Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: tonymctones on January 28, 2008, 01:36:17 PM
-
Do you believe in evolution? This is a questions for the Christians again I know where those of you that are not religious land on this topic. Im not asking if you believe that we humans evolved from another form of life, what Im asking is if you believe in the theory of evoloution?
-
I believe in the jesusasaurus-rex
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/carl-sagans-cosmos-for-rednecks-family-guy/4128452601
-
yes, and it's a proven fact, something that the creationist will denied.
creationist's proof is in a book, does that make sens?
-
yes, and it's a proven fact, something that the creationist will denied.
creationist's proof is in a book, does that make sens?
You can still believe in God and believe in the concept of evolution
-
Do you believe in evolution? This is a questions for the Christians again I know where those of you that are not religious land on this topic. Im not asking if you believe that we humans evolved from another form of life, what Im asking is if you believe in the theory of evoloution?
Nope.
-
Nope.
Exactly. A self-perpetuating, eternal entity just used his magic powers to zap 'kinds' of things into existence. That is obviously much more plausible.
-
Exactly. A self-perpetuating, eternal entity just used his magic powers to zap 'kinds' of things into existence. That is obviously much more plausible.
Or our perfectly shaped planet magically appeared and all life as we know it began with single celled creature that magically appeared on our perfectly shaped planet. That is obviously much more plausible.
-
Or our perfectly shaped planet magically appeared and all life as we know it began with single celled creature that magically appeared on our perfectly shaped planet. That is obviously much more plausible.
It's not a similar game.
Religious explanations re origins are stories accepted on faith.
Scientific explanations re origins are stories accepted on faith but grounded in rational discussion. There may be a day when our scientific methodology can adequately grasp the creation of the universe/man in terms of evolution. The groundwork is being laid by some rather bright people.
That can never happen with religious explanations. There is no qualitative difference, rationally speaking, between God created the universe/man and an Elf created the universe/man.
Comparing religious ideas for origins to scientific ones is still apple and oranges--faith v. reason.
-
yes, and it's a proven fact, something that the creationist will denied.
creationist's proof is in a book, does that make sens?
Actually that makes more sense then anything. Think about it, The first man and women wrote about themselves. This is the most obvious thing to do considering we (nowadays) store information about everything including things that don't really matter. If this wasn't true why was there no oppisition about this concept in the past, 3000 years ago in the days of the trojens or the days of king David or king Benhadad of syria, or later dates from Assyria and Babylonia. I mean wouldn't it be easy to know that a flood didn't happen 1400 years earlier.
BTW almost everything you've learned in your life has come from a book
-
It's not a similar game.
Religious explanations re origins are stories accepted on faith.
Scientific explanations re origins are stories accepted on faith but grounded in rational discussion. There may be a day when our scientific methodology can adequately grasp the creation of the universe/man in terms of evolution. The groundwork is being laid by some rather bright people.
That can never happen with religious explanations. There is no qualitative difference, rationally speaking, between God created the universe/man and an Elf created the universe/man.
Comparing religious ideas for origins to scientific ones is still apple and oranges--faith v. reason.
I think the issue was whether a person believes in evolution, not how evolution compares with any other theory. Believing that our perfectly shaped planet suddenly appeared, through an explosion or however the heck it got here, and that a single celled creature suddenly appeared and began to evolve into life as we know it, requires faith. In fact, it requires willful suspension of disbelief. There is no provable explanation for the origin of life based on the theory of evolution. It sounds like science fiction.
-
It's not a similar game.
Religious explanations re origins are stories accepted on faith.
Scientific explanations re origins are stories accepted on faith but grounded in rational discussion. There may be a day when our scientific methodology can adequately grasp the creation of the universe/man in terms of evolution. The groundwork is being laid by some rather bright people.
That can never happen with religious explanations. There is no qualitative difference, rationally speaking, between God created the universe/man and an Elf created the universe/man.
Comparing religious ideas for origins to scientific ones is still apple and oranges--faith v. reason.
Do the planets have a stamp on the that sais "hi, I'm Jupitor and I've been living here for 4.6 billion years''? and do the dinosaure bones have a tag when they get dugged out saying " Im 65 million years old"? and has A Macro-evolution ever been observed? NO NO NO. All you know about a bone buried in the ground is that it was once a life form that died.
You call that reason? I call that faith.
-
Or our perfectly shaped planet magically appeared and all life as we know it began with single celled creature that magically appeared on our perfectly shaped planet. That is obviously much more plausible.
Our planet is neither perfectly shaped nor optimally designed for life nor is life itself optimally designed; if your god made it, he is one hell of a fuck up and would flunk any basic engineering examination.
-
Our planet is neither perfectly shaped not optimally designed for life nor is life itself optimally designed; if your god made it, he is one hell of a fuck up and would flunk any basic engineering examination.
Sure it is. It's round. Can't get more perfect than that. And our planet has ideal conditions for life. I guess you've never been to Hawaii? :)
We have a great deal of accidental order: earth rotating on its axis, sun, moon, equal light and day, rain, soil, etc., etc.
-
Sure it is. It's round. Can't get more perfect than that. And our planet has ideal conditions for life. I guess you've never been to Hawaii? :)
We have a great deal of accidental order: earth rotating on its axis, sun, moon, equal light and day, rain, soil, etc., etc.
The earth is not a perfect sphere.
You forget to mention the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions (which made Haiwaii), tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards and general natural occurences which are not very conducive to life.
Arthritis, cancer, congenital disease; these are the results of 'intelligent design'?
And of course the appendix, a useless organ that can potentially kill us has been intelligently designed as well?
Yes, life can exist here, but it is not optimal and one would expect far more from an omipotent, infallible god than this mud mall we are stuck on.
-
Our planet is neither perfectly shaped not optimally designed for life nor is life itself optimally designed; if your god made it, he is one hell of a fuck up and would flunk any basic engineering examination.
I must say some of the things you say sound intelligent, but some of the things you say are plain stuped. World not being perfect....huh. If you shrunk the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be just as round and just as smooth. If the earth was 1 querter of an astronamical mile closer to the sun we would roast, and 1 q further we would freeze.
Beachbum was obviously saying the earth was perfect in comparising to other heavenly body's not your fantasy of a planet that evolved from an object the size of a grain of sand that exploded 20 billion years ago.
-
I must say some of the things you say sound intelligent, but some of the things you say are plain stuped. World not being perfect....huh. If you shrunk the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be just as round and just as smooth. If the earth was 1 querter of an astronamical mile closer to the sun we would roast, and 1 q further we would freeze.
Beachbum was obviously saying the earth was perfect in comparising to other heavenly body's not your fantasy of a planet that evolved from an object the size of a grain of sand that exploded 20 billion years ago.
Once again; a forever unprovable, self-perpetuating entity that exists outside the bounds of testable reality magically zapped this planet into existence.
He also designed the eminently useful appendix as well. ::)
-
has A Macro-evolution ever been observed? NO NO NO. All you know about a bone buried in the ground is that it was once a life form that died.
You call that reason? I call that faith.
Perhaps not a macro at this time but certainly a micro version of evolution has presented itself to us...just look at the effects of antibiotics on bacteria and before I get bombarded for this let me explain. take into account all the antibacterial soap commercials out there, what do they always say? KILLS 99.99% of all bacteria well you see that 0.01% doesnt just sit there it reproduces and the same mutation that prevented it from being killed in the first place sooner or later will get passed on. This is why we are constantly needing stronger antibiotics and is EVOLUTION.
Let me propose this question to you do you think its possible for a person to believe in God as well as Evolution?
-
Perhaps not a macro at this time but certainly a micro version of evolution has presented itself to us...just look at the effects of antibiotics on bacteria and before I get bombarded for this let me explain. take into account all the antibacterial soap commercials out there, what do they always say? KILLS 99.99% of all bacteria well you see that 0.01% doesnt just sit there it reproduces and the same mutation that prevented it from being killed in the first place sooner or later will get passed on. This is why we are constantly needing stronger antibiotics and is EVOLUTION.
Let me propose this question to you do you think its possible for a person to believe in God as well as Evolution?
Yes, but you cannot be a Christian, at least not a proper bible believing one.
So, sure you can believe in god and evolution but the god you would have to believe in is one hell of a fuck up; surely he could have done a much better job than the painful and painfully long process of evolution.
-
The first man and women wrote about themselves. This is the most obvious thing to do considering we (nowadays) store information
The first man and woman certainly did not write about themselves. People existed in communities before the establishment of writing and general literacy.
-
Sure it is. It's round. Can't get more perfect than that.
Our planet is round due to the gravitational forces acting upon it from it's own mass. Maybe you creationists deserve your reputation as being uneducated.
-
Perhaps not a macro at this time but certainly a micro version of evolution has presented itself to us...just look at the effects of antibiotics on bacteria and before I get bombarded for this let me explain. take into account all the antibacterial soap commercials out there, what do they always say? KILLS 99.99% of all bacteria well you see that 0.01% doesnt just sit there it reproduces and the same mutation that prevented it from being killed in the first place sooner or later will get passed on. This is why we are constantly needing stronger antibiotics and is EVOLUTION.
Let me propose this question to you do you think its possible for a person to believe in God as well as Evolution?
bombarded...lol. I 100% agree with you on the bacteria and yes Micro-evolution exist, but it should be called something else because the name implies that it is proof that evelution is real. But there are limits to mutations; in the case of the bacteria, it can change over and over , but it will always be bacteria. A monkey cannot turn into a human and nothing of this sort has ever been observed.
A lot of people on earth believe in evolution and God, nobody's perfect. This could be because they hold there faith without going into direct detail about either subject. Personally I believe its foolish to believe in both, afterall they are direct oppisites. If cristians believe in evolution does this mean they won't be saved? Absolutely not. Of the few that have studied creation and evolution and still belive in both, more then likely its because in the Bible it states that 1 day for God is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day, hence they make the false assumption that the six day creation plus one day rest is not a litteral term.
hope this helps.
-
bombarded...lol. I 100% agree with you on the bacteria and yes Micro-evolution exist, but it should be called something else because the name implies that it is proof that evelution is real. But there are limits to mutations; in the case of the bacteria, it can change over and over , but it will always be bacteria. A monkey cannot turn into a human and nothing of this sort has ever been observed.
A lot of people on earth believe in evolution and God, nobody's perfect. This could be because they hold there faith without going into direct detail about either subject. Personally I believe its foolish to believe in both, afterall they are direct oppisites. If cristians believe in evolution does this mean they won't be saved? Absolutely not. Of the few that have studied creation and evolution and still belive in both, more then likely its because in the Bible it states that 1 day for God is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day, hence they make the false assumption that the six day creation plus one day rest is not a litteral term.
hope this helps.
This is fucking hysterical. Thanks onetime! :D
BTW, why do humans and great apes share 97%-99% of their DNA? Did god just make it that way?
-
The first man and woman certainly did not write about themselves. People existed in communities before the establishment of writing and general literacy.
How do you know?Our planet is round due to the gravitational forces acting upon it from it's own mass. Maybe you creationists deserve your reputation as being uneducated.
Actually, I thought it was flat and there was a waterfall at the end.
-
This is fucking hysterical. Thanks onetime! :D
BTW, why do humans and great apes share 97%-99% of their DNA? Did god just make it that way?
Why not?
And a better suggestion is...... a rock + millions of years = Humans that can read and write.
-
bombarded...lol. I 100% agree with you on the bacteria and yes Micro-evolution exist, but it should be called something else because the name implies that it is proof that evelution is real. But there are limits to mutations; in the case of the bacteria, it can change over and over , but it will always be bacteria. A monkey cannot turn into a human and nothing of this sort has ever been observed.
hope this helps.
I agree that nothing like ape to human has ever been observed but then again like you said thousands of years so lets say that at the very least 7000 yrs. This would give plenty of time to allow for certain mutations to arise and establish themselves, more likely though in that amount of time it would have been something to do with intelligence or perhaps immunity to a diesease, and over time you never know...Im not very well versed in Bible knowledge, so plz correct me if Im wrong but whats to say that we werent created as something other than what we consider to be humans...there are a few anthropological theorys that might coincide with creationism if you can concede evolution. Or whats to say that people have taken a far to literal view of the Bible when it says the God created man and then created all the animals and what it really meant was that God created man and within him created all the animals meaning that all the animals grew from him as an evolutionary terms. This might also explain the concept of Eve perhaps "man" was created as a single cell and God takeing a rib from Adam and makeing Eve was the single cell "Adam" reproducing itself
and yes this does help most people cannot talk about this subject with an open mind and without resulting to insults
-
I agree that nothing like ape to human has ever been observed but then again like you said thousands of years so lets say that at the very least 7000 yrs. This would give plenty of time to allow for certain mutations to arise and establish themselves, more likely though in that amount of time it would have been something to do with intelligence or perhaps immunity to a diesease, and over time you never know...Im not very well versed in Bible knowledge, so plz correct me if Im wrong but whats to say that we werent created as something other than what we consider to be humans...there are a few anthropological theorys that might coincide with creationism if you can concede evolution. Or whats to say that people have taken a far to literal view of the Bible when it says the God created man and then created all the animals and what it really meant was that God created man and within him created all the animals meaning that all the animals grew from him as an evolutionary terms. This might also explain the concept of Eve perhaps "man" was created as a single cell and God takeing a rib from Adam and makeing Eve was the single cell "Adam" reproducing itself
and yes this does help most people cannot talk about this subject with an open mind and without resulting to insults
At first I thought you were just kidding around, but now I see that you are at the very least interested and approaching this subject with an open mind. I too believe that it was possible that Adam and Eve looked different then the way humans do now. Possibly taller and bigger bone structures maybe a different pigment in the skin, maybe less hair maybe more hair, possibly different tones in their voices, maybe they could here better, possibly bigger and stronger tendons and ligaments and of course they lived over 900 years. This all changed after the flood because pre-flood created things more impressively due to a richer atmospheric preasure. Evidence of this all over the world; example, elephant- willy mammoth, tiger- sabertooth. Clearly this is the oppisite of evolution. Miner changes occur within the species but there are bounderies and laws that will not be broken.
The Bible is perfectly clear on the following;( quick outline for you so you get a better understanding)
4000 bc- Adam and Eve, lived past 900
2400 bc- Noah and the flood, everybody came from Noah
1800 bc- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the 12 tribes of Isreal
1350 bc- Moses and the ten commanments, the exodus and the crossing of the red sea
1010 bc- King Saul, King David, and King Solomon.
930 bc- Divided Kingdom
700 bc- Assyria conquers Samaria
550 bc- Babylonian Exile
450 bc- Persian rule
320 bc- Alexander the great, Greek rule
year 0 - Jesus, during Roman rule
As you can see there is no room for Cosmic evolution, Steller evolution, Chemical evelution, Organic evolution, or Macro evolution.
-
As you can see there is no room for Cosmic evolution, Steller evolution, Chemical evelution, Organic evolution, or Macro evolution anything intelligible, observable, rational or factual.
-
Evidence of this all over the world; example, elephant- willy mammoth, tiger- sabertooth. Clearly this is the oppisite of evolution. Miner changes occur within the species but there are bounderies and laws that will not be broken.
The Bible is perfectly clear on the following;( quick outline for you so you get a better understanding)
4000 bc- Adam and Eve, lived past 900
2400 bc- Noah and the flood, everybody came from Noah
Im sorry I might have misunderstood your post are you saying that the elephant and wooly mammoth are related or the same species and the tiger and sabertooth?
And again my knowledge of the Bible is not great but I was under the impression that they Bible didnt give dates for the these events?
-
Everything I've mentioned has been observed
-
Im sorry I might have misunderstood your post are you saying that the elephant and wooly mammoth are related or the same species and the tiger and sabertooth?
And again my knowledge of the Bible is not great but I was under the impression that they Bible didnt give dates for the these events?
They are the same species, yes.
And the Bible does give dates, these are very simple to calculate. For example, we know Jesus lived 2 000 years ago based on our very own calender, and we know the Babylonian exile was 550 years before Jesus from there you can calculat all the generations from the tribe of Judah to King David and King David to Abraham and Abraham to Noah and Noah to Adam.I am glad you are asking questions.
-
They are the same species, yes.
And the Bible does give dates, these are very simple to calculate. For example, we know Jesus lived 2 000 years ago based on our very own calender, and we know the Babylonian exile was 550 years before Jesus from there you can calculat all the generations from the tribe of Judah to King David and King David to Abraham and Abraham to Noah and Noah to Adam.I am glad you are asking questions.
but doesnt that give evidence for evolution?
and i never knew that about the dates
-
The earth is not a perfect sphere.
You forget to mention the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions (which made Haiwaii), tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards and general natural occurences which are not very conducive to life.
Arthritis, cancer, congenital disease; these are the results of 'intelligent design'?
And of course the appendix, a useless organ that can potentially kill us has been intelligently designed as well?
Yes, life can exist here, but it is not optimal and one would expect far more from an omipotent, infallible god than this mud mall we are stuck on.
And yet we have cities, states, countries, and over 6 billion on the planet. But you're changing the subject. :)
-
but doesnt that give evidence for evolution?
and i never knew that about the dates
This is like having a German sheppard and a putol, although different they are both still dogs if a dog changed into cat then that would be evidance, but the only change is in size, means nothing we even havw human midgets.
-
I must say some of the things you say sound intelligent, but some of the things you say are plain stuped. World not being perfect....huh. If you shrunk the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be just as round and just as smooth. If the earth was 1 querter of an astronamical mile closer to the sun we would roast, and 1 q further we would freeze.
Beachbum was obviously saying the earth was perfect in comparising to other heavenly body's not your fantasy of a planet that evolved from an object the size of a grain of sand that exploded 20 billion years ago.
Right. To think that an explosion created our planet and set it in motion in perfect harmony with the sun and moon requires a pretty good imagination. :)
-
Right. To think that an explosion created our planet and set it in motion in perfect harmony with the sun and moon requires a pretty good imagination. :)
Better yet, The size of the matter that exploded was smaller the this period.
Isn't that like saying 1 + 1 = 656353537374335755356453 753737345356337655653444 553453
-
The Bible is perfectly clear on the following;( quick outline for you so you get a better understanding)
4000 bc- Adam and Eve, lived past 900
2400 bc- Noah and the flood, everybody came from Noah
you gotta be kidding me, right?
i feel sorry for them, when people say they believe that Noah's ark was true.
again taken from a book, wrote 100 of years after the event, re-wrote and re-wrote again
and why do you stop at 4000 bc, why not 10,000 or more, oh yeah you can't, it's not in the book.
but we do have proof, bones, mammoth, dinosaur......... you mean it was in noah's ark too? and all the insects too, snakes, all living in peace, damn, noah was good.
oh i found this:
Genes and Brains Tell the Tale of Human Evolution
This wonderful article titled “Beyond Stones & Bones” provides a great summary of recent discoveries to human evolution, in particular in the area of genetics and brain science.
The great tale of human evolution is just so fascinating. A vital part of it is the use of genetics to tell the story. A delightful example provided in this article is that of using body lice to infer when human lost their body hair for good. It goes like this: body lice live in cloths, so by the time they appeared, human would have started to cover themselves with some sort of clothing, which implies loss of body hair. Now body lice is evolved from head lice (which lives in our hair), so by comparing their DNA changes, which happens at regular rate, we could calculate when human started to lose body hair for good. Using this clever technique, scientists concluded that this happened about 114,000 years ago.
Using DNA scientists have worked out that humans and chimps evolved apart around 5 to 6 millions years ago, supported by the fact that the climate became dramatically colder around that time. The recent discoveries of the HAR1 and PDYN genes shred some light on how the brain plays its part in the evolution. The HAR1 gene may “… likely helped the cortexes of our ancestors develop the elaborate folds characteristic of a complex brain”, and that the PDYN gene may have advanced brain chemistry.
The brain also provides interesting detective work into human evolution. Apart from the size of brains of various earlier species, the shape and structure also tell quite a bit. For example, Australopithecus africanus and paranthropus existed 2.5 millions years ago. The brain shape of africanus seems to support a more advanced development of an area of the brain called area 10, which plays a key-role in advance planning, decision making an taking initiatives - and this might explain why africanus evolved while paranthropus did not.
Another fascinating side of the article tells how the study of DNA seems to suggest that the “out of Africa” exodus is more complicated then previously thought. It seems like around 66,000 years ago, a very small group of modern Homo sapiens moved out Africa to other parts of the world, replacing other homo species that were already there (such as Neanderthals - these species were migrated out from Africa starting some 2 millions ago and evolved locally) - and this small group is our ancestor.
The article concludes with the mentioning of three more important genes: FOXP2 which plays a role in language and speech, appeared about 200,000 years ago when anatomically homo species evolved; ASPM which contributes to brain size appeared around 5,800 years ago when we started to build cities; and microcephalin which also affects brain size appeared 37,000 years ago when “symbolic thinking” was a major advanced in our ancestors.
This article is worth your time reading as it provides an interesting summary of recent advances in evolution coming from genetics and brain science. The great tale of human evolution continues…
-
Right. To think that an explosion created our planet and set it in motion in perfect harmony with the sun and moon requires a pretty good imagination. :)
you're joking right :-\
-
you gotta be kidding me, right?
i feel sorry for them, when people say they believe that Noah's ark was true.
again taken from a book, wrote 100 of years after the event, re-wrote and re-wrote again
and why do you stop at 4000 bc, why not 10,000 or more, oh yeah you can't, it's not in the book.
but we do have proof, bones, mammoth, dinosaur......... you mean it was in noah's ark too? and all the insects too, snakes, all living in peace, damn, noah was good.
oh i found this:
Genes and Brains Tell the Tale of Human Evolution
This wonderful article titled “Beyond Stones & Bones” provides a great summary of recent discoveries to human evolution, in particular in the area of genetics and brain science.
The great tale of human evolution is just so fascinating. A vital part of it is the use of genetics to tell the story. A delightful example provided in this article is that of using body lice to infer when human lost their body hair for good. It goes like this: body lice live in cloths, so by the time they appeared, human would have started to cover themselves with some sort of clothing, which implies loss of body hair. Now body lice is evolved from head lice (which lives in our hair), so by comparing their DNA changes, which happens at regular rate, we could calculate when human started to lose body hair for good. Using this clever technique, scientists concluded that this happened about 114,000 years ago.
Using DNA scientists have worked out that humans and chimps evolved apart around 5 to 6 millions years ago, supported by the fact that the climate became dramatically colder around that time. The recent discoveries of the HAR1 and PDYN genes shred some light on how the brain plays its part in the evolution. The HAR1 gene may “… likely helped the cortexes of our ancestors develop the elaborate folds characteristic of a complex brain”, and that the PDYN gene may have advanced brain chemistry.
The brain also provides interesting detective work into human evolution. Apart from the size of brains of various earlier species, the shape and structure also tell quite a bit. For example, Australopithecus africanus and paranthropus existed 2.5 millions years ago. The brain shape of africanus seems to support a more advanced development of an area of the brain called area 10, which plays a key-role in advance planning, decision making an taking initiatives - and this might explain why africanus evolved while paranthropus did not.
Another fascinating side of the article tells how the study of DNA seems to suggest that the “out of Africa” exodus is more complicated then previously thought. It seems like around 66,000 years ago, a very small group of modern Homo sapiens moved out Africa to other parts of the world, replacing other homo species that were already there (such as Neanderthals - these species were migrated out from Africa starting some 2 millions ago and evolved locally) - and this small group is our ancestor.
The article concludes with the mentioning of three more important genes: FOXP2 which plays a role in language and speech, appeared about 200,000 years ago when anatomically homo species evolved; ASPM which contributes to brain size appeared around 5,800 years ago when we started to build cities; and microcephalin which also affects brain size appeared 37,000 years ago when “symbolic thinking” was a major advanced in our ancestors.
This article is worth your time reading as it provides an interesting summary of recent advances in evolution coming from genetics and brain science. The great tale of human evolution continues…
That's too complicated for our resident fundies.
Yall know, all dem dumb ass scientists at Harvard and Oxford ain't got no clue what's going on. It's all 'bout Jebus.
-
you're joking right :-\
Not really.
-
This is like having a German sheppard and a putol, although different they are both still dogs if a dog changed into cat then that would be evidance, but the only change is in size, means nothing we even havw human midgets.
ok but then this opens the door to a host of different possibilties as well, when the term ape is used in the context of humans evolving could that not just be a simple label "ape" could mean just a different form of human such as a midget, and that we were all slightly different in the time of adam and eve than we are now and through breeding and other evolutionary processes became what we now consider to be human...after all the first "dogs" by todays standards would be considered wolves not dogs
-
That's too complicated for our resident fundies.
Yall know, all dem dumb ass scientists at Harvard and Oxford ain't got no clue what's going on. It's all 'bout Jebus.
lollll, i know!
and still they don't believe in santa claus, i think it's a nice story too!
don't worry they will come up with something, saying it cannot be, blablabla, this and that, because the book said so.
you know if me and my friends start a religion and a book it might work, in 2000 years, i'll be a god 8)
-
Or our perfectly shaped planet magically appeared and all life as we know it began with single celled creature that magically appeared on our perfectly shaped planet. That is obviously much more plausible.
oh god not you too. nothing magical about it. in fact it all follows the principles of complexity and physics.
-
ok but then this opens the door to a host of different possibilties as well, when the term ape is used in the context of humans evolving could that not just be a simple label "ape" could mean just a different form of human such as a midget, and that we were all slightly different in the time of adam and eve than we are now and through breeding and other evolutionary processes became what we now consider to be human...after all the first "dogs" by todays standards would be considered wolves not dogs
A human and an Ape can't have off spring.Never could and never will be able to
-
A human and an Ape can't have off spring.Never could and never will be able to
Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens could...hmm... ;D
-
At first I thought you were just kidding around, but now I see that you are at the very least interested and approaching this subject with an open mind. I too believe that it was possible that Adam and Eve looked different then the way humans do now. Possibly taller and bigger bone structures maybe a different pigment in the skin, maybe less hair maybe more hair, possibly different tones in their voices, maybe they could here better, possibly bigger and stronger tendons and ligaments and of course they lived over 900 years. This all changed after the flood because pre-flood created things more impressively due to a richer atmospheric preasure. Evidence of this all over the world; example, elephant- willy mammoth, tiger- sabertooth. Clearly this is the oppisite of evolution. Miner changes occur within the species but there are bounderies and laws that will not be broken.
The Bible is perfectly clear on the following;( quick outline for you so you get a better understanding)
4000 bc- Adam and Eve, lived past 900
2400 bc- Noah and the flood, everybody came from Noah
1800 bc- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the 12 tribes of Isreal
1350 bc- Moses and the ten commanments, the exodus and the crossing of the red sea
1010 bc- King Saul, King David, and King Solomon.
930 bc- Divided Kingdom
700 bc- Assyria conquers Samaria
550 bc- Babylonian Exile
450 bc- Persian rule
320 bc- Alexander the great, Greek rule
year 0 - Jesus, during Roman rule
As you can see there is no room for Cosmic evolution, Steller evolution, Chemical evelution, Organic evolution, or Macro evolution.
jesus, are you kidding? i cant tell sorry?
-
A human and an Ape can't have off spring.Never could and never will be able to
i agree but thats not what i was trying to say, what i was saying is that like dogs perhaps the "original" humans were like that of apes and through breeding like that in dogs and other evolutionary processes that we became to be what we now consider to be "humans" same species but a different form the species much like that of the different breeds of dogs
-
Right. To think that an explosion created our planet and set it in motion in perfect harmony with the sun and moon requires a pretty good imagination. :)
it wasnt an explosion but an expansion and we the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical occurance. its not in perfect harmony by the way, as asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs, also, supernovas, black holes etc... and relativity explains it quite effectively.
i too look upon our existence with awe and wonder how this happened, and ask the question, why is there something rather then nothing? it may lead me down a path of circular logic but i dont think the answer is in a benevolent being that wants you to follow a few laws.
-
it wasnt an explosion but an expansion and we the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical occurance. its not in perfect harmony by the way, as asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs, also, supernovas, black holes etc... and relativity explains it quite effectively.
i too look upon our existence with awe and wonder how this happened, and ask the question, why is there something rather then nothing? it may lead me down a path of circular logic but i dont think the answer is in a benevolent being that wants you to follow a few laws.
nope, asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs because god said so, if god exist anything is possible ::)
-
Everything I've mentioned has been observed
4000 bc- Adam and Eve, lived past 900
2400 bc- Noah and the flood, everybody came from Noah
No.
No evidence for Adam and Eve.
No evidence of Noah.
There is explicit evidence contradicting these stories. Population genetics as determined by the Y chromosome for males and mitochondrial DNA for women shows QUITE clearly that we are not all descended from a single man that lived 4400 years ago.
If you're a man of faith, then why do you care whether there is observable evidence? Isn't it a matter of faith?
-
No.
No evidence for Adam and Eve.
No evidence of Noah.
There is explicit evidence contradicting these stories. Population genetics as determined by the Y chromosome for males and mitochondrial DNA for women shows QUITE clearly that we are not all descended from a single man that lived 4400 years ago.
If you're a man of faith, then why do you care whether there is observable evidence? Isn't it a matter of faith?
yes, but this doesn't mean that there isn't evidance
There is evidance of Noah and a world wide catostrophy.i agree but thats not what i was trying to say, what i was saying is that like dogs perhaps the "original" humans were like that of apes and through breeding like that in dogs and other evolutionary processes that we became to be what we now consider to be "humans" same species but a different form the species much like that of the different breeds of dogs
I know what you are trying to say, but listen carefully because now I feel that I am repeating myself. Species can't cross over, "other evolutionary processes" is something that you are taking by faith alone.
-
I know what you are trying to say, but listen carefully because now I feel that I am repeating myself. Species can't cross over, "other evolutionary processes" is something that you are taking by faith alone.
lol sorry you feel your repeating yourself but it seems you still misunderstood so let me repeat myself, I agree that species cant cross over and breed with another species which if i understand correctly is what you are saying. what im saying is the species split such as that of the dogs and wolves and eventually changes or "evolves" so much that the dog is a new species in itself. Which is scientifically what happend to dogs. Now as for the other evolutionary processes not all are based on faith alone. Some are based on scientific fact not theory and are as obvious as the bacteria and antibacterial soap example that I used earlier. I will elaborate if you would like me too.
-
yes, but this doesn't mean that there isn't evidance
There is evidance of Noah and a world wide catostrophy.
There is evidence for a flood in the near east. There is no evidence that there was a Noah character that boarded the animals two by two (or was it 7 each) into an ark.
There is no evidence to support the fact that Adam and Eve lived ~6000 years ago. Not one shred. To the contrary there is a mountain of evidence from all fields in science that support the fact that the earth and the life on it is billions of years old.
-
There is evidence for a flood in the near east. There is no evidence that there was a Noah character that boarded the animals two by two (or was it 7 each) into an ark.
There is no evidence to support the fact that Adam and Eve lived ~6000 years ago. Not one shred. To the contrary there is a mountain of evidence from all fields in science that support the fact that the earth and the life on it is billions of years old.
There is absolutely no accurate method of calculating time so when you say billions of years it means nothing. The same scientist know that dates cannot be measured. back to square one= you got nothing. See you tomarrow
-
No accurate method to calculate time? Do yourself a favor and open a children's encyclopedia one of these days...
-
There is absolutely no accurate method of calculating time so when you say billions of years it means nothing. The same scientist know that dates cannot be measured. back to square one= you got nothing. See you tomarrow
again incorrect.
-
I think the issue was whether a person believes in evolution, not how evolution compares with any other theory. Believing that our perfectly shaped planet suddenly appeared, through an explosion or however the heck it got here, and that a single celled creature suddenly appeared and began to evolve into life as we know it, requires faith. In fact, it requires willful suspension of disbelief. There is no provable explanation for the origin of life based on the theory of evolution. It sounds like science fiction.
I know what the issue is. I use religion as a point of reference for pointing out why having faith in the scientific method is merited.
Science is a rational process. The more refined our tools (hahahaha) become for scientific inquiry, the better the chance we'll find out what happened. It just so happens that evolution is already a viable scientific fact in many other areas of study and that application to discussions of origins is an apt application.
-
Do the planets have a stamp on the that sais "hi, I'm Jupitor and I've been living here for 4.6 billion years''? and do the dinosaure bones have a tag when they get dugged out saying " Im 65 million years old"? and has A Macro-evolution ever been observed? NO NO NO. All you know about a bone buried in the ground is that it was once a life form that died.
You call that reason? I call that faith.
Even if the planets had "Made By God" stamped on them, that would not prove there is a God. What you refer to as faith on the conclusions you present is related to your incomplete understanding of the scientific process.
Science is empiricism, testing and it is also rational inferences. We have to start somewhere and work in a methodical way.
-
Even if the planets had "Made By God" stamped on them, that would not prove there is a God. What you refer to as faith on the conclusions you present is related to your incomplete understanding of the scientific process.
Science is empiricism, testing and it is also rational inferences. We have to start somewhere and work in a methodical way.
Science is great, but evolution isn't science
-
Science is great, but evolution isn't science
Tell that to evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, or molecular biologists.
I know what you are getting at though.
Evolution is science. It's just that, at the moment, scientists cannot prove our origins in a falsifiable way, therefore in that respect it is not science but conjecture about the mystery. The chance that we can find the answers along scientific lines does exist.
But the play is the thing.
-
oh god not you too. nothing magical about it. in fact it all follows the principles of complexity and physics.
Yes, me too. :D We cannot replicate the origin of life in a lab. We can't study it. We cannot test it. The belief that a single cell just appeared and spawned all human life really doesn't pass the common sense test IMO.
-
Yes, me too. :D We cannot replicate the origin of life in a lab. We can't study it. We cannot test it. That belief a single cell just appeared and spawned all human life really doesn't pass the common sense test IMO.
The 'common sense test'?
Like the ground is flat therefore the world is flat.
Or the Phlogiston theory of combustion? Paper is full of phlogiston--that's why it burns. Rocks have little if any phlogiston and that's why they don't burn.
Why that just stands to reason.
-
it wasnt an explosion but an expansion and we the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical occurance. its not in perfect harmony by the way, as asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs, also, supernovas, black holes etc... and relativity explains it quite effectively.
i too look upon our existence with awe and wonder how this happened, and ask the question, why is there something rather then nothing? it may lead me down a path of circular logic but i dont think the answer is in a benevolent being that wants you to follow a few laws.
I somewhat agree. I am in awe pretty much every day. When I drive to work (when the sun is up). When I look out my window. When I'm out hiking. At the beach (which is often). It's incredible. There is also a great deal of order. The day and night, the weather, the soil, the plants, animals, our bodies, the sun, the moon, etc. It's really amazing.
-
I know what the issue is. I use religion as a point of reference for pointing out why having faith in the scientific method is merited.
Science is a rational process. The more refined our tools (hahahaha) become for scientific inquiry, the better the chance we'll find out what happened. It just so happens that evolution is already a viable scientific fact in many other areas of study and that application to discussions of origins is an apt application.
There is nothing scientific about the theory of evolution's explanation for the origin of life. It is a faith-based belief.
-
The 'common sense test'?
Like the ground is flat therefore the world is flat.
Or the Phlogiston theory of combustion? Paper is full of phlogiston--that's why it burns. Rocks have little if any phlogiston and that's why they don't burn.
Why that just stands to reason.
? No, I mean like the fact a living organism appeared on our perfect planet that then produced all of the incredibly complex life forms we see today. It really makes no sense.
-
There is nothing scientific about the theory of evolution's explanation for the origin of life. It is a faith-based belief.
Yes it is. But it is rock solid fact where biology and paleontology are concerned.
And since it is a legitimate scientific fact, it is likely only a matter of time before some evolutionary scientist fleshes out a methodology that shows our evolutionary origins.
-
? No, I mean like the fact a living organism appeared on our perfect planet that then produced all of the incredibly complex life forms we see today. It really makes no sense.
So Hawking's paper on something out of nothing is just gibberish? That's the creation of the universe. Perfection is a strange concept. How is our planet perfect?
"The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&print=true
I like that answer--it's all scientific like.
-
Yes it is. But it is rock solid fact where biology and paleontology are concerned.
And since it is a legitimate scientific fact, it is likely only a matter of time before some evolutionary scientist fleshes out a methodology that shows our evolutionary origins.
How can it be a faith-based belief and a scientific fact? From my Billions of Missing Links thread (and book): "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
How has the theory of evolution proved, by "scientific fact," the origin of life based on the preceding scientific method?
-
So Hawking's paper on something out of nothing is just gibberish? That's the creation of the universe. Perfection is a strange concept. How is our planet perfect?
"The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&print=true
I like that answer--it's all scientific like.
Sounds like theoretical gobbledygook to me. But I agree it does sound scientific. :)
How is our planet perfect? I'll refer you again to Billions of Missing Links: "Fossil records suggest that the Earth's temperatures and climate have remained essentially the same for 3.5 billion years. It cleans, refreshes, protects, defends, regenerates, maintains, and repairs itself. In a sense, it may breathe, and it definitely has a circulatory system. No one knows how our planet acquired these abilities or remained stable. The only choices appear to be improbable coincidences, Intelligent Design, or incredible luck."
We are also the perfect distance from the sun and moon. We have equal day and night. But I'm repeating myself . . . .
-
How can it be a faith-based belief and a scientific fact? From my Billions of Missing Links thread (and book): "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
How has the theory of evolution proved, by "scientific fact," the origin of life based on the preceding scientific method?
That's not what I said. Evolution as applied to molecular biology is a fact. Evolution applied to origins is a guess. I'm not debating that. Are you?
-
Sounds like theoretical gobbledygook to me. But I agree it does sound scientific. :)
How is our planet perfect? I'll refer you again to Billions of Missing Links: "Fossil records suggest that the Earth's temperatures and climate have remained essentially the same for 3.5 billion years. It cleans, refreshes, protects, defends, regenerates, maintains, and repairs itself. In a sense, it may breathe, and it definitely has a circulatory system. No one knows how our planet acquired these abilities or remained stable. The only choices appear to be improbable coincidences, Intelligent Design, or incredible luck."
We are also the perfect distance from the sun and moon. We have equal day and night. But I'm repeating myself . . . .
I don't know what is perfect but I'll take your word for it. Then again, I could ask my wife, she said I acted like a perfect horse's ass when I pulled the old mirror in the shower trick on her to get a good eyeful.
-
That's not what I said. Evolution as applied to molecular biology is a fact. Evolution applied to origins is a guess. I'm not debating that. Are you?
Ah so. I wasn't debating that, but we can. Evolution at the cellular level is not a fact. I created a thread about this a while back after reading Darwin's Black Box. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=89955.0
This is a different issue from the origin of life.
-
I don't know what is perfect but I'll take your word for it. Then again, I could ask my wife, she said I acted like a perfect horse's ass when I pulled the old mirror in the shower trick on her to get a good eyeful.
lol. Just use a camera next time. :)
-
Ah so. I wasn't debating that, but we can. Evolution at the cellular level is not a fact. I created a thread about this a while back after reading Darwin's Black Box. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=89955.0
This is a different issue from the origin of life.
Darwin's Black Box has been shown to be nonsense. The author, Michael Behe was picked apart by a lawyer in a courtroom where Behe admitted that if ID was science, then so was astrology. That's relevant b/c the lawyer presented evidence that Behe's irreducible complexity was fiction b/c they showed that cellular evolution explained the seemingly irreducibly complex Yersinia pestis.
It really isn't different than the origin of life in this respect (which does seem to agree with you):
New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm
Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions. The driving force in evolving cellular life on Earth, says Carl Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has been horizontal gene transfer, in which the acquisition of alien cellular components, including genes and proteins, work to promote the evolution of recipient cellular entities.
-
Darwin's Black Box has been shown to be nonsense. The author, Michael Behe was picked apart by a lawyer in a courtroom where Behe admitted that if ID was science, then so was astrology. That's relevant b/c the lawyer presented evidence that Behe's irreducible complexity was fiction b/c they showed that cellular evolution explained the seemingly irreducibly complex Yersinia pestis.
It really isn't different than the origin of life in this respect (which does seem to agree with you):
New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm
Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions. The driving force in evolving cellular life on Earth, says Carl Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has been horizontal gene transfer, in which the acquisition of alien cellular components, including genes and proteins, work to promote the evolution of recipient cellular entities.
The concept of irreducible complexity makes perfect sense.
So three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations suddenly appeared and swam together? You honestly cannot see how fanciful that sounds? Where did these cellular organizations come from?
-
The concept of irreducible complexity makes perfect sense.
So three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations suddenly appeared and swam together? You honestly cannot see how fanciful that sounds? Where did these cellular organizations come from?
Here's the explanation the buried Behe:
" "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all."
Rather verbose but it does debunk the grand theories of ID supporters.
-
Science is great, but evolution isn't science
evolution is science, did we humans evovle from an ape like creature???? we dont know for sure but evolution is a fact and we know this to be true
-
Here's the explanation the buried Behe:
" "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all."
Rather verbose but it does debunk the grand theories of ID supporters.
It doesn't debunk anything. It's a guy who disagrees with one item discussed in Darwin's Black Box. He talked about a number of systems in his book.
I don't expect the scientific community to agree with the guy. He is challenging something that much of the community has been taught and is teaching as fact.
-
Behe was buried, literally, under a pile of published papers and books about the evolution of the human immune system, at the Dover trial.
He was pulling claims out of his hoooo-haaaa, like creationists always do, and announced that the human immune system was irreducibly complex, and that it couldn't have resulted from evolution. Then the opposing lawyer started piling all those papers and book in front of Behe.
Man, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that court room :)
-
It doesn't debunk anything. It's a guy who disagrees with one item discussed in Darwin's Black Box. He talked about a number of systems in his book.
I don't expect the scientific community to agree with the guy. He is challenging something that much of the community has been taught and is teaching as fact.
So science has no relation to objective inquiry. Scientists just repeat what they are taught in an unquestioning manner.
Then along comes a maverick thinker like Behe challenging the decrepit status quo.
And the scientific communities response? Stick to the story and marginalize this maverick.
Beach Bum, that's foolish.
Science is always re-evaluating its underpinnings. Always.
Behe is a song and dance man that admitted, under oath, that ID is on the same scientific footing as Astrology.
But I guess when people hear stories that play to their individual religious prejudices, they'll believe just about anything to fortify that prejudice.
-
So science has no relation to objective inquiry. Scientists just repeat what they are taught in an unquestioning manner.
Then along comes a maverick thinker like Behe challenging the decrepit status quo.
And the scientific communities response? Stick to the story and marginalize this maverick.
Beach Bum, that's foolish.
Science is always re-evaluating its underpinnings. Always.
Behe is a song and dance man that admitted, under oath, that ID is on the same scientific footing as Astrology.
But I guess when people hear stories that play to their individual religious prejudices, they'll believe just about anything to fortify that prejudice.
Does not surprise me in the least. The establishment's response to attacks is always to defend the establishment. It happened with the tobacco industry. I'm sure you know the tobacco industry had its own team of scientists who claimed nicotine was not addictive and did not cause cancer? Do you recall anytime the Surgeon General issued a report on nicotine that the Tobacco Institute and its scientists issued contrary reports? Every single time.
Same thing happened with the meat and dairy industry. If you want to read something that will challenge the way we were all raised (in terms of diet), try "The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health," by T. Colin Campbell. Incredible stuff. This guy's research shows that animal protein is the root cause of the diseases that kill most of us in this country. What do you think the meat and dairy industry's response to his research and book was? Do you remember Oprah getting sued for saying she was going to stop eating cheeseburger?
I wouldn't expect the evolution proponents to react any differently.
-
Yes, science is the same as the tobacco and meat and dairy industries ::)
It's not like science has safeguards, like the scientific method, or peer reviews, or any of that ::)
-
::) Missing the point. The point was how an establishment responds when it is challenged.
Regarding safeguards, etc.: "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
-
That's exactly the thing, BeachBum. There is NO challenge from the creationists.
They can make colorful fancy-sounding pamphlets and websites, but when it comes to providing evidence for their ideas, or testable hypotheses for their theories, they got nothing.
As for their claims, they are easily demonstrated to be laughably false!
There are LOTS of challenges to neo-Darwinism coming from legitimate, qualified scientists with good points to make. Creationists aren't among them.
-
Beach, a while back, I recommended a book to you, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design."
I'll recommend it again. It has all the science on the creationism/evolution debate, as well as (and that's the part relevant to your previous post), a list of the real difficulties and problem areas and challenges in evolution today.
You'll see that science isn't a closed club with stale air where no new ideas are allowed to permeate. Instead, it is the most vibrant, innovative, and challenge-seeking institution known to man!
-
Does not surprise me in the least. The establishment's response to attacks is always to defend the establishment. It happened with the tobacco industry. I'm sure you know the tobacco industry had its own team of scientists who claimed nicotine was not addictive and did not cause cancer? Do you recall anytime the Surgeon General issued a report on nicotine that the Tobacco Institute and its scientists issued contrary reports? Every single time.
Same thing happened with the meat and dairy industry. If you want to read something that will challenge the way we were all raised (in terms of diet), try "The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health," by T. Colin Campbell. Incredible stuff. This guy's research shows that animal protein is the root cause of the diseases that kill most of us in this country. What do you think the meat and dairy industry's response to his research and book was? Do you remember Oprah getting sued for saying she was going to stop eating cheeseburger?
I wouldn't expect the evolution proponents to react any differently.
Columbusdude82 is doing a better job at this than I am.
You are changing the subject. Your taking the scientific community as whole--peer review, scientific methodology--and equating it with boughtnpaid hucksters with an ax to grind. Which coincidentally is how creationists are viewed by the scientific community.
Creationists are all bluster with a prejudicial religious chip on there collective shoulders.
-
That's exactly the thing, BeachBum. There is NO challenge from the creationists.
They can make colorful fancy-sounding pamphlets and websites, but when it comes to providing evidence for their ideas, or testable hypotheses for their theories, they got nothing.
As for their claims, they are easily demonstrated to be laughably false!
There are LOTS of challenges to neo-Darwinism coming from legitimate, qualified scientists with good points to make. Creationists aren't among them.
I'm not sure what you mean by "creationists," but I'm reading a challenge to the theory of evolution right now. Even created a thread about it. :) There is nothing demonstrably false about this, which I've posted several times in this thread and others: "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
You don't have to be a scientist to know that in two significant areas--the origin of life and macroevolution--there has been no observation and testing of predictions. The response I hear when this is raised is an attack on Intelligent Design, which is really a different subject. Some folks are almost afraid to admit there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
-
Beach, a while back, I recommended a book to you, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design."
I'll recommend it again. It has all the science on the creationism/evolution debate, as well as (and that's the part relevant to your previous post), a list of the real difficulties and problem areas and challenges in evolution today.
You'll see that science isn't a closed club with stale air where no new ideas are allowed to permeate. Instead, it is the most vibrant, innovative, and challenge-seeking institution known to man!
Thanks for the recommendation. I might read it, but it will take a while. I've been plodding through three other books.
But I will say that I don't really need to read books about evolution. I was taught that stuff in school. I'm actually finding Billions of Missing Links, which challenges what I was taught, much more interesting.
You shouldn't be afraid to read things that challenge your way of thinking. About 8 or 9 years ago a nutritionist friend gave me a book called "Don't Drink Your Milk," which talked about problems with cow milk. The result was I immediately got my kids off that stuff. They've been drinking soy milk ever since. Amazing what you can learn when you open your mind a little.
-
Columbusdude82 is doing a better job at this than I am.
You are changing the subject. Your taking the scientific community as whole--peer review, scientific methodology--and equating it with boughtnpaid hucksters with an ax to grind. Which coincidentally is how creationists are viewed by the scientific community.
Creationists are all bluster with a prejudicial religious chip on there collective shoulders.
I didn't change the subject at all. I gave you a couple of examples of how an establishment responds when it is challenged. I didn't expect you to agree. :)
-
I didn't change the subject at all. I gave you a couple of examples of how an establishment responds when it is challenged. I didn't expect you to agree. :)
The establishment is science itself--methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology.
How is the meat, cigarette and milk industries part of the legitimate world of scientific endeavor.
Hell, if you want fraudulent Ph.d.s, just look at the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute and gaze upon people who've sold their souls....not to mention professional credibility.
-
The establishment is science itself--methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology.
How is the meat, cigarette and milk industries part of the legitimate world of scientific endeavor.
Hell, if you want fraudulent Ph.d.s, just look at the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute and gaze upon people who've sold their souls....not to mention professional credibility.
So what "methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology" has established the origin of life and macroevolution? (I can answer that for you.)
No, the scientific community isn't some amorphous endeavor or group of ideas. It consists of people with ideas, etc. just like any other establishment. The scientific community is no different than any other establishment. No different than the tobacco industry with its scientists or the meat and dairy industries with theirs. They all attempt(ed) to use science to support their positions. They all attacked the messengers and the message when challenged.
I didn't say anything about fraudulent PhDs. Not sure where that came from?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "creationists," but I'm reading a challenge to the theory of evolution right now. Even created a thread about it. :) There is nothing demonstrably false about this, which I've posted several times in this thread and others: "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
You don't have to be a scientist to know that in two significant areas--the origin of life and macroevolution--there has been no observation and testing of predictions. The response I hear when this is raised is an attack on Intelligent Design, which is really a different subject. Some folks are almost afraid to admit there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
Yeah, and that book was written by a member of a creationist organization, the Discovery Institute.
As for this overt concern with macroevolution, sorry to tell you, but it's been demonstrated in the lab, and there are no "gaping holes" in that regard.
Lots of brilliant articles in this regard in the biology literature, esp. journals like Nature.
-
So what "methodology and peer review of the exercise of that methodology" has established the origin of life and macroevolution? (I can answer that for you.)
No, the scientific community isn't some amorphous endeavor or group of ideas. It consists of people with ideas, etc. just like any other establishment. The scientific community is no different than any other establishment. No different than the tobacco industry with its scientists or the meat and dairy industries with theirs. They all attempt(ed) to use science to support their positions. They all attacked the messengers and the message when challenged.
I didn't say anything about fraudulent PhDs. Not sure where that came from?
The origin of life is still a mystery so your assertion is not apt.
The scientific community is different than the commercial bullshitters with Phds exactly b/c of the peer review of their work.
I refer to Phds b/c that's rather popular amongst scientists.