Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 24, 2014, 01:51:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: For my buddy uberman...  (Read 4601 times)
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11920


Team Batman Squats


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2012, 08:19:22 PM »

IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.

This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.

PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
not fair to bring up his skin color, though it is a humorous retort  Wink

Wiggs is just going through a phase of believing the ancient astronaut theory stuff. Now is that stereotypical of black people? I doubt most, like other people, have ever even heard of it.

I don't know what informs his opinions exactly, but if you consider the clusterfuck of information that is out there it is not surprising that even otherwise intelligent people buy into this stuff. Perhaps I'm partly speaking for my own analytical abilities, but I think one mostly relies on common sense to form a coherent view of the world, which means most often than not accepting the consensus view. Who has the resources to verify all the information one comes across? I don't think a lack of this 'common sense' function is necessarily indicative of one's IQ... it could be several things including an infantile attachment to ideas, being 'different' from other people, etc.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2478



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2012, 08:46:35 PM »

not fair to bring up his skin color, though it is a humorous retort  Wink

I think it's completely fair to mention race in this instance because what Wiggs is doing is extremely common (I even cited the statistic) among African Americans: denying the scientific theory of evolution. It's a sad reality that needs to change, hence my comment (it's bad in America in general but worse with blacks, hence my calling it a stereotypical black behavior).

Wiggs is just going through a phase of believing the ancient astronaut theory stuff. Now is that stereotypical of black people? I doubt most, like other people, have ever even heard of it.

I didn't say he was stereotypical in all respects, just on the matter of having a terribly ill-informed perspective on evolution. I brought up the fried chicken because I'm saying something to the effect of 'having this terribly ill-informed opinion is just as stereotypical and embarrassing as having a stereotypical love of fried chicken' (paraphrase).

I don't know what informs his opinions exactly, but if you consider the clusterfuck of information that is out there it is not surprising that even otherwise intelligent people buy into this stuff. Perhaps I'm partly speaking for my own analytical abilities, but I think one mostly relies on common sense to form a coherent view of the world, which means most often than not accepting the consensus view. Who has the resources to verify all the information one comes across? I don't think a lack of this 'common sense' function is necessarily indicative of one's IQ... it could be several things including an infantile attachment to ideas, being 'different' from other people, etc.

I don't bring up Wiggs' intelligence anywhere; rather, I say he doesn't have the 'competence' to determine whether the scientific theory under discussion is actually true or not. There's nothing wrong with that; most people don't -- and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to. But people in this position generally ought to defer to the relevant experts or otherwise shut the fuck up, not air out their embarassing opinions and thus reinforce stereotypes about stupidity.

I almost didn't want to type this all out because my original post is way funnier when given a racist interpretation, but I don't want to be misconstrued.
Report to moderator   Logged
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11920


Team Batman Squats


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2012, 08:49:37 PM »

in that case, sorry for the serious reply  Grin i feel slightly embarassed. I still don't agree with bringing up race, but this is getbig after all and it was funny as fuck.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
Nomad
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3386



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2012, 08:51:14 PM »

What gaps?  There aren`t any.

Probably talking about certain gaps in the fossil record. Best example is the gaps for hominids
Report to moderator   Logged

all drugs - TPPIIP
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 40964


"We Will Correct All This."


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2012, 09:05:00 PM »

Probably talking about certain gaps in the fossil record. Best example is the gaps for hominids
When someone, like Wiggs, hears the term "gaps", they equate it to meaning a "hole in the theory", thus making it not scientifically sound.  This is of course ignorance on their part, however I like not using that word so they can`t have that option to exercise their rather juvenile stupidity.

Report to moderator   Logged

E
MAXX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11019


GHet huge, eat clen, tren hard, dbolish goals!


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2012, 11:12:54 PM »

Jeez did wiggs really evolve past the stages of the ape. Makes you wonder doesn't it
Report to moderator   Logged
Bad Boy Dazza
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3384



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2012, 04:27:15 AM »

Remember evolution is a THEORY. (A very bad one with lots of holes).

 Kiss

QFT
Report to moderator   Logged
Bad Boy Dazza
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3384



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 07, 2012, 04:28:03 AM »

Hi stupid, how was your day?  I hope no one picked on you.

When someone, like Wiggs, hears the term "gaps", they equate it to meaning a "hole in the theory", thus making it not scientifically sound.  This is of course ignorance on their part, however I like not using that word so they can`t have that option to exercise their rather juvenile stupidity.


Report to moderator   Logged
Bad Boy Dazza
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3384



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 07, 2012, 04:39:30 AM »

Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?

If you need a lot of time to "develop" your theory, then you should not try to pass it as proof or fact until the time and development have come to their fulfillment/conclusion.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bad Boy Dazza
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3384



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: December 07, 2012, 04:54:41 AM »

The meaning of "theory" in science is really not much different to the meaning of theory in general.   

Well substantiated theories have been proven wrong time and again throughout history - including in the scientific and medical fields.

Report to moderator   Logged
deceiver
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2520


onetimehard appreciation team


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: December 07, 2012, 05:10:42 AM »

Wiggs problem lays in inability to grasp basic philosophical concepts of science.

In layman terms - natural sciences divide into natural sciences and mathematical sciences. In Math, we have a system of basic rules, called axioms. They aren't "true", or "false", they are our assumptions - they do not pretend to show any truth about world, they have nothing to do with this realm, they are from realm of logic. Every mathematical theorem can be broken down into pieces and eventually proven from axioms. Imagine it like a system of pipes or lego bricks - we have only few bricks and then we build everything from it. Everything, from natural numbers to real numbers is defined from this axioms.

In natural sciences we do not have anything like that because we want to create a perfect model of reality. Unfortunatelly, we do not have access to ultimate truth - we do not know what axioms of this world are. That is why we try to observe nature and create theories explaining why things happen. If you break down bottle of wine you do not expect broken pieces to reintegrate by themselves. We have laws of physics that make it impossible. But there is no real reason to believe it will never happen apart from the fact that it just never did. We do not have access to any ultimate truth but we work with what we have. As you see we have computers, internet, cars so it's not that bad after all.

There is so much scientific background behind theory of evolution that vast majority of biologists consider sufficient. Do you have any degree in natural sciences? No, you do not even seem to have ANY degree whatsoever. You are discussing things way beyond your comprehension. You see Wiggs, IQ gap between people who do things like this for living and you is just as huge as between you and a chimpunk. Imagine chipmunk dressed as you and trying to be you. That's hillarious, isn't it? Your posts are just as hillarious.

Hope it helps.
Report to moderator   Logged
falco
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3893



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: December 07, 2012, 05:19:27 AM »

In 14 days all this doubts and questions will not matter.
We are all going to evolve into spiritual beeings, as dead persons.
Report to moderator   Logged
B_B_C
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1983


Navy Seal Crushers ate heavy


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: December 07, 2012, 06:08:54 AM »

is Wiggs a product of evolution and uberman a fixed object of creationism?
Report to moderator   Logged

c
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10876

Team Shizzo


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: December 07, 2012, 06:10:59 AM »

The meaning of "theory" in science is really not much different to the meaning of theory in general.   

Well substantiated theories have been proven wrong time and again throughout history - including in the scientific and medical fields.



You're very incorrect. 
Report to moderator   Logged

A
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31345


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: December 07, 2012, 08:31:34 AM »

Hahahaha.  I see you boys have been havin' fun without me.  I'll destroy later when I have time to watch the video and read the material.
I "grasp" more than 99% of this board. Don't insult my intelligence. Very typical to go to race baiting when you have nothing of value to say.
Report to moderator   Logged

7
Twaddle
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2429


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: December 07, 2012, 08:36:19 AM »

Wiggs, the most intelligent, unemployed, underachieving black man in America.   Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31345


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: December 07, 2012, 08:40:31 AM »

Wiggs, the most intelligent, unemployed, underachieving black man in America.   Cheesy

 Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged

7
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31345


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: December 07, 2012, 08:59:33 AM »

Here's a list of scientist, past and present that also don't "Grasp" the concept of evolution...I'll speak more on this this weekend if time permits....

So geniuses, you can get your list of scientists and your theorys full of holes that is constantly changed to suit your agenda or I can have my list of scientists, and my King James Bible that never changes.  Majority of the world believes in a deity. Evolution is another of bunk religions passed off as science that will die off and be looked at oddly. Good day gents.  Please have a look at my merry band of dumbasses below. Kiss Roll Eyes  

From the look of this list, it looks like most of science of founded by creationist including the man who came up with the scientific method. Kiss


Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr Andrι Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlstrφm, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Discrimination against creation scientists
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of ‘tolerance’
Scientists of the past believed in a Creator
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:

Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist (1919–2005)
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology (1899–1992)
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (1928–1998)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Report to moderator   Logged

7
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31345


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: December 07, 2012, 10:34:31 AM »

 Cheesy

Hello, hello, hello, hello ?



* j-crickett.jpg (36.96 KB, 408x426 - viewed 103 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

7
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10876

Team Shizzo


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: December 07, 2012, 10:45:14 AM »

Cheesy

Hello, hello, hello, hello ?



Out and about.  Only have my phone. I'll dissect this later.  You've made many errors
Report to moderator   Logged

A
daddy8ball
Getbig III
***
Posts: 933


Violence is not the answer. It is the question.


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: December 07, 2012, 12:38:31 PM »

Why wouldn't a God design life systems to be adaptable, extensible, and polymorphic? (Like our software systems today?)

If/when we get the science to design and create our own life systems, wouldn't we strive to engineer them in a way to make them survivable and adaptable long term in any environment?

Why "hard-code" an organism to live only in very specific environmental situations when one can be engineered to evolve, adapt and live anywhere (oceans, air, land, etc?)

And I'm talking about life on Earth, in general, as a whole.
Report to moderator   Logged

The answer is "yes".
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44302


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: December 07, 2012, 01:16:23 PM »

Why wouldn't a God design life systems to be adaptable, extensible, and polymorphic? (Like our software systems today?)

If/when we get the science to design and create our own life systems, wouldn't we strive to engineer them in a way to make them survivable and adaptable long term in any environment?

Why "hard-code" an organism to live only in very specific environmental situations when one can be engineered to evolve, adapt and live anywhere (oceans, air, land, etc?)

And I'm talking about life on Earth, in general, as a whole.
well, apparently Whales started out as land animals, and then adapted to water. Look at Plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs, dinosaurs that started out on land, and then adapted to an aquatic life. Or tree anteaters (silky anteaters) which have adapted to an aboreal lifestyle.
The adaption to certain environments is quite tricky, because there are certain questions. How specialized must the animal be? How can it get its food? How flexible is the adaptations? Nature has shown us that it is far better at answering these questions over a long period of time than man, and even still, in the case of Smilodon, it was too good, meaning the the animal was too specialized, so it was unable to adapt to a changing environment. Man has taking animals like the domesticated dog, and honed it for his own specialized needs, and what has come of it is a creature that is also too specialized, and has a lot of diseases, physical problems and brain issues.

Trying to make a creature that could adapt anywhere, like a living pocket knife, would be highly improbable---possible, but improbable. The reason why is that you just can't take a terrestrial animal, and plop it in a aquatic environment and expect it to adapt in real time, no matter the technology that we have, and then expect it to adapt to a aero environ, but still maintaining it's terrestrial and aquatic adaptions, which would get in the way of its winged lifestyle, and so on.

Look at Dragonflies---from nymphs, they have gills/breathing apparatus  and a giant mouthpiece, no wings. When they become adults they loose said adaptations because they are not needed.

Report to moderator   Logged
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31345


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: December 07, 2012, 01:21:57 PM »

I'm sure one of the esteemed gentlemen from list would be alot more qualified to answer that question than I would. There's no denying the names on that list and what they did or do for science. Yet, they are still creationist....
Report to moderator   Logged

7
SF1900
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 14876



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: December 07, 2012, 01:26:12 PM »

Even if evolution is 100% false, this does not mean the bible is real or God created the universe.

Horrible, just horrible logic. I dont care who says so, PhD or not.
Report to moderator   Logged
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31345


Child of Y'srael


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: December 07, 2012, 01:30:00 PM »

Even if evolution is 100% false, this does not mean the bible is real or God created the universe.

Horrible, just horrible logic. I dont care who says so, PhD or not.

Take the Bible out of it for moment. That's not what I'm arguing.

What I am arguing is that evolution is false, and science is mixed with it to pass it off as fact and it is indeed, not fact. It's a religion. A religion of death. "survival of the fittest". Everyone else dies.

And yes, if we didn't evolve in some way, we were in fact, CREATED. In this case, it's one or the other.
Report to moderator   Logged

7
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!