities and centers of learning, and killing scholars, just because they thought that what they where studying and finding was a threat to their faith.
The burning of the library of Alexandria is believed to have set back technology and civilization about 2,000 years.
I find this paranoia and fear of anything related to science/philosophy to be absurd and against everything that a benevolent supreme being would want its followers to do.
Get with the times. Science is not an enemy of religion. On the others hand, ignorance is an enemy to humanity.
-
Sabre - the dictionaries reflect the most common uses of terms rather than define them.
Nobody argues that "therory" is a common term among laymen and it means what scientist denote by the word "hypothesis". And of course the laymen do not use the term "hypothesis" at all. Nevertheless, when reading literature written by the scientists, we should use the meaning that was intended by the author.
Otherwise when vernacular "theory" changes the meaning further - from "fact" through current "speculation" into "lie", one would be able to assume that the scientists admit it's a lie by using teh term. Just like "myth" that was supposed to mean "oral tradition", not "bunch of lies" or "trethoric" means "crap" rather than "correct argument techniques".
Theory is not really a fact but rather a set of facts and a general framework of preinciples into which those facts fit. But on the confidence scale it is teh same as a fact.
Also, for a scientists term "fact" does not mean "absolute truth" just an "assertion assured to such degree that it would be irrational to withhold consent" or something along those lines.
Unless you can observe the opening process of Evolution
You totally confuse Evolution with Origin. Evolution is happening as we live since it is notheing more or less than change in gene allele frequency over time. Look at the dogs.
Origin of life, origination of new species, natural selection, artificial selection and mutation are all subjects that fit under the general domain of evolution.
not the creation of a new type of life form from a radically different precursor
That is quite impossible according to the (neo) Darwinian evolution theory. You get very minor differences that acculmulate with generations untill the two branges cease to interbreed. Even then they are not "radically" different. Horses and donkeys or certain breeds of geese are very similar but do not interbreed. In fact, there are circular species - a polar geese that differ slighty with area they occupy so that every popyulation can easily interbreed with it's neighbouds but more remote populations cannot interbreed with each other.
There are serious issues on which one can argue the validity of origin of species and other things relavant to Evolution - the problem of semingly irreducible complexity on biochemical level, for example - but ignorance of what the theory really says is not one of them.
The very fact that species all fit so well into the natural balance argues for a guiding intelligence.
Or that those who fit poorly either went extinct or adapted... :)
If you are so willing to accept the opinions of fallible human scientists you’ve never met
That does not prevent anyone with time from reproducing their findings.
If you say such a thing, you do not really understand what science is. Nothing in science is accepted based on opinion. The whole science is about critically examining any claim - new or existing.
Anyway, the hypothesis of God "pre-aging" Earth and guiding evolution is as good as any. That of course just postpones the question. God must be a complex creature, so how does God originate? Sooner or later you get into origination of complexity without rational designer and the only spontaneous mechanism we know that can produce complexity is evolution through mutation/inheritance/selection.
Animal: The burning of the library of Alexandria is believed to have set back technology and civilization about 2,000 years.
That is plainly impossible. The ancients did not ahev research labs. Neother they have a process of intentional invention. The only things that ended up in the library were those that existed in practice. How would burning the library wipe those out of existence, you woudl have to elaborate.
miko
-
Originally posted by Animal
Those psychology classes you didnt take will lead you to the conclusion that on the most part both atheists of a certain kind and theists of a certain kind tend to be insecure, and thats why they love to argue with each other.
I dont really care about that.
Yep, and somehow I knew that without reading "psy for dummies". It also doesn't take a genius to note that debating doesn't denote insecurity.
SOB
-
The very fact that species all fit so well into the natural balance argues for a guiding intelligence.
This is the silliest argument for a creation that I have ever heard.
Either we evolved to fit into the environment, or the environment was majically created around us.... duh!
-
SOB: It also doesn't take a genius to note that debating doesn't denote insecurity.
Yep. Just that a person has spare time...
miko
-
Originally posted by SOB
Yep, and somehow I knew that without reading "psy for dummies". It also doesn't take a genius to note that debating doesn't denote insecurity.
SOB
That wasnt aimed at you.
And you are right, debating does not denote insecurity, but the arguement that atheists only debate because they are insecure, can go both ways.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Those psychology classes you didnt take will lead you to the conclusion that on the most part both atheists of a certain kind and theists of a certain kind tend to be insecure, and thats why they love to argue with each other.
Psychology is the STUDY of human behavior. To put this at its very basic root fundumentals so that even SOB could understand it,(and I won't have to type out 3 pages) lets take a look at the Dog Bark Analysis. :D
A "typical" dog barks when approached by stranger. Why? Study's show that it is because of fear. Fear is a direct result of being insecure or not being sure that you are prepared to deal with the pending situation...uncertainty. I like to compare that to a few on this board (and others I've visited over the years) that show "barking dogs" posting stuff that is intended to dismiss religious theories.
I'm not a religious person by the definition, but I am a God-fearing individual that doesn't believe in the Bible's "story", but I am confident enough of my own beliefs that make it unnecessary to constantly attack those who have a different belief. Nope, I don't bark. :)
-
Yeah, I know, my sexy little puerto rican pool boy - I was just commenting on what you said. :)
"Yep. Just that a person has spare time...
miko"
LOL, yeah. :D
SOB
-
You're so smart Rip. If only I had understood all that before I posted! :rolleyes:
SOB
-
Swoop, See? :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dont let simple stories written by mortal men deceive you, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
You know, you're right about the "simple stories written by mortal men." Maybe we shouldn't believe in the Bible.
BTW, what if some of us don't feel a need to be "saved"?
-
Ok show me one shread of proof that
STOP dont go there ice you do not talk about politics or religion.
Both bottomless pits of opinion and conjecture. When god reaches down taps me on the shoulder and says hello Ill belive. Untill then I aint goin there.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Until they are on their deathbed and they find their faith.
...or reinforce their belief that God doesn't exist.
But I forgot, you're the all knowing of every death that ever took place :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Animal
Those psychology classes you didnt take will lead you to the conclusion that on the most part both atheists of a certain kind and theists of a certain kind tend to be insecure, and thats why they love to argue with each other.
I dont really care about that.
What bothers me is when some people latch on to something so hard and refuse to let go, in a way that it harms the advancement of technology. All the scientific evidence is there showing you that evolution is a fact, but most still refuse to believe it because they are so insecure about their beliefs that anything that threatens their simple to understand dribble to fill a void in the mind and make you believe you have the answers has to be wrong.
I know many christian scientists. Hell I know PRIESTS who also dedicate themselves to science. When I talk to them about these subjects they explain to me that when your faith in God is so strong, any scientific revelation is not evidence AGAINST GOD, on the contrary, it more strongly reaffirms their belief that there must BE a God.
Hell, the only reason the Christian Church adopted the Big Bang theory as "Official" is because it could be bent to fit the belief of creation. Fine by me.
Did you know that this same paranoia and denial of advancement is what lead to the dark ages, where scientists who where studying things that would have been amazing breakthroughs where burned or jailed.
Not only that, but hardcore theists, many of orders similar to the Templars, would raid Muslim/Hindu cities only to burn libraries, univercities and centers of learning, and killing scholars, just because they thought that what they where studying and finding was a threat to their faith.
The burning of the library of Alexandria is believed to have set back technology and civilization about 2,000 years.
I find this paranoia and fear of anything related to science/philosophy to be absurd and against everything that a benevolent supreme being would want its followers to do.
Get with the times. Science is not an enemy of religion. On the others hand, ignorance is an enemy to humanity.
Kudos S!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Basically, on any given UBB, the atheists are always the first to cast stones at religous folks. Now go take some pyschology courses in the school you're attending (assuming its a University or CC) and you'll understand WHY that happens. ;)
Rip, can you post some examples of the "casting stones" you're talking about? Are these atheists posting things about persecuting or killing those that believe in God or religion?
-
Do a search on any religious topic on this board, always initiated by an atheist. And, its not just limited to this OT forum. Do a search for "religion" under any OT forum on any UBB. 99% are initiated by atheists. They insecure (the ones who start the posts) thats the bottom line. :)
-
The bottom line of all this arguing over beliefs is it is silly. For those that do believe in a God and heaven, do you REALLY want your heaven inhabited with some "lefty-liberals"? :D
For those that do not believe in God, does it really matter that there are those that do believe?
Why don't we just make a deal that we respect each other not for what we believe in but for how we treat each other. Ultimately it is our treatment of others that determines the quality of life.
For the record of MY beliefs for ME. I was born, I am living, and someday I will die. The End. No afterlife. Yes, I am an Atheist. I do not belive in God/devine intervention. Does that make me any more or less enlightened than those that do believe in God/religion? Absolutely not. If others truly believe in God and feel they have the answers to satisfy them, so be it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do a search on any religious topic on this board, always initiated by an atheist. And, its not just limited to this OT forum. Do a search for "religion" under any OT forum on any UBB. 99% are initiated by atheists. They insecure (the ones who start the posts) thats the bottom line. :)
I am taking it that you mean when an atheist posts something that they feel validates their postion that it is "casting stones"?
I thought when you said "casting stones" you meant attacking or insulting.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I am taking it that you mean when an atheist posts something that they feel validates their postion that it is "casting stones"?
I thought when you said "casting stones" you meant attacking or insulting.
No, having to announce on a public BBS that you think their religion is BS is, well...
(http://www.attrition.org/gallery/computing/forum/assclown.jpg)
-
Insulting others and saying their beliefs are BS is in poor taste. Sorry Rip, but from what I've seen, the Atheists don't have the market cornered on that one. I've seen that from all sides. LOL
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Insulting others and saying their beliefs are BS is in poor taste. Sorry Rip, but from what I've seen, the Atheists don't have the market cornered on that one. I've seen that from all sides. LOL
Ahh, but STARTING A THREAD regarding it...thats another matter entirely ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do a search on any religious topic on this board, always initiated by an atheist. And, its not just limited to this OT forum. Do a search for "religion" under any OT forum on any UBB. 99% are initiated by atheists. They insecure (the ones who start the posts) thats the bottom line. :)
Hmm my memory must be failing me then. I do recall that many Atheist posts about "scientific" evolution do indeed turn into an ugly pro-anti-religious thread. Didn't start out to be a religious thread though.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Wow Sandman,..you put some good bait out today.
Just be careful you toss back what is over the limit. Game wardens have a nasty reputation around here, or so I am told.
It's a delicate thing trying to catch a trophy fish without catching one of those nasty Texas Grapevine Bass... The ones that foul the lines and ruin the tackle... :D
Catch and release is the general rule in any case... :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ahh, but STARTING A THREAD regarding it...thats another matter entirely ;)
LOL, ok BBS tag then.
Show me the threads started out by Atheists that start outright attacking non-atheists.
Because it degenerates into an insult-fest does not mean that the intention was to insult another side.
Since you've stated:
Do a search on any religious topic on this board, always initiated by an atheist. And, its not just limited to this OT forum. Do a search for "religion" under any OT forum on any UBB. 99% are initiated by atheists. They insecure (the ones who start the posts) thats the bottom line.
Please show me a few threads that started out as religion bashing and BS.
According to your statement, I shouldn't be able to find one believer starting a religious post then?
-
Ripsnort: Do a search on any religious topic on this board, always initiated by an atheist. ... 99% are initiated by atheists. They insecure (the ones who start the posts) thats the bottom line. :)
I think that people who cannot refute the opponent's argument on its merit but resort to unfounded personal remarks and especially implications of the opponents "insecurity" are insecure themselves.
I talked to many true believers in my life. They were not bothered by lack of belief on anyone else's part to get all worked up about it, let alone make personal remarks on the character of other people. They did not care if 99% of the people outside shared their faith or 1%, whether unbelievers were secure or not - that did not make slightest difference to their stand.
That's what I call secure in faith.
BTW, the thing about looking for religion on deathbed - pure BS. Those human beings who are afraid to die, are afraid whetehr they are religious or not.
Many people look forward to death as oblivion, not into being transformed into some kind of ethernal inhuman entity.
miko
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, ok BBS tag then.
Show me the threads started out by Atheists that start outright attacking non-atheists.
Too lazy to do the work eh?
Well, there are 17 pages (roughly 180 posts) started out by someone bashing religion in the first post.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=76179&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74239&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=75055&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74409&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=71479&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72512&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72099&referrerid=3203
Now, show ME a religious post bashing an atheist in the first post... :)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I think that people who cannot refute the opponent's argument on its merit but resort to unfounded personal remarks and especially implications of the opponents "insecurity" are insecure themselves.
Why should they? YOU seem the one thats probably the most blatant poster about anti-religion on the board. Intellect not enough security for you Miko? Hmmmmm???? :)
-
Miko2d, I find your discourse far more reasoned than most who post here on this subject. I will concede that I am not a biologist, and have an imperfect understanding of the Theory of Evolution. I shall endeavor to learn more about it. I can see your point in that I have lumped (perhaps incorrectly) the origins of life in with evolution as part and parcel of the same contiuous process. It's not a matter of confusing them so much, as seeing them as intertwined. Where does the Origin end and where does Evolution take over?
Theory is not really a fact but rather a set of facts and a general framework of preinciples into which those facts fit. But on the confidence scale it is teh same as a fact.
I agree with the first part, but question on what authority you base the second? In the many years of schooling I've been through, I don't ever recall a text book or professor making this assertion. How do the laws of science fit into this scale of confidence? A natural law is one that has been proven rigorously through experimentation. Again I submit that a theory, even in the parlance of scientific circles, is still not accepted as absolute truth. It certainly does have a higher confidence factor than a hypothosis.
Or that those who fit poorly either went extinct or adapted...
Agreed, either interpretation is plausible.:) The point I was making is, that adaptability could be the result of intelligent design. No facts have yet been presented that eliminate that posssibility.
That does not prevent anyone with time from reproducing their findings.
If you say such a thing, you do not really understand what science is. Nothing in science is accepted based on opinion. The whole science is about critically examining any claim - new or existing.
While many have viewed the evidence of evolution and come to the same conclusion, that is not the same as reproducing a result. It only means they came to the same conclusion. Actually, I believe I have a good understanding of science. Your faith in the infallibility and impartiality of the religion of Science is admirable. However, is it not also true that science sometimes get's it wrong? That many ideas and theories that were accepted as fact were later disproved? The point I was trying to make here is that some people accept without question something, if enough scientist say it's true. They don't question it themselves because they have "faith" in the purity of science. The same could be said of people who believe in God only because they have been told about Him. A good Christian (or Muslum, or Jew) seeks the truth of what they have been taught.
Anyway, the hypothesis of God "pre-aging" Earth and guiding evolution is as good as any. That of course just postpones the question. God must be a complex creature, so how does God originate? Sooner or later you get into origination of complexity without rational designer and the only spontaneous mechanism we know that can produce complexity is evolution through mutation/inheritance/selection.
Now it would appear you're back to doing the same thing you accused me of at the beginning of my previous post, mixing origins with evolution. I would however suggest a rewording of your statement to read, "the only spontaneous mechanism we've come up with a theory for that explains producing complexity..." Because Evolution is still only a theory:). Your point is a good one, nonetheless. The question, "Where did God come from?" is one of the most basic in religion. I guess I'll have to ask Him when I see Him.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Too lazy to do the work eh?
Well, there are 17 pages (roughly 180 posts) started out by someone bashing religion in the first post.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=76179&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74239&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=75055&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74409&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=71479&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72512&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72099&referrerid=3203
Now, show ME a religious post bashing an atheist in the first post... :)
Are all those that started the posts Atheists?
Hmmm We'll just have to agree to disagree as to what constitutes as "casting stones".
-
Again, the non-believers are always on the offensive. Insecurity
-Than what are those jehova's doing at my door?
-What started most wars ?
To me most believers are insecure. They need to go church and read bible, so they know they doing good.
U can turn word in any direction especialy the bible,
Evolution and sience are facts
I rather have a proof than just assume things.
-
Evolution and sience are facts
<~~then how does a bumble bee fly?,,According to aeronautical science, the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly.,lol they still cant figure that one out,,lol,,,do you beleve bumble bees can fly? sience doesnt show anything besides how dumb we are somtimes,,,we cant even figure out why a simple bumble bee can fly,,i wouldnt trust sience as far as i could throw it
most sience people beleve the big bang was real! were is there proof?,,thats the biggest bunch of poo i ever heard,,lol,,just a big bang,,and then worlds appeard,,,,you saying sience doesnt make things up? and is based on only proof?,,,no it aint,,they make up more things than anyone,,and expect us to beleve we came from apes or out of the sea<~~with out any proof!,,were is the proof we came from the sea?,,they cant seem to make up there mind on that one,,and if man turned into apes,,why are there still apes?<~they just decided they didnt wanna evolve?,,lol,,,sience is just as hoaky as any religion,,lol
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's a delicate thing trying to catch a trophy fish without catching one of those nasty Texas Grapevine Bass... The ones that foul the lines and ruin the tackle... :D
Catch and release is the general rule in any case... :)
Nah,..you do not have to worry about catching one of those bass, they just peek and move along.
It's those hardheads that keep the lines fouled.
-
If it was up to the religious we would still have a flat earth.
And we would be in the middle of the universe.
Now since we can't explain the flight of the homble bee, we should stop going to school and throw overboard all data.
Let's go church i bet the priest knows all answers.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72512&referrerid=3203
Hey Rip....
Were you assuming:
A: That I am an Atheist
B: That I was bashing a religion?
C: That no one would check your links?
Pretty sneaky there sir.
-
most sience people beleve the big bang was real! were is there proof?,,thats the biggest bunch of poo i ever heard,,lol,,just a big bang,,and then worlds appeard,,,,you saying sience doesnt make things up? and is based on only proof?,,,no it aint,,they make up more things than anyone,,and expect us to beleve we came from apes or out of the sea<~~with out any proof!,
Your kidding right?
In your 400 hp Mustang, how do you know the valves are working all the time? You can't see them! You must be making it up!
What's that? You know they are because other parts of the engine would react to their failure? Oh!
Kinda like how science works huh?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do a search on any religious topic on this board, always initiated by an atheist.
Well look at this one.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71806&highlight=Religon
A religious topic on this board, initiated by someone named Ripsnort...wait a minute that's YOU! :eek:
I guess the only conclusion we can come to, based on your statement, is that Ripsnort is an atheist.
:D
-
Originally posted by hyena426
<~~then how does a bumble bee fly?,,According to aeronautical science, the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly.,lol they still cant figure that one out,,lol,,,do you beleve bumble bees can fly? sience doesnt show anything besides how dumb we are somtimes,,,we cant even figure out why a simple bumble bee can fly,,i wouldnt trust sience as far as i could throw it
Oh I get it... because science can't explain it, bumble bee's in fact cannot fly.
Somebody better tell 'em before they get hurt.
-
<~~then how does a bumble bee fly?,,According to aeronautical science, the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly.,lol they still cant figure that one out,,lol,,,do you beleve bumble bees can fly? sience doesnt show anything besides how dumb we are somtimes,,,we cant even figure out why a simple bumble bee can fly,,i wouldnt trust sience as far as i could throw it
most sience people beleve the big bang was real! were is there proof?,,thats the biggest bunch of poo i ever heard,,lol,,just a big bang,,and then worlds appeard,,,,you saying sience doesnt make things up? and is based on only proof?,,,no it aint,,they make up more things than anyone,,and expect us to beleve we came from apes or out of the sea<~~with out any proof!,,were is the proof we came from the sea?,,they cant seem to make up there mind on that one,,and if man turned into apes,,why are there still apes?<~they just decided they didnt wanna evolve?,,lol,,,sience is just as hoaky as any religion,,lol
Dude, this is the biggest pile of poo I have seen in a long time! LOL whats with the ,, poo,, pooo,,??
In the future, if you want to help out your side... do not post.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Basically, on any given UBB, the atheists are always the first to cast stones at religous folks. Now go take some pyschology courses in the school you're attending (assuming its a University or CC) and you'll understand WHY that happens. ;)
But you'd have to agree that there are more 'believers' trying to convert atheists or agnostics than the other way around. So if you combine this with your 'casting stones equals insecurity theory'....
-
In the future, if you want to help out your side... do not post.
what is poo there buddy?,,,better than saying sh@t<~~not a foul mouth little kid sorry,,lol..everything i said is true,,and i will post anything i want on here buddy,,its a free board!!!! wake up mc fly!{knocks on your head} everything i said is true,,your all saying god doesnt exsit because science cant prove it! well like i showed sceince cant prove alot of things!<~~you cant argu with athieist and scientist,,because they are too brain washed to beleve anything besides what they were taugh by othere scientist and darwin lovers,,lol,,who said i was taking sides with bible thumpers?,,you just beleve i was just because i said science is just as hoakie as religion,,lol do you beleve every thing some guy in a white over coat tells you?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Many people look forward to death as oblivion, not into being transformed into some kind of ethernal inhuman entity.
miko
Spoken like someone that hasn't died or faced death yet. Give us you opinion again after you've died. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Too lazy to do the work eh?
Well, there are 17 pages (roughly 180 posts) started out by someone bashing religion in the first post.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=76179&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74239&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=75055&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74409&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=71479&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72512&referrerid=3203
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72099&referrerid=3203
Now, show ME a religious post bashing an atheist in the first post... :)
Uh, did you actually read the beginning posts of ANY of these threads?
Post #1: An attack on conservatives, not on religion
Post #2: An attempt to get an explanation for something he didn't understand. "This is one aspect of Christianity I've never quite understood." I've notices St.Santa makes fun of Allied planes tho', so I suppose he's insecure about his flying ability versus them.
Post #3: He posted an article he read, linking pot to Jesus. The fact that he would believe anything from High Times says a lot, but not that he hates religious-types.
Post #4: He's not muslim. How do you know he's not religious? Hell, I'm not religious, and I thought what he posted was tripe.
Post #5: Miko asked a valid question about what he percieved to be a discrepency.
Post #6: MT made a valid comparison, between one wrong and another.
Post #7: I'd also be interested in a rational explanation of how Noah's ark could be possible (or perhaps the story is somehow not literal). Why is that anti-religious?
Any more?
SOB
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Since when? I think it is still called a theory. Show me an evolution event in progress.
Look it up yourself, do a search on "Darwins Finches" in google. Plenty of evolutionary events in progress. Its a common (ie school kid common) experiment in natural selection and evolution.
-
LOL...all this talk about the bumblebee reminds me of the most horrible movie (besides Entrapment) that I've ever seen.
The Bumblebee Flies Anyway
It's basically about a kid who has terminal cancer. He agrees to undergo a new miracle procedure dreamed up by Robin Colcort from Cheers. The treatment? They erase his memory so that he doesn't know he has cancer, therefor, he won't die from it. The bumblebee doesn't know it can't fly, so it flies & kid doesn't know he has terminal cancer, so he isn't gonna die from it. LOL!
Just had to share that.
SOB
-
Urban myth, Bee wings and statistics were plugged into a mainframe program designed to model aircraft flight. Aircraft flight dynamics do not apply to bees, as they function on a different level...
"Bee wing movements in flight create vortices that create lift in excess of that predicted by aircraft aerodynamics."
So basically some village idiot like you plugged bee stats into an aircraft modelling system and came up with this idea. The system failed to take account of relative air viscosity, air sac's within the bee, surface area of the bee, and other relative stuff.
What is a mystery is why the hell you feel the need to use so many comma's?
Originally posted by hyena426
<~~then how does a bumble bee fly?,,According to aeronautical science, the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly.,lol they still cant figure that one out,,lol,,,do you beleve bumble bees can fly? sience doesnt show anything besides how dumb we are somtimes,,,we cant even figure out why a simple bumble bee can fly,,i wouldnt trust sience as far as i could throw it
-
its funny how science people get so mean and vulger,,is it because of the lack of morals? ,,lol
-
Did he say anything about bumble bees?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Basically, on any given UBB, the atheists are always the first to cast stones at religous folks. Now go take some pyschology courses in the school you're attending (assuming its a University or CC) and you'll understand WHY that happens. ;)
Well, once you learn ya can't shoot them on your doorstep casting stones is about the only way to beat them back.
If they took infrences to god out of my everyday life then I wouldn't have anything to squeak about...ya figure?
-
typical Ripsnort.. drive by and duck.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Until they are on their deathbed and they find their faith.
Originally posted by SaburoS
...or reinforce their belief that God doesn't exist.
But I forgot, you're the all knowing of every death that ever took place :rolleyes:
That line about foxholes is baloney.
Sure some get religious in combat situations but to say that there are no athiests in a foxhole is akin to saying that all people who drink alcohol are alcoholics...it just isn't so.
Infact, I would rather have an athiest covering my back than some spiritual person who's preoccupied with asking forgiveness by preying to his god rather than keeping his senses sharp and protecting my flank.
But that's just me...YMMV
-
I'm a creationist. I believe God created evolution. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Basically, on any given UBB, the atheists are always the first to cast stones at religous folks.
Now why do YOU say that? ;)
-
Shyaddup, ya creationist homo! :p
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I'm a creationist. I believe God created evolution. :)
Some believe that evolution created man then man created god...that is much more believable.......I believe ;)
-
Originally posted by hblair
But is it real this time? ;)
The authors address this in their paper (see the link I provided). In fact, Xu, the principle author of this paper is the person who discovered the archaeoraptor forgery. The last sentence reads: "We carefully examined the specimens under the microscope and with high-resolution X-ray computerized tomography (CT) to test the authenticity of one of the studied specimens(45) (IVPP V13352) and can guarantee the accuracy of the information that we provide in this study."
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Fact: All living forms come from previous living forms.
That should explain the origins of life then...
-
Time, like space, is curved. From the situation in the world today, not to mention the posts on this board, I think we're on the down side.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
That should explain the origins of life then...
Oh... I get it... because we can't understand how it started, we ignore the evidence that evolution does in fact occur.
We have chickens and eggs, but we can't explain which came first so it's quite obvious that there is no such thing as chickens (or eggs).
-
The chicken or egg thing is easy for the evolutionist, the embryo in the egg is the first chicken since it evolved from it's host < mother > who was not quite chicken yet.
An over simplification for sure because of the slow pace of most evolutionary changes but it gets the point across.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh... I get it... because we can't understand how it started, we ignore the evidence that evolution does in fact occur.
We have chickens and eggs, but we can't explain which came first so it's quite obvious that there is no such thing as chickens (or eggs).
Look moron, this is what you posted first:
Fact: There are major life forms on the planet today that were not present in the past.
Fact: There are major life forms of the past that are no longer living.
Fact: All living forms come from previous living forms.
Conclusion: All present forms of life arose from previous forms that were different.
The mechanism that made all this possible is the theory part. Evolution does indeed happen. The theory is in trying to explain how.
I have just pointed out that your "fact" nr 3 is not really a fact at all. because if it was a "fact" then you would be able to prove that it is correct. Now, since you cannot explain how life originated, that "fact" is flawed. If you remove that "fact" the entire theory crumbles and becomes null and void.
Not only that, the underlying logic is so severely flawed that it is quite rediculous really "all living forms come from previous living forms" and when confronted with the question "so how did life originate", the statement falls. And you try to attempt some silly "chicken or egg" rubbish.
&¤#&¤ Just looking at your rediculous attempts at logical reasoning pisses me off actually.
fact #1 and fact #2 has got nothing to do with anything, fact #3 is flawed, and from these irrelevant, pointless or false assumptions you reach a conclusion that is no where near based on your underlying "facts".
Before you go mouth off like that you should at least try to get some rudimentary knowledge of the scientific method..or at least get an education.
EDIT
Looking over it again. Even if one would accept your 3 "facts" as true, they do not support the conclusion. GET AN EDUCATION BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
-
Hortlund, how did life start?
-
I can usually tell when I've hit a nerve. You name call and question everyone's education but your own. Thanks for participating, Steve.
Can you name a single organism on the planet today that did not come from some other organism before it? Fact #3 is indeed fact. There isn't a single life form on the planet today that didn't come from something else.
Origin of life is all theory... No question... plenty of room for divine intervention here if that's your bent.
Evolution and origin of species is something else entirely with plenty of evidence to support it.
It's not about god guys. It's really not. It's about the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, a book that quite obvious to the casual observer, is a load of crap.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Hortlund, how did life start?
Oh Oh Oh... I know this one... :)
9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Note... the plants came before the Sun according to the book.
-
not really a fact at all. because if it was a "fact" then you would be able to prove that it is correct.
I got one for ya Mr. Logic.
Is the square root of 2 a never repeating decimal? How about Pi?
Prove it.
Calling someone a MORON because you think his logic is flawed, then backing it up with a silly statement like that is really below you. Something like Evolution has been proven to the extent that it is highly unlikely that it is wrong.
Enough to convict in even your courtroom logicmeister.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
(best smug/smiling voice) "Ohh no... I dont need evolution... Ive got Jesus."
and i got Allah at my side everyday:rolleyes:
-
There is solid evidence disproving stellar evolutionary theories.
Over a period of time a variety of fantastic theories were invented, which, together, were given the title, "stellar evolution." The basic theory teaches that free-floating hydrogen gas in outer space pushed itself into stars, and then those stars exploded. Those explosions are supposed to have pushed gas into more stars! (For more on this, open the web page, Origin of Matter).—p. 11.
The stellar evolution theory is foolishness. Fortunately, common sense and reputable scientists have refuted it. Yet their writings are not well-known. Here is a summary of some of their findings. The truth is that there are many scientific facts which disprove the theory of fog coming out of nothing and pressing itself into stars:
16 FATAL FLAWS
Here are fundamental reasons disproving stellar evolution
1 - Where did the gas come from? Hydrogen gas is supposed to have made itself into stars, but where did the hydrogen come from?—p. 12.
2 - How could random gas movements produce stars and galaxies? The intricate design and balance of the galaxies renders the theory impossible. Gas, floating in outer space, does not push itself into stars.—p. 12.
3 - The birth of a star has never been observed. How then can anyone presume to tell us how it came about?—p. 12.
4 - We should see exploding stars today, since the theory requires that billions and billions of exploding stars occurred. Why would they have stopped exploding?—p. 13.
5 - It is not possible for loose, free-floating hydrogen to push itself into even one star, much less billions of them. Gas in outer space only expands; it does not contract. The pull of gravity within the gas, would not be strong enough to push it together.—p. 13.
6 - A star (super-nova) explosion would blow everything outward; it would not compress gas into new stars.—p. 13.
7 - Stars are too far apart for even combined explosions to push gas into more new stars.—p. 13.
8 - There is not enough evolutionary time for the stars to be formed. The theory requires that they all explode themselves into existence, and then stop exploding just before their light could be sent for us to see.—p. 13.
9 - There is a universal law requiring star degeneration, not star formation. It is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.—p. 13. (See Laws of Nature vs. Evolution.)
10 - Explosions could not produce what we find in the skies. All about us are the complicated orbits and careful balancing of the stars around galaxies.—p. 13.
11 - The theory does not explain the working of gravity; yet, if it is a comprehensive theory of self-originations, it should do so.—p. 14.
12 - The theory requires that stars are fueled (shine) by hydrogen explosions, but that cannot be true since not enough neutrinos (subatomic antimatter) are formed.—p. 14.
13 - Evolutionists dare not accept the truth of the missing neutrinos, because they know it would destroy their theory of star origins.—p. 14.
14 - Stars shine because of solar collapse, not hydrogen explosions. This fact means the universe is much younger than the evolutionists theorize.—pp. 15-16.
15 - Solar shock waves (160-minute oscillations) on the sun's surface, support the concept of solar collapse.—p. 16.
16 - Abundant evidence points to a young universe and a very young Planet Earth.—(See Age of the Earth.)—p. 16.
20 MORE PROBLEMS
Still more scientific facts opposing the theory.
1 - Galaxies never exist alone; they always exist in pairs or larger groups. Yet, the theorized "cloud condensation" would not result in nearby pairs or groups.—p. 17.
2 - Stars are too far apart, within galaxies, for the galactic systems to form or hold together. The amount of matter within a galaxy could not produce the formation of individual stars. The space-to-mass ratio is too great to bind them together.—p. 17.
3 - Galactic stars travel too fast. The velocity of stars, traveling around the central galactic core, is too fast for galaxies to be very old.—p. 17.
4 - Wrapping-up factor. The galaxies cannot be very old because the galactic magnetic field would cause a too-quick wrapping-up of the stars.—p. 17.
5 - The usual saucer shape of galaxies defies explanation by the laws of physics. They should not hold together as they do.—p. 18.
6 - If the evolutionary redshift theory were true, stars within galaxies would fly apart, but they do not do so. (See The Origin of Matter, for an explanation of the redshift.)—p. 18.
7 - Some galaxy groups are joined by luminous bridges of matter. This cannot be explained by the stellar evolution theory.—p. 19.
8 - Hydrogen gas in outer space cannot possibly stick together. This important proof was worked out by Harwit.—p. 19.
9 - Each galaxy must be as young as its youngest stars, because of the mass-luminosity law and the fact that all types of stars are found in each galaxy.—p. 19.
10 - All stars are chemically similar, yet they should not be if the theory was true.—p. 19
11 - Outflowing gas cannot possibly clump together into stars. There is no scientific way it can happen.—pp. 19-20.
12 - There is not enough matter in gas clouds to form a star. There are just not enough particles, close enough together, for them to push themselves into a ball.—p. 20.
13 - Gas clouds expand, they do not contract. Therefore they cannot form stars.—p. 20.
14 - The theory says stars are formed by explosions, but: (1) If one star exploded to form a second star, where did the first star come from? (2) If a star has to be destroyed, to make another one,—where did all our billions of stars come from? (3) If a star exploded, the outrushing gases would keep flowing outward. According to the theory, the first stars only had hydrogen in them, and they had to explode in order to make heavier element stars. But, if each exploding star only made one new star, where did the billions of heavier stars in the universe come from?—p. 20.
15 - Stars should not exist at all. There is simply no mechanism by which they could form. Gas on earth would never push into itself; it would expand. In the vacuum of outer space, it would be even less possible.—p. 25.
16 - Stars never get closer than a certain distance. This appears to be according to preplanning.—pp. 25, 27.
17 - A physical barrier exists between the smallest and largest stars; the red giants and the white dwarfs they are supposed to evolve into.—p. 27.
18 - Over half the stars are binary or multiple star systems. How could they possibly originate from random gas movements and star explosions? Only God could make two stars encircle each other, without crashing into one another.—p. 20.
19 - No evidence exists that evolution theory has occurred anywhere in the universe.—p. 20
20 - The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are powerful and cannot be broken. They deny the possibility of stellar evolution. (See The Laws of Nature vs. Evolution, for more on this.)—pp. 20-21.
The search continues. Evolutionists desperately continue searching for some scrap of evidence which will really support their theory that the universe made itself. But they labor in vain.—pp. 21, 23.
Conclusion. The truly great men are those who acknowledge that God made the universe and everything within it.—p. 23.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh Oh Oh... I know this one... :)
Note... the plants came before the Sun according to the book.
Shhh Sandman I want the all knowing Hortlund to answer. Why should I listen to anyone else? After all according to him, you're nothing but a moron :rolleyes:
After he's finished sharing with us the origins of life, he can go onto more important things like curing AIDS, the common cold, cancer, world poverty, etc. He is so brilliant.
Heck, because of him I am very fearful of opening my mail as I am sure Sadaam Hussein has triggered his sleeper cells here in the US with their anthrax attack.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
There is solid evidence disproving stellar evolutionary theories.
Conclusion. The truly great men are those who acknowledge that God made the universe and everything within it.—p. 23.
Really? What book did you get this from? Who wrote this article?
-
Originally posted by hyena426
SNIP
Conclusion. The truly great men are those who acknowledge that God made the universe and everything within it.—p. 23.
Hyena.. dood... you need some newer books.
-
Personally I think the 2000 year old supersticion stories of nomadic desert dwelling filtyh poor Palestenian goatherders are more credible than 2000+ years of civilized science at explaining everything.. Yes, Yes I do...
-
Originally posted by hyena426
Conclusion. The truly great men are those who acknowledge that God made the universe and everything within it.—p. 23.
LOL! Falsifying a theory does not suddenly prove another theory corrrect. The null hypothesis for stellar evolution is not the existence of God, it's that stellar evolution is an incorrect theory.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
OK heres a question:
If there is a god, is it considered a lifeform?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
OK heres a question:
If there is a god, is it considered a lifeform?
Can it reproduce and create another god?
Can it die?
-
Does god go the bathroom? I bet he does because we were made in his image and have all the parts too.
What does god read in the bathroom?
-
Each and every one of us knows not our final destination or status after death. You may think you know but you cant possibly know. Its a singular event and unless you have died and been resurrected you dont know squat.
As a result many develope a faith, most faiths unfortunately are dependant on the written word of men from centuries ago, still others rely on the modern likes of Jim Jones and that Waco Texas freak as examples. Many deep thinkers prescribe to the "revert theory", that is, upon the moment of death we revert back to where we came from. From Nothing, to Nothing. -N O T H I N G- We do find that some religions depend on the recycle mechanism. Reincarnation. Unfortunaltey, in my estimation, the most likely scenario will be the revert scenario, My own observations of nature seem to point to this eventuality. Not really inspiring is it.
In closing: We will each get our very own unique opportunity to experience the final passage as life ends and rest assured it will result in one of four things.
A) Nothing forever and ever, amen (athiest)
B) Something Good Forever (God of Mercy, wonderful, sign me up)
C) Something Bad Forever (God with no mercy, ugly, I want out of this contract)
D) Perpeptual reincarnation (least likely but doesnt sound all that bad, just depends)
Take yer pick
-
Really? What book did you get this from? Who wrote this article?
i recomend this site,,its called Unmasking The False Religion of Evolution,,it says on there
The theory of evolution is something people chooses to believe. They do not and cannot know that it is true. Real science deals with things that are observable and testable, and neither creation nor evolution are scientifically provable. Both views are religious in nature.
he is even offering money on the web site to anyone who can prove evolution,,so if you all got it figured out,go prove it,,and get some cash dangit!!,,lol here is the web site http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm
-
Gotta do better than that Hyena... I love this one...
The creationist world-view says that God made the universe about six thousand years ago. The evolutionist world-view teaches that the universe made itself from nothing about twenty million years ago. One of these opposing world-views obviously is wrong.
Current evidence indicates that the earth began approximately 4.5 billion years ago and the universe is at least 11 billion years old.
My guess is that Mr. Weaver has never attended a class on cosmology. My guess is that he's not a wiz with math either...
Consider the globular cluster, M15. It is 40,000 light years away. That's right... the light we see today, began the journey to earth 40,000 years ago. Nevermind the stars that are billions of light years away. Doesn't quite fit Mr. Weaver's timeline, now does it?
-
Gotta do better than that Hyena... I love this one...
go prove your right and get that money then:)<~`ill by you a beer too after you get the $10,000,,lol prove the big bang to be true,,,,a big bang just happend out of nothingness<~~how can that happen?,science nor anyone can prove that,,how can the hydrogen atom just appear out of nothing?,,, and then explode and form a vast universe,, science believes this to be true,, a belief,,sounds like religion again,,lol,,thought they only based science on facts not beliefs?<~~and if he is lieing about the 10,000 sue:),,lol,,jk but its worth a shot
but threoy is a belief in somthing that isnt proven yet,,just like some people are saying about god,,,so in a way,,god is allmost a threoy ,,lol,,im not taking anyone side on this,,,ill make my own choices and not push any of my beliefs on anyone,,i was just giving my point of veiw on it and info,,thats all nothing more all
-
lol Ripsnort, Sandman's comments could be aimed at anyone who doubts the veracity of biological evolution - even non-religious scientists. It was your insecurities that led you to see it as an attack on faith.
But then, that has always been the case, no? Everytime there is a discussion of this type, you raise the spectre of anti-theistic agenda. It's pathetically predictable. Do you have anything original to offer?
Each and every one of us knows not our final destination or status after death. You may think you know but you cant possibly know. Its a singular event and unless you have died and been resurrected you dont know squat.
As a result many develope a faith, most faiths unfortunately are dependant on the written word of men from centuries ago, still others rely on the modern likes of Jim Jones and that Waco Texas freak as examples. Many deep thinkers prescribe to the "revert theory", that is, upon the moment of death we revert back to where we came from. From Nothing, to Nothing. -N O T H I N G- We do find that some religions depend on the recycle mechanism. Reincarnation. Unfortunaltey, in my estimation, the most likely scenario will be the revert scenario, My own observations of nature seem to point to this eventuality. Not really inspiring is it.
In closing: We will each get our very own unique opportunity to experience the final passage as life ends and rest assured it will result in one of four things.
A) Nothing forever and ever, amen (athiest)
B) Something Good Forever (God of Mercy, wonderful, sign me up)
C) Something Bad Forever (God with no mercy, ugly, I want out of this contract)
D) Perpeptual reincarnation (least likely but doesnt sound all that bad, just depends)
Take yer pick
Oh dear. The meaning of life, sanctimoniously summed up in 300 words. Well done Yeager. I love the 'bible speak' - 'knows not our final destination or status after death'!!
Talking in that manner doesn't lend your blurb any credibility you know. And to sum up life after death into 4 highly simplisitic belief systems is simple minded at best. Clearly you've know concept of the individuality of spiritual belief - many people would not fit into any of your coverall theories.
-
but threoy is a belief in somthing that isnt proven yet,,just like some people are saying about god
No it's not. A scientific theory is used to explain observed phenomena but, unlike any opiate for the masses, that's not where it ends. It's a start. The theory is then tested in repeatable controlled conditions. It is refined and honed to a point where it becomes almost fact - but it is open to complete revision at any time.
Religion on the other hand, is taken as the absolute truth and in no way can a religion be found to wrong. There are no checks and balances because people are too busy carrying out the sacraments of their particular faith. There is also a complete unwillingness to believe they may have it wrong and therefore there is no revision.
-
The theory is then tested in repeatable controlled conditions
how did they test a hydro atom appearing out of nothing like in the big bang threory?, how can it be a threory?,,its never been tested,,but its called a threory anyways,,without valid controlled testing and condition,,,,,it turns into a belief,,untill they prove it,,the begining of time will allways be a belief ,,,its going to be the hardest thing in history to prove
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Hortlund, how did life start?
I dont know.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Can you name a single organism on the planet today that did not come from some other organism before it? Fact #3 is indeed fact.
[/b]
Ok, so you want to change your "fact"#3 from "All living forms come from previous living forms" to "There isn't a single life form on the planet today that didn't come from something else."
You DO realize that you have just killed off your own theory on how life evolved then...since it only applies to life forms that exist on the planet today. Well, thanks fo trying, but you still should follow that get an education-tip.
Origin of life is all theory... No question... plenty of room for divine intervention here if that's your bent.
Evolution and origin of species is something else entirely with plenty of evidence to support it.
[/b]
hehe, this is acutally quite amusing. So are you saying that the theory of evolution is not a theory..but there is plenty of evidence to support it? I'll leave you to ponder over the consequences of your choise of words here and see if you can understand why that is hillariously funny.
It's not about god guys. It's really not. It's about the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, a book that quite obvious to the casual observer, is a load of crap.
I see you have a tendency to hold up your own opinions as facts. If you went to school, you would learn that it doesnt really work that way after kindergarten.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I got one for ya Mr. Logic.
Is the square root of 2 a never repeating decimal? How about Pi?
Prove it.
Calling someone a MORON because you think his logic is flawed, then backing it up with a silly statement like that is really below you. Something like Evolution has been proven to the extent that it is highly unlikely that it is wrong.
Enough to convict in even your courtroom logicmeister.
MT, this evolution vs creation debate have been going on for dozens of threads now..some participants are smarter than others. This sandman guy should try to read back in the old threads and he might learn something about the stuff he is talking about. Instead he presents some rediculous theory on how to logically prove the theory of evolution.
If you want to open up the topic again, fine fine, you can start by telling us if you are talking about macro or micro evolution. Then you can list your evidence for macro evolution. (I have a vauge recollection that the latest thread on e vs c ended somewhere at that point, cant remember exactly though)
I'm not going to try to prove some mathematic stuff here MT, simply because I cant. I barely know what pi is, heck after school I have not once tried to calculate the area of a circle and stuff like that. But I note that your choice of topic is quite interesting, since math is the only science with exact answers.
-
Mathematics is a closed system. The only reason there are exact answers is because the environment is artificially created and not boundless like the universe; therefore (according to Gödel) incomplete and necessarily internally inconsistent. This has been proven.
There are no such thing as 'circles' in the real world. Only things that approximate circular form.
There is no such thing as a straight line or a point in the real world. These are human constructions.
-
A quickie. Someone stated that 'evolution is just a theory, not a fact'.
This is erroneous. There are two aspects of evolution and it might be poor that the same word is used. But let me explain quickly.
Evolution is popularly described in 'change in allele frequency in a population over time'. What this basically means is that there are some stuff on genes that change - and that the change is propogated through the entire species over time. In this sense, evolution is a fact - this has been proven time and time again to happen.
Then there is the theory of evolution. A scientific theory that explains a fact. In this case the diversity we see in nature and the origin of species.
For those that cannot see the difference, the first definition is more of a factual nature. 'Evolution is this:' basically. The second use of the term takes a fact and tries to explain why things are the way it is.
So, evolution is a fact and a theory.
I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of evolution that creationists are uncomfortable with. In my discussions with creationists, i've found that they're not so much trying to discredit evolution because it might be flawed, but more because they have an alternative they like better. It strikes me as odd when someone states 'oh that is unrealistic' only to claim 'an invisible unknowable form majickally created something'. Consistency? Absent.
-
"Originally posted by midnight Target
I got one for ya Mr. Logic.
Is the square root of 2 a never repeating decimal? How about Pi?
Prove it. "
If the square root of 2 is NOT a never repeating decimal, then it can be expressed in the form p/q, where p and q are integers.
Assume that such a rational number (r) exists such that r ^2 =2
Therefore p^2/q^2 = 2
Now for the square root of 2 to be expressed as p/q they must have no common factors, otherwise we could reduce the fraction further.
Therefore by rearranging p^2 = 2q^2
But if this is true, then p and q must have common factors and must therefore be reducible. Therefore p and q cannot be integers, and if they are NOT integers therefore the square root of 2 MUST be an irrational number (a never repeating decimal).
Next?
-
what difference does it make? The God guys are gonna believe what they belive and the "science dudz" are gonna believe.... whatever is popular and "undisputed" this decade. At least the God guys don't have to recant every few (relatively speaking) years..
I am an agnostic on the subject... not so much because it interests me but because it doesn't.
lazs
-
Originally posted by hyena426
go prove your right and get that money then:)<~`ill by you a beer too after you get the $10,000,,lol prove the big bang to be true,,,,a big bang just happend out of nothingness<~~how can that happen?,science nor anyone can prove that,,how can the hydrogen atom just appear out of nothing?,,, and then explode and form a vast universe,, science believes this to be true,, a belief,,sounds like religion again,,lol,,thought they only based science on facts not beliefs?<~~and if he is lieing about the 10,000 sue:),,lol,,jk but its worth a shot
but threoy is a belief in somthing that isnt proven yet,,just like some people are saying about god,,,so in a way,,god is allmost a threoy ,,lol,,im not taking anyone side on this,,,ill make my own choices and not push any of my beliefs on anyone,,i was just giving my point of veiw on it and info,,thats all nothing more all
Hyena... Fact... the observable universe is expanding. How do we know? It can be measured. Fact... ALL of the observable galaxies are moving away from each other. Now, it stands to reason that yesterday, the galaxies were closer to each other than they are today and a billion years ago, they were much closer. Keep backing up in time and eventually, you come to a beginning. You have to.
How it all started? Who knows? We don't have enough information yet. But there's considerably more data than "god made it happen" available. You have to consider that the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago with a extremely limited amount of data.
The guy you keep quoting is a whack job. Stars are born and stars die in this universe every single day. Some of them have even been captured on film.
I've neither the time nor the inclination to shoot the many holes in that link.
It's all moot... There is an mechanism of the universe. Have no doubt. We don't understand it all. Even if we did, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god. That is an issue of faith not science.
The morons who treat science as if it were faith understand neither.
-edited to reduce/remove patronizing tone-
-
Yep... Santa pretty much nailed it.
-
The Big Cigarette!
:)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You DO realize that you have just killed off your own theory on how life evolved then...since it only applies to life forms that exist on the planet today. Well, thanks fo trying, but you still should follow that get an education-tip.
[/B]
Cool... maybe I can go to your school... Shouldn't be too difficult being surrounded by people too dim to realize that the Old Testament is a fable.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hyena... I'm convinced that you haven't a clue. Fact... the universe is expanding. How do we know? It can be measured. Fact... ALL of the galaxies are moving away from each other.
It's only a "fact" that "ALL" the galaxies moving away from each other are the ones we can observe. Like all "facts", this one is based on the assumption that what we observes extrapolates to that which we don't.
How do you know that the outer edge of the universe hasn't begun collapsing?
-
Originally posted by StSanta
A quickie. Someone stated that 'evolution is just a theory, not a fact'.
This is erroneous. There are two aspects of evolution and it might be poor that the same word is used. But let me explain quickly.
Evolution is popularly described in 'change in allele frequency in a population over time'. What this basically means is that there are some stuff on genes that change - and that the change is propogated through the entire species over time. In this sense, evolution is a fact - this has been proven time and time again to happen.
Then there is the theory of evolution. A scientific theory that explains a fact. In this case the diversity we see in nature and the origin of species.
For those that cannot see the difference, the first definition is more of a factual nature. 'Evolution is this:' basically. The second use of the term takes a fact and tries to explain why things are the way it is.
So, evolution is a fact and a theory.
I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of evolution that creationists are uncomfortable with. In my discussions with creationists, i've found that they're not so much trying to discredit evolution because it might be flawed, but more because they have an alternative they like better. It strikes me as odd when someone states 'oh that is unrealistic' only to claim 'an invisible unknowable form majickally created something'. Consistency? Absent.
You are using observed microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. It doesnt work that way. You know it doesnt work that way, so I really dont understand what point you are trying to make here.
It is more complicated than you pretend it to be, and you know that, so why the BS?
But we have been over this discussion before. In fact you promised to start yet another thread about the subject after you posted your what is scientific theory threads in the past. The answer to why you are wrong in this post can be found in those threads so instead of acting as if they dont exist, go back to them and answer the questions there instead.
I really expected more from you.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yep... Santa pretty much nailed it.
LOL you are so pathetic. At least try to present your own arguments.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's only a "fact" that "ALL" the galaxies moving away from each other are the ones we can observe. Like all "facts", this one is based on the assumption that what we observes extrapolates to that which we don't.
How do you know that the outer edge of the universe hasn't begun collapsing?
You're absolutely right and I'll rephrase... "the observable universe is expanding."
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL you are so pathetic. At least try to present your own arguments.
I'm quite happy to let Santa argue the point. He's better at it than I. Repeating is unnecessary.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm quite happy to let Santa argue the point. He's better at it than I. Repeating is unnecessary.
Alright, then sit down and be quiet, you might learn a thing or two.
-
From you?
LOL...
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I'm a creationist. I believe God created evolution. :)
I'm a creationist too. I believe evolution created gods. :D
-
Diverging a bit here. Here's the most basic philosophical question as I see it. Was time/space created by a living, self-aware being or did it just pop into existence of it's own volition? Or maybe it just always was and that's that? IMO that's a question that everyone should reflect upon until they form a belief or at least an opinion. Now, back to your often scheduled never ending debate.
-
Steve, I'm assuming you mean the following:
Microevolution - Changes within a species
Macroevolution - Changing from one species to another
You are aware I hope that they are one and the same thing, and use the same mechanisms. As populations diverge due to whatever reasonand begin to adapt o their environment, they will eventually change to the point where they discontinue to interbreed. They have effectively become 2 species.
Of course different species can still interbreed. It is possible for Canis Latrans to breed with Canis familiaris. Hell, I own one. So your micro / macro debate is a muddy cesspool you might want to leave alone.
-
Sabre - I certainly recommend that you read Richard Dawkings books "The selfish Gene", "Extended Phenotype" and "The blind Watchmaker".
His writing is very clear, complex subject are made simple. Even though he is anti-religion, I am pretty sure that no religious person will be turned away from religion by reading his books but would rather be filled with awe before beauty and elegance of the Creation - whatever meaning he applies to this word.
On the "theory" term - I had though about it a little and I think I have an explanation that resolves this argument one and for all.
Most people - even some scientists, especially talking to laymen use the term "theory" to mean "speculative assertion" or "hypothesis" instead of "factual knowlege" or "proven hypothesis". The word "hypothesis" is almost never used.
It is perfectly fine for anyone to apply that meaning to word theory and say "Evolution is only a theory" meaning it's a speculative assertion, a hypothesis. As long as your audience is clear on what you mean by that term. You may be asked to explain why you have such opinion, but you are certainly entitled to it.
What I do not consider a valid statement is when someone says "Scientists call it 'theory' - so they admit it's speculative" as evidence of their argument. If you quote someone as evidence, you have to use the same meaning as the speaker does, not one that you usually do.
By calling evolution "a theory", R. Dawkings certainly does not admit any doubts to it's validity. It may still be wrong, but his statement is not an evidence. That's all.
I wish textbooks and professors were more carefull in selecting the words they use. If theory conveys higher degree of confidence than hypothesis but not certainity, than what term does?
"Fact" is not it, "theory" combines many facts. "Truth" is not it - there is no such term in science and even facts are not considered to be "truth".
The devalvation of the term "theory" was certainly aggravated by crooks calling their half-baked speculations, guesses and hypothesis "theory".
As for anyone accepting the science as infallible, that is just not true. We all know that any scientific statement may eventually be found wrong by science itself. A single evidence to the contrary is sufficient to relegate a theory to the junkpile - as happened countless times.
But there must be things that are accepted as current state of knowlege just in order to get out of bed. What is knowlege is a very complex question deserving more than a single college course, so I cannot do it justice in a post.
BTW, when I made my example and said ""the only spontaneous mechanism we've come up with a theory for that explains producing complexity..." , I did not mean that "theory" as "hypothesis".
Because I was not talking about biological or social or memetic evolution but evolutionary approach in general.
That evolution works and produces higher complexity is tested. modelled, reproduces and thus proven in many areas, most spectacularly in software.
Species may not have arisen as a result of evolution, but complexity certainly did in genetic algorithms and few other areas.
hyena426: then how does a bumble bee fly?,,According to aeronautical science, the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly.,lol they still cant figure that one out,,lol,,,do you beleve bumble bees can fly? sience doesnt show anything besides how dumb we are somtimes,
Unlike religiion, science is not a fixed dogma but an ongoing process. We do not know yet why bumble bee flies. Our models and equasions are not yet sufficient. That does not mean science is not valid. We used to not know many things that we know now. The amount of knowlege doubles every tne years.
BTW, bumlebee flies by using during the backstroke the energy of the vortices generated during the forward stroke. US military is trying to build an unmanned drones based on the same principle.
You are just ignorant of the current state of knowlege but your ignorance is not an evidence of someone else's problem.
If you really want to name a propblem or two that science is not close to solving yet, talk about reconsiling relativity with quantum mechanics or such, not simple stuff.
miko
-
miko2d: Many people look forward to death as oblivion, not into being transformed into some kind of ethernal inhuman entity.
AKIron: Spoken like someone that hasn't died or faced death yet. Give us you opinion again after you've died. ;)
I have certainly faced death - with great reluctance, since I had things to do. Also, I am a great believer in a freedom of choice. I would object to getting killed even if I was on my way to an appointment with Dr. Kevorkian.
The only fear of death I have is not completing a few things I plan. Once I've done things I had planned, I will have no problem dying and no fear. I may linger around a while and kill time with entertainment if I have resources to waste but once the benefits of living are overweighted by disadvantages - and both are very clear and specific to me - I will die.
miko
-
My mule doesn't want to plow this ground anymore.
Shuckins
-
Having a discussion about evolution with people that have iq's under 100 is never a good thing to do. As people 600 years ago could not comprehend that the earth was round, they cannot comprehend the advanced science's we have today.
My family has been atheist for over 200 years recorded. We have had members that have fought in almost every american and german war in that time period , and i will assure you there is such a thing as an atheist in a foxhole.
I still dont understand why some people have to have every mystery in life handed to them in a dumbed down package no matter how rediculous and false it appears. Personaly not knowing what happens when i die, or the secerts of the universe makes life a hell of alot more interesting. Of course i might find this view unfavorable if i was a control freak.
-
Frogm4n: I still dont understand why some people have to have every mystery in life handed to them in a dumbed down package no matter how rediculous and false it appears.
Unless it's a rhethorical statement, you show your ignorance. A lot of scientific work is dedicated to explaining this very subject. I suggest you read some on it, otherwise you give us, atheists, a bad reputation. :)
Phychology, memetics, phliosophy - start anywhere. Also, plenty of Nobel laureats were religious. Your IQ remark is not so hot.
miko
-
I declare Lazs the winner of this entire thread argument...
Which is reminiscent of a South park friggin episode...
-
Miko2D, I do wonder your age. When I was younger, death was little more than a curiosity. As I grow older, and I must admit selfishness, I feel the need for life to have greater meaning than what I have yet experienced. Is it foolishness to suspect that this yearning is not something designed within me to cause me to seek my creator?
-
i was not suggesting that just because they were religous they were idiots. People that say a bee's flight cannot be explained therefore all science is garbage are the crackpots.
-
AKIron,
I am 37. I've experienced quite a lot.
I do have a greater meaning/goal in life that is sufficient for me, though it's not related to what we understand as religion. One may even say that it involves ethernity but it does not make me seek physical/mental immortality or even longevity past average human lifespan.
Without that goal, I would have been bored with life already - pretty much all the experiences I seek for entertainment lose their attraction in shorter and shorter time. Accumulation of useless knowlege would not be appealing to me in the least though I and do seriously study given an excuse of even a chance to apply that knowlege. Same with wealth.
But my goal is quite finite. If it's accomplished while I live or disrupted or if I cannot contribute to it's accomplishment any longer, I doubt there will be anything in this world for me worth getting out of the bed in the morning. So I won't.
I would never call your yearning 'fulishness'. I only questioned desirability of immortality by atheists. BTW, many religions do not include life after death. I am pretty sure judaism does not have afterlife - no hell or paradise is mentined on the Old Testament, only in the New one. Plenty of non judeo-christian religions do not include eternal life but I am not that knowlegeable about them to name here.
I do find false the allegations that religious people supposedely are not afraid of death while atheists are terrified of it and insecure and attack religious people just to be converted.
First, most of the religous people I know are afraid of death. Second, at least some atheists are not aftraid of death even if they realise it's final and total oblivion.
Third, even if all religious people were not afraid of death and all atheists had so strong animalistic survival instincts that idea of death were driving them mad, why would usefulness of religion as an antidepressant be a good justification of it's validity?
I am sure you would not suggest that religion is valid or should be practiced (just) because it makes one feel good. Promise of eternal life may be a cherry on your pie but not a reason for existence, right?
miko
-
they figgured the bee flying thing out.
next undeniable proof of god?
and yeager its not a endless circle of reincarnation. you get off when you are done learning. understandable from a christian.
-
Miko
When King David had a young son to die, he lamented "He cannot come to me, but I can go to him." If he did not believe in an afterlife I do not believe he would have made that statement.
Shuckins
-
Miko, I can't feel good about about my religion or anything else for that matter if I don't believe that it is true. You are correct, I do not want to decieve myself, even if it gives me comfort. Still, for pratical purposes, I exist and so does the universe.
The fact, and it is a fact as far as I'm concened, that I question the creation of my existence justifies my belief in a creator and the benevolence of that creator in bestowing upon me eternal life.
Concerning fear of death. I'm not currently, nor have I in the past, experienced fear of death. It does however make me sorrowful to contemplate death as oblivion.
-
Holes in evolution
First things first, Sandman you need to get facts straight before you post something, light was created first according to the bible, so that would mean the sun was created on the first day before plants.
I am not taking a religious point on this one, i am Christian, but i have no idea how things came to be, but i do know evolution has too many holes to be considered a fail proof explanation. the information im using comes from a book that supports evolution in its entirety, and i can use it to point out some basic problems.
As for the Origin of Species, what constitutes a species? A wolf and a St bernard, both are dogs right? Wrong, wolves according to scientist are cannis lupis, and St Bernards are Cannis familiaris. So does that mean St bernards evolved from something different than wolves. Or tigers and Lions, they also are not the same species but are supposed to have evolved from the same origins.
Also where are all the transitional fossil forms for other animals, yes u are considering the four winged dinosaur as one, but shouldnt their be hundreds of transitional fossils, i think for scientist to say that fossils prove evolution they need to show more of these transitions than just a few feathered dinosaurs.
And for how old the earth is, there is a sort of paradox in the way scientist figure that. For example, Scientist say that a trilobite is x million years old because it was found in sediment from that period, but how do they know the sediment was that old, because they found a trilobite in it, but how do they know how old the trilobite is, because it was in sediment that old, but how do they know the sediment is that old, because theres a trilobite in it, and so on and son on. It circular thinking. And even the people at Purdue Universities carbon dating facilities would not trust carbon dating as absolute fact.
Sandman i would just like for you to explain some of the supposed evidence for evolution. I am open to the fact that it is still a possibility, but there is a lot more evidence needed before i will believe it as fact.
-
Originally posted by Sharkm8
First things first, Sandman you need to get facts straight before you post something, light was created first according to the bible, so that would mean the sun was created on the first day before plants.
According to Genesis, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day...
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
It doesn't make much sense... On the first day, day and night is created, but the sun and moon doesn't show up until the fourth... at least according to the King James version.
Everything else that you're asking for can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ - have to give credit to Santa for finding it...
-
its not a endless circle of reincarnation. you get off when you are done learning.
====
I recall this now. Question is: Then what? I mean, once the spirit has learned everything and no longer needs to be recycled. What happens next?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Everything else that you're asking for can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ - have to give credit to Santa for finding it...
Or you could look at http://www.trueorigins.org if you want
So you are reduced to quoting web pages now sandman? Impressive...
-
Holes in evolution? Will address those points.
As for the Origin of Species, what constitutes a species? A wolf and a St bernard, both are dogs right? Wrong, wolves according to scientist are cannis lupis, and St Bernards are Cannis familiaris. So does that mean St bernards evolved from something different than wolves. Or tigers and Lions, they also are not the same species but are supposed to have evolved from the same origins.
In biology, a species is defined as a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
Also where are all the transitional fossil forms for other animals, yes u are considering the four winged dinosaur as one, but shouldnt their be hundreds of transitional fossils, i think for scientist to say that fossils prove evolution they need to show more of these transitions than just a few feathered dinosaurs.
An understanding of the process of fossilization must be had before the problem with transitional fossils (or the low numbers thereof) can be understood.
There's something called stratigraphic discontinuity. What this means is that fossil-bearing strata aren't continous. Thes e strata are used for time dating, and one strata is often found right next to a strata of a different age. Often there are long time breaks missing. This is a quote:
'For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.'
That's just the evolution within a species. Speciation is much harder to document. You ahve to realize that for something to be eligible to be used as evidence, it has to qualify as such using scientific methods. You'll need an exceptionally complete strata with many dead animals while there is *constant* and fast sedimentation. There are some sites where this is approximated (Clar's Fork) but not many.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.
Then there is the issue of finding them. it's hard enough to find a Tyrranousaurus Rex. Only Europe and North America has been adequately surveyed, and there hasn't really been so much exploring even here. I'll quote again.
'The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found. Only two continents, Europe and North America, have been adequately surveyed for fossil-bearing strata. As the other continents are slowly surveyed, many formerly mysterious gaps are being filled (e.g., the long-missing rodent/lagomorph ancestors were recently found in Asia). Of course, even in known strata, the fossils may not be uncovered unless a roadcut or quarry is built (this is how we got most of our North American Devonian fish fossils), and may not be collected unless some truly dedicated researcher spends a long, nasty chunk of time out in the sun, and an even longer time in the lab sorting and analyzing the fossils. Here's one description of the work involved in finding early mammal fossils: "To be a successful sorter demands a rare combination of attributes: acute observation allied with the anatomical knowledge to recognise the mammalian teeth, even if they are broken or abraded, has to be combined with the enthusiasm and intellectual drive to keep at the boring and soul-destroying task of examining tens of thousands of unwanted fish teeth to eventually pick out the rare mammalian tooth. On an average one mammalian tooth is found per 200 kg of bone-bed." (Kermack, 1984.)
Documenting a species-to-species transition is particularly grueling, as it requires collection and analysis of hundreds of specimens. Typically we must wait for some paleontologist to take it on the job of studying a certain taxon in a certain site in detail. Almost nobody did this sort of work before the mid-1970's, and even now only a small subset of researchers do it. For example, Phillip Gingerich was one of the first scientists to study species-species transitions, and it took him ten years to produce the first detailed studies of just two lineages (see part 2, primates and condylarths). In a (later) 1980 paper he said: "the detailed species level evolutionary patterns discussed here represent only six genera in an early Wasatchian fauna containing approximately 50 or more mammalian genera, most of which remain to be analyzed."'
Then you have to get the word out. There *are* transitional fossils out there, but amongst Creationists it is common practise to just ignore that. Often it's the scientists fault for having it in highly technical reviews that are inaccessible for the general public. But it's there. I'll use just a few examples:
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.
There are more, of course. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish) is some more stuff.
The thing with evolution is that biology is a complex science just like nuclear physics. We do not understand many aspects of it, but it seems to be working so we assume the scientists have it somewhat right. With biology however, we lack the same understanding - only now science goes against our religious beliefs. So we're not inclined to cut it any slack.
No person I've met who've studied biology has come off thinking more of creation and less of evolution as a result. The increased understanding means what seemed magic before now, understood, is logical.
Ask away though. There are some people here that aren't experts in biology but can provide you with references and so forth.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
In biology, a species is defined as a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
To be totally correct it's a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed to produce offspring that can also breed. Lions & Tigers can breed, as can donkeys and horses, but the offspring are sterile. However this ability is a pretty good indication that lions & tigers and donkeys & horses had common ancestors in the not too distant (in evolutionary terms) past.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Those psychology classes you didnt take will lead you to the conclusion that on the most part both atheists of a certain kind and theists of a certain kind tend to be insecure, and thats why they love to argue with each other.
I dont really care about that.
What bothers me is when some people latch on to something so hard and refuse to let go, in a way that it harms the advancement of technology. All the scientific evidence is there showing you that evolution is a fact, but most still refuse to believe it because they are so insecure about their beliefs that anything that threatens their simple to understand dribble to fill a void in the mind and make you believe you have the answers has to be wrong.
I know many christian scientists. Hell I know PRIESTS who also dedicate themselves to science. When I talk to them about these subjects they explain to me that when your faith in God is so strong, any scientific revelation is not evidence AGAINST GOD, on the contrary, it more strongly reaffirms their belief that there must BE a God.
Hell, the only reason the Christian Church adopted the Big Bang theory as "Official" is because it could be bent to fit the belief of creation. Fine by me.
Did you know that this same paranoia and denial of advancement is what lead to the dark ages, where scientists who where studying things that would have been amazing breakthroughs where burned or jailed.
Not only that, but hardcore theists, many of orders similar to the Templars, would raid Muslim/Hindu cities only to burn libraries, univercities and centers of learning, and killing scholars, just because they thought that what they where studying and finding was a threat to their faith.
The burning of the library of Alexandria is believed to have set back technology and civilization about 2,000 years.
I find this paranoia and fear of anything related to science/philosophy to be absurd and against everything that a benevolent supreme being would want its followers to do.
Get with the times. Science is not an enemy of religion. On the others hand, ignorance is an enemy to humanity.
One of the best posts on this subject that I have ever read!
I agree 100%
-
Originally posted by -dead-
To be totally correct it's a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed to produce offspring that can also breed. Lions & Tigers can breed, as can donkeys and horses, but the offspring are sterile. However this ability is a pretty good indication that lions & tigers and donkeys & horses had common ancestors in the not too distant (in evolutionary terms) past.
Why sterility? What is it that makes such a specific outcome the result of certain interbreedings?
The fact that a farmer can take two animals and know that the offspring will be sterile but otherwise healthy is somewhat amazing to me.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Why sterility? What is it that makes such a specific outcome the result of certain interbreedings?
The fact that a farmer can take two animals and know that the offspring will be sterile but otherwise healthy is somewhat amazing to me.
A few points to be made:
1. All the definitions are man made - and if the majority of the offspring can breed then they are by definition not a separate species. Remember that the definition is always after the fact. The universe doesn't care about what the definition of stuff is - it just gets on with being itself.
2. Genetics - when the genome differs it becomes more and more likely that offspring between two "groups" will be sterile. A parallel thing happens if the genome gets too close & lacks diversity - inbreeding can also result in sterility. It's about as amazing as any other piece of known genetics really. No more amazing than if someone takes a poodle and breeds it with another poodle then the offspring is going to be a poodle too, and not a St. Bernard.
3. Scientific "laws" are almost always generalizations or approximations - for example the laws of electricity never quite match up to actual results on real life circuits - but the predicitions are extremely close. The danger involved in using averages and generalizations is best illustrated by the fact that the average Canadian only has one testicle.
4. Not all offspring are sterile - there is the odd rarity that can breed. Males are much less likely to be fertile. Genes change (they're famous for it); they are also not binary on or off things - they are often much more "fuzzy" - eg the presence of a gene for a certain characteristic may only represent a 70% liklihood of the characteristic happening; and they also do not represent the whole story - there are all sorts of other factors along with genes that dictate what an organism becomes - both internal - prions, enzymes, etc and environmental - temperature, food quality, weather, etc etc. But for the sake of the average AH BBS evolution thread it's usually safer to stick with the standard schoolbook "lies to children" kind of science rather than going into immense detail and boring people senseless.
5. We should also take into account what actually happens in nature - hybridisation amongst animals is pretty much an artificial process - lions don't hang around with tigers or leopards in the wild - indeed groups being isolated geographically or by separated by adapting to different habitats is one of the ways speciation takes place according to evolution theory.
-
These Evolution debate threads get way too complicated.
Modification of species by selective breeding is a well established technology. Otherwise, there would be no Clydesdales, no Quarterhorses, no Bloodhounds, no Basett Hounds, no Holstiens....
That environment and predation kills off the weakest members of the species, ie the ones that are least able to adapt is fact.
Therefore, natural selection exists, and the thought that species evolve to adapt to changing environments is established fact.
Whether you wish to extrapolate to the beginning of life is up to you, but the fact that evolution is a basic process in biology is not a stretch of logic by any measure.
-
But you do realize that what you just described is something called microevolution...right? And you cannot just take cases of observed microevolution and extrapolate that into "...so therefore Darwin was right" or something like that.
-
Thanx Dead...
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
-
Hortland:
I read "Origin of Species", and generally, that is what he was describing. He did explain the development of gender, and some other basics, but the vast majority of the book was decribing the process of natural selection.
Note: Origin of Species is an incredibly boring book. I suggest reading the Cliff's notes.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Holes in evolution? Will address those points.
[SNIP]
You know Santa...that is one big post saying pretty much "Yeah, we know that we haven't found any transitional fossils, but we're going to ignore that (because we have lots of excuses as to why we havent found any) and pretend that we did."
Over to your sharks Santa. You do realize that just because someone on a website lable them transitional fossils, that doesnt neccesarily make it so? But anyway, could you please point out what of those fossils that you listed that are transitional in your opinion? From a quick read, I could not find a single one that would appear to be transitional.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve, I'm assuming you mean the following:
Microevolution - Changes within a species
Macroevolution - Changing from one species to another
You are aware I hope that they are one and the same thing, and use the same mechanisms. As populations diverge due to whatever reasonand begin to adapt o their environment, they will eventually change to the point where they discontinue to interbreed. They have effectively become 2 species.
Of course different species can still interbreed. It is possible for Canis Latrans to breed with Canis familiaris. Hell, I own one. So your micro / macro debate is a muddy cesspool you might want to leave alone.
thought this bore repeating
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Thanx Dead...
hehehe look its mr Sandman making yet another educated appearance in this thread. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say how much we all value your knife sharp posts analysing the more complex aspects of evolution.
-
You misspelled analyzing, smart ass.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You misspelled analyzing, smart ass.
Did I...or did I use the British spelling?
Might want to check the dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=analyse*1+0)
Anyway, it is good to see that you are focusing on the important aspects of the discussion...
-
You don't support your own argument. In fact I'm not even sure what your argument is. You simply tear at others.
As I understand biology, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. You contend that there is a difference. Many would disagree.
IMHO, given the choice between literal interpretations of the book of Genesis and evolution science... the science holds up much better to scrutiny. Don't you agree?
Been reading http://www.trueorigin.com... an entire site devoted to tearing at http://www.talkorigin.com I guess it's an entertaining hobby.
-
Here (http://161.58.5.90/vinny/overuled.wav)
-
On the other hand... maybe science has got it all wrong...
On the first day we got light and dark... and the light was good. Fortunately for everyone, we got the sun on the fourth day because it was such a handy excuse for the light we got three days earlier.
All of the creatures on the planet were created at the same time. The fossils aren't really old nor are they really fossils. The dinosaurs were here right along with the cattle and other beasts and creatures that creepeth upon the earth. It's all in the documentation... mythology is chalk full of dragons. The dragons probably died out during the great flood. They probably weren't allowed onboard.
On the other hand... maybe the bones were just one more part of the creators plan to confuse us. There never really was any dragons. Those bones that we keep finding are from sick cattle or beasts, mishapen freaks that were not allowed to be fruitful or multiply.
Of course... the earth is only 8,000 years old and all the lights in the sky are nothing more than a huge cosmic joke by our creator to fool us into thinking that the universe is older than it actually is.
Shit... where did my goats run off to?
-
Dead wrote:
"To be totally correct it's a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed to produce offspring that can also breed. Lions & Tigers can breed, as can donkeys and horses, but the offspring are sterile. However this ability is a pretty good indication that lions & tigers and donkeys & horses had common ancestors in the not too distant (in evolutionary terms) past."
Well, 'interbreed' implies that the offspring can breed themselves. I should have been more clear.
I will now. We're talking about a clandistic taxation here. The criterion for grouping things together is the closeness of cousinship or relative recency of common ancestry. As such, this taxonomy is not one seen for instance in public libraries where a classification is arbitrary - in clandistic taxonomy one can say whether a classification is *right or wrong*. Much more info can be found in 'The Blind Watchmaker, R. Dawkins, chapter 'The One True Tree Of Life''.
Hortlund wrote:
You know Santa...that is one big post saying pretty much "Yeah, we know that we haven't found any transitional fossils, but we're going to ignore that (because we have lots of excuses as to why we havent found any) and pretend that we did."
Over to your sharks Santa. You do realize that just because someone on a website lable them transitional fossils, that doesnt neccesarily make it so? But anyway, could you please point out what of those fossils that you listed that are transitional in your opinion? From a quick read, I could not find a single one that would appear to be transitional.
I offer you the science explanation of the trouble with fossils in general. If you're not capable of understanding why this represents problems with obtaining transitional fossils that IS a problem. Evidence suggests that these transitional being existed only for a very short while (on the evolution scale) which further decreases the likelihood of finding transitional fossils. Then there is the human problem of sorting through all the stuff. You dismiss that too. It seems you dismiss without knowing, which is a creationist approach - but that is your prerogative. To suggest that there aren't any transitional fossils is just non educated nonsense though.
Ok, I'll give you something to peruse at your leisure, as it seems I am unable to educate you about quite simple things like strata, fossils and the problems involved.
Here is an example of speciation (i.e the transition from one species to another) supported by paleontolic evidence. It's dry reading though (read it myself at the public library a couple of years ago).
Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H.
Freeman & Co., New York. Chapter 22 for transitions.
Tetrapods are rather well documented, so that's a good source.
Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the
Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
A reference to my shark/fish cut/paste:
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Alternatively, visit this (http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/trans_faq.html#refs) link for a detailed list of references. Your assumption that I'm talking utta my arse is erroneous, but I should have provided references for you.
Now I must not disturb you anymore, as you have a lot of reading to do. Enjoy. And you'll understand what I mean when I say that speciation and so forth is buried deep within boring litterature.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I offer you the science explanation of the trouble with fossils in general. If you're not capable of understanding why this represents problems with obtaining transitional fossils that IS a problem. Evidence suggests that these transitional being existed only for a very short while (on the evolution scale) which further decreases the likelihood of finding transitional fossils. Then there is the human problem of sorting through all the stuff. You dismiss that too. It seems you dismiss without knowing, which is a creationist approach - but that is your prerogative. To suggest that there aren't any transitional fossils is just non educated nonsense though.
Ok, I'll give you something to peruse at your leisure, as it seems I am unable to educate you about quite simple things like strata, fossils and the problems involved.
Here is an example of speciation (i.e the transition from one species to another) supported by paleontolic evidence. It's dry reading though (read it myself at the public library a couple of years ago).
Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H.
Freeman & Co., New York. Chapter 22 for transitions.
Tetrapods are rather well documented, so that's a good source.
Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the
Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
A reference to my shark/fish cut/paste:
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Alternatively, visit this (http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/trans_faq.html#refs) link for a detailed list of references. Your assumption that I'm talking utta my arse is erroneous, but I should have provided references for you.
Now I must not disturb you anymore, as you have a lot of reading to do. Enjoy. And you'll understand what I mean when I say that speciation and so forth is buried deep within boring litterature.
What kind or debating technique is this santa? Since you seem so eager to point it out to others in various threads, I want you to tell me what stereotype of argumentation techniques this is:
If you're not capable of understanding why this represents problems with obtaining transitional fossils that IS a problem.
It seems you dismiss without knowing, which is a creationist approach - but that is your prerogative.
To suggest that there aren't any transitional fossils is just non educated nonsense though.
Basically here you are frustrated at me pointing out that there are no transitional fossils found. (hint: next time you want to debate about transitional fossils, it might be a wise idea to make sure that everyone involved in the discussion is using the same definition of certain key elements...such as "what constitutes a transitional fossil")
In short order you claim that:
I'm stupid because I do not understand why it is so hard for scientists to find transitional fossils.
I'm stupid because I dismiss (something) without knowing... (knowing what one might ask, are we talking about some objective truth here santa? I mean we both know how many of those there are...)
Im stupid because Im suggesting that there are no transitional fossils.
Basically santa, this is the bully approach to debating. I know Im right and you are just stupid. I can prove that you are stupid too, the fact that you are disagreeing with me proves that you are either stupid, or you just doesnt know enough about the subject matter.
I really expected more from you.
But wait there's more. There is another "rethorical trick" in that post aswell...the good old "flood your opponent with irrelevant sources"-techique.
Lets take a look at the list of books santa encourages me to read before Im allowed to reply to his post.
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301. Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism: some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109- 148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum Press, New York. Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford. [collection of papers. Good intro to current thinking on many intermediate fossils from various groups.] Benton, M.J. 1989. Patterns of evolution and extinction in vertebrates. Pp 218-241 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution. Unwin Hyman, London. Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181. [commentary on discovery of Ambulocetus natans] Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770 Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York. [general text. Only chapter 22 is concerned with species-level evolution and transitions; the other chapters generally describe only genera or families.] Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. [collection of symposium papers, most in French with English abstracts provided, some in English.] Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology 12:203-216. Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993. Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 21(1):123-131. Chuankuei-Li, R.W. Wilson, M.R. Dawson, and L. Krishtalka. 1987. The origin of rodents and lagomorphs. Chapter 3, pp. 97-108, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. HH Genoways. Plenum Press, New York. Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236. Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69. Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York. [An accessible summary of large-scale trends in vertebrate history. Does not discuss species-level evolution at all, though.] Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642. Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254. Fahlbusch, V. 1983. Makroevolution. Punktualismus. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel miozaner Eomyiden (Mammalia, Rodentia). Palaont. Z. 57:213-230. [transitions among Miocene rodents.] Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age Of Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new interpretations. Science 262: 845-846. Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Pantheon Books, New York. Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. [standard text on theories of *how* evolution occurs; doesn't address evidence for evolution per se]. Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1-28. Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil record. In: Patterns Of Evolution As Illustrated By The Fossil Record (ed. A. Hallam), chapter 15, pp. 469-500. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co. Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424. Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: Sampling, lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont. Conv., Proc., 1:205-210. Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144. Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends, and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41. Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156. Gould, S.J. 1983. Hen's Teeth And Horse's Toes. W.W. Norton, New York. [The title essay discusses evidence that some species retain old genes for traits that they no longer express -- teeth in chickens, side toes in horses. ] Gould, S.J. 1993. Eight Little Piggies. W.W. Norton, New York. [collection of essays. Title essay is about early amphibians.] Gould, S.J. 1994. Hooking Leviathon by its past. Natural History, May 1994. Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128. Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract] Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61. Hurzeler, J. 1962. Kann die biologische Evolution, wie sie sich in der Vergangengeit abgespielt hat, exakt erfasst werden? Stud. Kath. Akad. Bayern. 16:15-36. Kemp, T.S. 1982.
-
List continued:
Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals. Academic Press, New York. Kermack, D.M. & Kermack, K.A. 1984. The evolution of mammalian characters. Croom Helm Kapitan Szabo Publishers, London. [this is a great little book; very clearly written, short, and well- illustrated.] Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486. Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus (Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26. Kurten, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Aldine, Chicago. Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New York. Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95. Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720. Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic of west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334. Lundelius, E.L., T. Downs, E.H. Lindsay, H.A. Semken., R.J. Zakrzewski, C.S. Churcher, C.R. Harington, G.E. Schultz, and S.D. Webb. 1987. The North American Quaternary sequence. In: Cenozoic Mammals of North America - Geochronology and Biostratigraphy (ed. M.O. Woodburne). University of California Press, Berkeley. MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North America. Paleobiology 11:245-257. MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158. MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the base of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature 336:466-468. (An interesting summary of the merychippine radiation. Has a nice horse tree, too. MacFadden's horse tree is used by almost everyone these days.) MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution: evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245. [This is an interesting example of the variety of dating methods paleontologists use to date their finds. MacFadden et al. dated the Parahippus --> Merychippus transition at a Florida site with paleomagnetic data and Sr/Sr dates, and also by cross-correlation to other sites dated with Sr/Sr, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, zircon fission-track, and paleomagnetic dating methods. All the dates were consistent at roughly 16 Ma.] Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149. Martin, R.A., and A.D. Barnosky, eds. 1993. Morphological Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America. Cambridge University Press, New York. [collection of papers. Particulary useful: Goodwin on prairie dogs, Hulbert & Morgan on armadillos, Lister on mammoths and moose, Martin on rodents.] Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology 34:503-513. Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York. [collection of papers] Rayner, M.J. 1989. Vertebrate flight and the origins of flying vertebrates. Pp. 188-217 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles. Nature 349: 324-326. Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert. Paleont. 13 (suppl. 3):46 [abstract] Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation, Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209. Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252. Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vert. Paleont. 8(3): 241-264. Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of the cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian cranial vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216. Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435. [This is about the Las Hoyas bird. ] Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves) from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series No.36 [Formal description of the Las Hoyas bird.] Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science vol.255, pp.845-848. Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil evidence on the sister-group of mammals and early Mesozoic faunal distribution. Science 251:1063-1065. Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. [outdated but still the most accessible intro to horse evolution.] Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993. Mammal Phylogeny, vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York. [a compilation of articles on different groups of mammals. Volume 1 covers early Mesozoic mammals, monotremes, and marsupials, volume 2 covers Cenozoic placentals. Excellent intro to the current state of knowledge of mammal relationships, though to get the most from it you should be familiar with current phylogenetic methodology and vertebrate morphology.] Thewissen, J.G.M., S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif. 1993. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263:210-212. Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus den Solnhofener Schichten. Archaeopteryx vol.11, pp. 1-47. [Description of the newest specimen of Archaeopteryx, with some more features that unite birds with dinosaurs. Summary and all figure legends are in English, the rest is in German.] Werdelin, L, and N Solounias. 1991. The Hyaenidae: taxonomy, systematics, and evolution. Fossils and Strata 30 (a monograph). Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306- 312. Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28. Wood, B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281. [commentary on Australopithecus ramidus] MAGAZINE ARTICLES by unknown authors: Science News 133:102. "Bird fossil reveals history of flight". Science News 145(3):36. "Fossil Whale Feet: A Step in Evolution" [Ambulocetus natans & other recent whale discoveries] Science News 140:104-105. 1991. "The Lonely Bird." [summary of the Protoavis controversy.] Science News 138:246-247. 1990. "Chinese bird fossil: mix of old and new". Discover, (month?) 1991. Article on Protoavis. Discover, January 1995. "Back to the Sea". Brief description of recent fossil whale discoveries, with a nice full-color painting depicting evolution to the sea (showing a mesonychid on land, Ambulocetus at the shoreline, the legged Eocene whale Rodhocetus in shallow water, and the later vestigial-legged whale Prozeuglodon in deep water.) Discover, February 1995, p. 22 "Wabbit or Wodent?" Brief description, with photo, of a probably rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
-
You then imply that you know more on this subject than me by giving some fuzzy reference to some book you read in a library some years ago...well, Im sorry Santa, I have no idea what kind of people you usually argue with, but this just doesnt cut it.
Now I'm going to make a couple of statements santa, and then maybe you could try to answer to them instead of accusing me of being an idiot.
Statement
There are currently three theories on how macroevolution occurs:
The theories are:
Punctuated equilibrium theory
proposes that once species have originated, and adapted to the new ecological niches in which they find themselves, they tend to stay pretty much as they are for the rest of their existence.
Phyletic gradualism
suggests that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history.
Species selection and species sorting theories
claim that there are macroevolutionary processes going on that make it more or less likely that certain species will exist for very long before becoming extinct, in a kind of parallel to what happens to genes in microevolution.
Do you agree to my statement and is it your opinion that my description of the current theories are correct?
If you agree to the statement, what is your opinion on the relationship between these three theories? Can they all be right at the same time?
-
Hortlund, there's no way out of it for you. Refusing to accept my references is just not good enough. You asked for them, I provided. Now you gotta accept the facts.
You then imply that you know more on this subject than me by giving some fuzzy reference to some book you read in a library some years ago...well, Im sorry Santa, I have no idea what kind of people you usually argue with, but this just doesnt cut it.
If you cannot accept why fossilization is sort of tricky even when I have explained it to you, am I to think that you know more of the subject than me? Rather, you disregarded everything I wrote because it didn't fit with your views.
Now I'm going to make a couple of statements santa, and then maybe you could try to answer to them instead of accusing me of being an idiot.
I'm not accusing you of being an idiot. I am saying that some of your statements are nonsensical. Even geniuses make nonsensical statements. So I am attacking the statement, not you personally. Sorry if I came across as such.
There are currently three theories on how macroevolution occurs:
The theories are:
Punctuated equilibrium theory
proposes that once species have originated, and adapted to the new ecological niches in which they find themselves, they tend to stay pretty much as they are for the rest of their existence.
Ah yes, you're inferring to the alleged 'split' in the world of biology; two great opposing 'sciences'. I'll refer to Dawkins:
'There is a highly advertized school of thoughts amongst evolutionary biologists whose proponents call themselves punctuationists, and they did invent the term 'gradualist' for their most influential predecessors. They have enjoyed enormous publicity, among a public that knows almost nothing else about evolution, and this is largely because their position has been represented, by secondary reporters more than themselves, as radically different from previous evolutionists, most notably Charles Darwin'.
He goes on about the misrepresentation of the word 'gradual'. The press has likened gradual with a continuous, steady advance - in fact they've defined it as such. Obviously, 'gradual' incorporates much more than that and to be fair one must use the word as it was used ty the original sources.
Explaining punctuated equilibrium and why it really is a 'gradual' process and not saltation will require a lengthy post on my behalf. There are so many misconceptions that I'll have to deal with them first to get to my point. So bear with me for posting stuff that at first doesn't seem relevant. It'll take a while to write and properly research, so will post a quickie version in a few hours. Don't think this is a cop-out - it's just that what you're asking for is a big subject and as such takes time to accurately present. I might post in a new topic as it is a whole new, separate debate.
So hold on to your hat - an answer is forthcoming.
-
Hortlund,
I still fail to see a single prove, provided by you, that creationism theory it's scientifically correct.
You are stirring this thread to a new lenght record, but still fail to bring a single positive and constructive contribute to the discussion.
Again (as I asked long time ago),
What's your point?
-
BTW,
Santa for your patience, you are spending much time and energy.
Sorry for you that your "interlocutor" (exist in english?? :confused: ), have the lack of a basical attribute of an, well, interlocutor.
The will to listen.
Hort it's playing the "bastian contrario" game, how they say in english??
Devil's Advocate?
Anything you bring here will be discharged by Hortlund, even if you start saying the same as he thinks (and we still ignore his real position, for now he just countered ours).
Remember the cartoons? the joke that Bugs Bunny always do with Daffy Duck?
Repeating ad nauseam the discussion or the throw of the soon to explode bomb, then suddenly change the attitude by grabbing the bomb instead of throwing it?
DD always end with the bomb in his hands and BOOM!!!
(eh eh a big neon sign on his head: "sucker")
Run away, St "Daffy" Santa :)
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Hortlund, there's no way out of it for you. Refusing to accept my references is just not good enough. You asked for them, I provided. Now you gotta accept the facts.
[/b]
What facts? You still havent replied to my question as to what in those references you feel is evidence of transitional fossils. I can give you this quote from your reference though: Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years *cannot* show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.
What exactly is the "fact" you are trying to point me to with those 1000 books?
If you cannot accept why fossilization is sort of tricky even when I have explained it to you, am I to think that you know more of the subject than me? Rather, you disregarded everything I wrote because it didn't fit with your views.
[/b]
I have no problem whatsoever accepting the fact that "fossilization is sort of tricky". That does not change the fact that no transitional fossil have been found. But that is probably because it is so tricky to find them...not because they're not there...GREAT use of the scientific method santa...
Explaining punctuated equilibrium and why it really is a 'gradual' process and not saltation will require a lengthy post on my behalf.
I'm looking forward to that reply since there are some interesting quotes from Darwin and Gould on this issue.
Darwin:
Nothing can be effected, unless favourable variations occur, and variation itself is apparently always a very slow process. The process will often be greatly retarded by free intercrossing. Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.153]
Gould:
The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:
1. Paleontology should be informed by neontology.
2. Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis.
3. Most speciation occurs via peripatric speciation.
4. Large, widespread species usually change slowly, if at all, during their time of residence.
5. Daughter species usually develop in a geographically limited region.
6. Daughter species usually develop in a stratigraphically limited extent, which is small in relation to total residence time of the species.
7. Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.
8. Adaptive change in lineages occurs mostly during periods of speciation.
9. Trends in adaptation occur mostly through the mechanism of species selection. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models In Paleobiology (Ed. by T. J. M. Schopf).
Or in english:
The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.
OR even more plainly, there are two alternatives here:
1) Darwin was wrong, and the punctuated equilibrium theory is correct
2) The punctuated equilibrium theory is wrong and Darwin was correct.
-
Steve,
this is from the same site you got your 3 types of "macroevolutuion"
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
Only difference is, I tend to put quotes around the stuff I cut and paste.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Hortlund,
I still fail to see a single prove, provided by you, that creationism theory it's scientifically correct.
You are stirring this thread to a new lenght record, but still fail to bring a single positive and constructive contribute to the discussion.
Again (as I asked long time ago),
What's your point?
What exactly are you asking Naso?
I have said several times that I dont think the theory of evolution has been proven. I dont think man decended from a common ancestor as the apes. I dont think the universe was created in a big bang. I dont think life evolved by coincidence out of some primordeal soup.
Now you seem to be saying that I'm only allowed to post here if I present my own theory on how life originated and how everything came into existance? I have already answered that question too; I DONT KNOW.
Now you are saying that santa should stop trying to convince me that I am wrong and just ignore me...well **** you.
And, a general point, science can only evolve if people are questioning the current theorems. If everyone is encouraged to sit down and shut up or if everyone is told to not argue with people who have "the wrong opinion" how could there ever be progress? `
Personally I learn more from defending my point of view against someone disagreeing with me. I see little point in "debating" only with people that are agreeing with eachother.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve,
this is from the same site you got your 3 types of "macroevolutuion"
Only difference is, I tend to put quotes around the stuff I cut and paste.
Maybe you'd like to tell everyone what the site is? And I did not put quotation marks around it because Im taking these quotes from my monster post on evolution and everything (do you remember I promised to post that one a couple of months ago, Im still working on it). Anyway, in that post I have taken several different quotes from litterary dozens of websites and/or books, and I cannot use quotes at everywhere since the text would become unreadable. I have a list of references instead.
As for your use of that quote, allow me to present my critique of it:
Has it been proven? Well, no, BUT synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes. Now this quote is really important, so allow me to quote the entire section:
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
A couple of things worth mentioning.
First, it has not been proven.
Second, it has not been theoretisized beyond "Syntesists claim that the same process that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles [as in microevolution] can be extrapolated to between species changes. Now, for anyone not fully grasping this argument, let me say that it is quite a big leap. It is also quite unsubstantiated.
Third, this claim has led to a reversal of the burden of proof. Suddenly it is up to anyone doubting this theory to prove it to be wrong.
-
What makes it a "great leap"?
For example
Canis Lupus
Canis Latrans
Canis Familiaris
3 species. Can you imagine a natural selective process that would lead to these 3 species? I think we all could.
btw they are....
Wolf
Coyote
Dog
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What makes it a "great leap"?
For example
Canis Lupus
Canis Latrans
Canis Familiaris
3 species. Can you imagine a natural selective process that would lead to these 3 species? I think we all could.
btw they are....
Wolf
Coyote
Dog
Great evidence MT.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What exactly are you asking Naso?
I have said several times that I dont think the theory of evolution has been proven. I dont think man decended from a common ancestor as the apes. I dont think the universe was created in a big bang. I dont think life evolved by coincidence out of some primordeal soup.
Now you seem to be saying that I'm only allowed to post here if I present my own theory on how life originated and how everything came into existance? I have already answered that question too; I DONT KNOW.
But you know for sure that all the others are wrong.
Now you are saying that santa should stop trying to convince me that I am wrong and just ignore me...
well **** you.
Whohooo :D
Self control!! :)
And, a general point, science can only evolve if people are questioning the current theorems. If everyone is encouraged to sit down and shut up or if everyone is told to not argue with people who have "the wrong opinion" how could there ever be progress? `
Science evolve by scientific method and new theoryes, by descussion, not by saying "you are wrong" and then putting the hands on the ears and screaming "rarararararararara".
Personally I learn more from defending my point of view against someone disagreeing with me. I see little point in "debating" only with people that are agreeing with eachother.
And usually I have had good discussions with you, but seem that in last times, or maybe on this argument (and "that" another one ;) ), you have changed in a "generic" fundamentalist.
On a side note:
If you have the same attitude in your work, it's scaring... having the sentence before the process.
Finally:
Ease up, nor me neither Santa want to burn you alive (Santa, turn off that lighter!), we are here just wasting our time in an nice discussion, it's not a question of life and death, there's an entire life out from here :)
And about the asteriscs, do it more frequently, it will calm you a lot!!
Believe me ;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
my monster post on evolution and everything (do you remember I promised to post that one a couple of months ago, Im still working on it).
NOW you are scaring me! :eek:
Let me know when you post it, will be an interesting reading (serious)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
OR even more plainly, there are two alternatives here:
1) Darwin was wrong, and the punctuated equilibrium theory is correct
2) The punctuated equilibrium theory is wrong and Darwin was correct. [/B]
3) There is no conflict. In fact, Darwin actually suggested punctuated equilibrium long before Gould and Eldredge.
From The Origin of Species …
...and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
That, in a nutshell, is PE. There are long period of stasis where not much evolutionary change occurs. Then something happens to upset the environmental equilibrium, and a great deal of evolutionary change occurs relatively "rapidly" (but still over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years) as niches fill and things settle back into a routine.
The “debate” between PE and gradualism is overblown - the two ideas are not contradictory in any way (despite the strawman description by some creationists). It is almost certain that both processes operate at certain times. The debate is over which one is most prevalent.
Surely, you’re not arguing that Gould and Eldredge felt that their theory contradicts Darwin.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Surely, you’re not arguing that Gould and Eldredge felt that their theory contradicts Darwin.
Gould seems to think so himself...but apparently you know better? He goes through great length to incorporate his theory under Darwins, but in the end it is not possible. The two theories are too different. This is something that is conveniently ignored.
Not every mystery necessarily has a scientific solution. I do not mean to say that one should not look for a scientific solution. One should. But not having such a solution is not a license to make up stories and pass them off to a gullible public as Science.
-
But not having such a solution is not a license to make up stories and pass them off to a gullible public
- Steve Hortlund 1-28-03
:D
-
Evolution is no myth. Neither is Creation.
Shuckins
-
Gould was quite eager to overemphasize his own accomplishments. His claims of discovering something big were used by creationsists to illustrate the tenuous state of neo-Darwinism.
Gould's "punctuated equilibrum theory" is just an elaboration of one of the minor aspects of neo-Darwinism. There is some argument how important that particular aspect was quantitatively compared to the other ones - how many species originated through geographical isolation vs. without it - but it no way it contradicts the Darwinian theory.
No natural processes except spontaneous radioactive decay proceed in uniform gradual manner. There are always some irregularities in the pace of change depending on the local conditions. The process of change in relative frequency of gene alleles is not an exception.
A large intermingling species living on a vast area with relatively stable conditions may not evolve noticeably over long periods of time. Many modern species did not undergo much change in millions of years. Many apparently diverged without geographical isolation. A relatively small isolated population brought into different conditions will be more likely to exibit change, on top of the founder effect already present. That was known even before Darwin, let alone Gould.
miko
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Gould seems to think so himself...but apparently you know better?
Not my words, his:
Gould: I am not saying that punctuated equilibrium is the only mode of speciation…Gradual, phyletic transformation can and does occur.”
Gould, S. J., 1982. Punctuated equilibrium -a different way of seeing. New Scientist, 15 April 1982:137-141 (p. 137).
Question: So there is an essence to Darwinism, which you identify. What does your revision of that essence do to it? Does it change the essence?
Gould: No. It shows that you need an expanded and enriched theory that is based on a hierarchical model of natural selection, a recognition of the power of internal factors, and catastrophism...
From Skeptic vol. 4, no. 1, 1996, pp. 86-90.
-
When ya die, you all will have your answers.
-
I have said several times that I dont think the theory of evolution has been proven. I dont think man decended from a common ancestor as the apes. I dont think the universe was created in a big bang. I dont think life evolved by coincidence out of some primordeal soup.
<~~very well put i have to say,,still to this day we havent been able to turn gas into solid rock,,,or make lifeless rock come to life,,, or anything lifeless come to life,,let alone evlove after it does come to life ,,lol "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."Sir Fredrick Hoyle,
-
Gould: No. It shows that you need an expanded and enriched theory that is based on a hierarchical model of natural selection, a recognition of the power of internal factors, and catastrophism...
This kind of blather only makes the theory of evolution even less convincing. If it could hold water scientifically there would be no need for such gyrations.
ra (not a creationist)
-
RA, focus on the "no".
-
True, the 'No' made sense. The rest is blather.
ra
-
OK, one time.
Evolution DOES stand up to scientific scrutiny.
How? You can't duplicate a process that occurrs over millenia!
But you can devise models of what would occur if that process did happen. This is just one test of the hypothesis, and it fits very nicely with the observable biosphere.
Not the ultimate answer, but a good place to start learning if you have a mind to.
OTOH, some people just want o place their heads firmly in the sand and breath deeply of the firmament.
-
Originally posted by ra
True, the 'No' made sense. The rest is blather.
ra
Problem is if you remove the blather, you dont have a whole lot to go on.
Question: So there is an essence to Darwinism, which you identify. What does your revision of that essence do to it? Does it change the essence?
Gould: No
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Problem is if you remove the blather, you dont have a whole lot to go on.
Then lets recap, shall we? I’ve paraphrased the discussion in a step-by-step fashion using easy-to-understand terms, including numbers for your convenience.
1. You: “Gould and Eldredge’s theory of PE contradicts Darwin.”
2. Me: “No it doesn’t.”
3. You: “Gould seems to think it does.” (without supplying any actual evidence regarding what Gould thinks)
4. At this point I provide several quotes by Gould himself, including him responding to the question: “Does your theory change the essences of Darwin’s theory?”
Gould: “No.”
These days some may have trouble recognizing an unequivocal answer to a yes/no question, but that is in fact what this is.
-
It shows that you need an expanded and enriched theory that is based on a hierarchical model of natural selection, a recognition of the power of internal factors, and catastrophism...
Unequivocal?
-
Maybe you should look a bit more closely at my reply to you earlier.
This is what I said:
He goes through great length to incorporate his theory under Darwins, but in the end it is not possible. The two theories are too different. This is something that is conveniently ignored.
As for the quoted part, my statement still stands. If you just keep the "no" part it doesnt make sence at all. In fact it becomes absurd because Goulds PE theory is in conflict with Darwins theory. Everyone knows this, but most people tend to ignore that part of the theory of evolution, because the two compliment eachother so well. the PE theory can explain the sudden apperance of new species in short periods of time, while Darwins theory is used to explain everything else as it is the entire backbone of the theory of evolution.
Darwin: Slow and steady over long long periods of time.
Gould: Sudden bursts in short periods of time.
Question to Gould: Isnt that in conflict with Darwins theory?
Gould: No.
If you think that is a satisfactory answer, I guess we just see things differently.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
In fact it becomes absurd because Goulds PE theory is in conflict with Darwins theory. Everyone knows this...
Everyone? Not Darwin, Gould, or Eldredge. Darwin never claimed that evolution occurs at a constant rate (see my previous quote), so your characterization of his theory is rank oversimplification.
And Gould and Eldredge explicitly state that PE does not refute Darwin’s theory, (RA, this is the “no” part of his answer) rather it expands it by considering the effects of critical changes in the environment of a limited population within a small geographic region (the “blather” part).
By the way, the website you quoted earlier explains this pretty well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
It looks like we are repeating ourselves here so I agree we’ll just have to see this differently
-
If you believe that these these two different theories cannot coexist, I think you are right. However, they are still two approximate descriptions of the same process, evolution. I find it hard to imagine that Darwin and Gould would argue much over the theory that evolution happens. It might go something like this
Darwin: I believe that evolution is the process by which all living things have arisen.
Gould: Me too
Darwin: I believe that evolution is the process responsible for humankind.
Gould: Me too
Darwin: I believe it occurs at Rate A.
Gould: I believe it occurs at Rate B
One theory feeds from another, synthesis occurs at a granular level, we get a more accurate understanding of evolution, and our own biology at the same time.
-
And Gould and Eldredge explicitly state that PE does not refute Darwin’s theory, (RA, this is the “no” part of his answer) rather it expands it by considering the effects of critical changes in the environment of a limited population within a small geographic region (the “blather” part).
You mean Darwin never considered this?
They are just hammering Darwin's theory so it will fit the current fossil record. It reminds me of Cinderella's stepsister who got her foot to fit into the glass slipper by cutting off her toes.
ra