Author Topic: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)  (Read 3872 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2008, 03:13:23 PM »
How did it all start c-dude?    

Duh!!

In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.

After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2008, 03:26:13 PM »
why dont you read books by people who are educated in the field in question?

You mean other than the books they made me read in school? 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2008, 03:27:51 PM »
I don't know, but there are some pretty good theories. See Chapter 2 of Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for a detailed description of one of the more promising ones. In his other book "The Blind Watchmaker," he outlines another theory that uses an analogy to the formation of crystals.

To me, the bigger question is not, "How did the first cell come about?" since the first cells were little more than a membrane with some fluid inside. The bigger question is how did the eukaryotic cell (our kind of cell) come about, with its nucleus, mitochondria, and other organelles? That is surely the bigger question!

Why isn't "How did the first cell come about" a big question?  I'd say that's pretty important if the entire theory is based on that first cell. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2008, 03:28:56 PM »
Duh!!

In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.

After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles.



Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2008, 03:29:44 PM »
You mean other than the books they made me read in school? 

so what about science dont you get?


its not hiding or withholding info, it is based on facts and peer reviewed info has no personal sway either way. what is published in journals is objective proof irrespective of personal opinion.


Why isn't "How did the first cell come about" a big question?  I'd say that's pretty important if the entire theory is based on that first cell. 

no its not, thats abiogenesis. your incorrect.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2008, 03:30:11 PM »


Why did you post your picture underneath this sacred story of Creation?

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2008, 03:30:44 PM »
Why isn't "How did the first cell come about" a big question?  I'd say that's pretty important if the entire theory is based on that first cell. 

It is a big question, but what I mentioned was an EVEN BIGGER question.

Other questions at least as "big" as the first-cell question are the first DNA molecule, the first RNA molecule, the first nucleotide, etc...

I'd dig up the references from academic journals, but I've despaired of doing that since you folks never read them...

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2008, 03:31:59 PM »
You mean other than the books they made me read in school? 

Why do you respond to his question with a question.  Why not actually respond to the question

God forbid you should actually learn something in contrast to the local jewish tribal myths that you seem to believe are factual

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2008, 03:33:31 PM »
It is a big question, but what I mentioned was an EVEN BIGGER question.

Other questions at least as "big" as the first-cell question are the first DNA molecule, the first RNA molecule, the first nucleotide, etc...

I'd dig up the references from academic journals, but I've despaired of doing that since you folks never read them...

Hey Professor,

What do you think you've proven if someone can't answer that question?

The answer of course is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2008, 03:37:09 PM »
Beach Bum, you accuse Real Science of having something to hide and censoring other view points. Let me tell you something that just happened.

As you know, Simmons is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a creationist institute that promotes "Intelligent Design." So I went to the official ID website uncommondescent.com, registered under the screen name "Defender of Reason," and went to the article about Simmons' radio program.

I made the following post:

Quote
I just listened to the debate, and I hate to break it to you folks but PZ made minced meat of Dr Simmons.

How can you write a book called “Billions of Missing Links” and not know the names of whale fossils?!

It got deleted, and now I am banned from posting on there. Talk about free inquiry ::)

They are the ones with something to hide, not real scientists!

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2008, 03:40:49 PM »
Beach Bum, you accuse Real Science of having something to hide and censoring other view points. Let me tell you something that just happened.

As you know, Simmons is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a creationist institute that promotes "Intelligent Design." So I went to the official ID website uncommondescent.com, registered under the screen name "Defender of Reason," and went to the article about Simmons' radio program.

I made the following post:

It got deleted, and now I am banned from posting on there. Talk about free inquiry ::)

They are the ones with something to hide, not real scientists!

come on man - they can't have any opposing views that might shatter the fragile minds of the young children (or old Beach Bum's) that they are trying to indoctrinate.

Surely Jesus would approve

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2008, 03:45:16 PM »
come on man - they can't have any opposing views that might shatter the fragile minds of the young children (or old Beach Bum's) that they are trying to indoctrinate.

Surely Jesus would approve

Apparently, Jesus hates whale fossils...

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2008, 03:49:27 PM »
Not to go off topic, but another thing about the "first cell"... Evolution operates on single-cell organisms the same way it operates on us multicellular organisms: by small, gradual, minute changes. So when you ask where did the first cell come from, in all probability it came from something that looked very much like the first cell.

Presumably, the first cell was the first strand of DNA or RNA that managed to get a cover (the cell membrane) to shield it from the other molecules (DNA, RNA, etc) that were trying to tear apart its molecular bonds and incorporate it into themselves.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2008, 03:59:49 PM »
Why do you respond to his question with a question.  Why not actually respond to the question

God forbid you should actually learn something in contrast to the local jewish tribal myths that you seem to believe are factual

Aw now ain't cute.  Jethro is following me.   :)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2008, 04:00:06 PM »
Not to go off topic, but another thing about the "first cell"... Evolution operates on single-cell organisms the same way it operates on us multicellular organisms: by small, gradual, minute changes. So when you ask where did the first cell come from, in all probability it came from something that looked very much like the first cell.

Presumably, the first cell was the first strand of DNA or RNA that managed to get a cover (the cell membrane) to shield it from the other molecules (DNA, RNA, etc) that were trying to tear apart its molecular bonds and incorporate it into themselves.

Hmmm, why do I think that somehow Bum isn't going to be satisfied with this answer.

Honestly, I don't see why Christians can't just decide to believe that God created the natural world and evolution is just part of God's process.    Problem solved.  No need to waste $$$ on Creation Musuems and make fools of themselves by taking pictures while sitting on a plaster dinosaur

Why do they go to such ridiculous ends to try to maintain literal belief in an ancient allegory

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2008, 04:00:58 PM »
Aw now ain't cute.  Jethro is following me.   :)

Why are you so arrogant as to think I must be following you if I'm posting on this board

Get over yourself

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2008, 04:01:55 PM »
Beach Bum, you accuse Real Science of having something to hide and censoring other view points. Let me tell you something that just happened.

As you know, Simmons is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a creationist institute that promotes "Intelligent Design." So I went to the official ID website uncommondescent.com, registered under the screen name "Defender of Reason," and went to the article about Simmons' radio program.

I made the following post:

It got deleted, and now I am banned from posting on there. Talk about free inquiry ::)

They are the ones with something to hide, not real scientists!

And where did I "accuse Real Science of having something to hide"?  News to me.  

So you got banned from a website.  Whoo hoo.  

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2008, 04:16:00 PM »
And where did I "accuse Real Science of having something to hide"?  News to me. 

So you got banned from a website.  Whoo hoo. 

Are you kidding? All your posts accusing scientists of not having open minds, comparing science to the tobacco and dairy industries, etc? Do I have to dig them up for you?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 64028
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2008, 04:18:26 PM »
Are you kidding? All your posts accusing scientists of not having open minds, comparing science to the tobacco and dairy industries, etc? Do I have to dig them up for you?

Yes, please dig up the quote of me saying "Real Science has something hide."   :)

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Darwin's theories: Fact or Faith? (Special for Beach Bum)
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2008, 04:24:51 PM »
PZ Myers on the debate:

That radio debate was a hoot and a half, but I can't take credit. All the joy came straight from the mouth and brain of my lovely opponent, who obviously didn't do a lick of research for either the debate or for his books. I was shocked for a moment when, after I'd mentioned the recent discovery of Indohyus, he went on to claim that there were no intermediates between that deer-like artiodactyl and modern whales … and when I tried to mention Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus, Basilosaurus, etc., he seemed to have never heard of them, claimed his information came from a Scientific American article some months ago (way to plumb the depths of the scientific literature, Dr Simmons!), and then started making stuff about them not exhibiting dorsoventral flexion in swimming, and not having dorsal blowholes. He wrote a whole book about "Billions of missing links"! His other book, What Darwin Didn't Know, needs to be retitled in a new edition, What Geoffrey Simmons Doesn't Know. It will be a very large book.

I shouldn't have been surprised at his performance, though. I have a secret: I read part of What Darwin Didn't Know before the show, and knew exactly what kind of creationist I was engaging.

I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled "Purposeful Design" which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.

    The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.

This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.

The book is full of confessions like that.

    Menopause: Are women designed not to have babies when they age or are physically less fit, or is it the reverse, that babies shouldn't be born to women who might not live until their children have grown up? Most women go through menopause around 52 years of age, and they all go through menopause in much the same way. It is clearly programmed. A similar pattern is found in men. As they approach 50, many have lower testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, and less interest in having sex.

What a bizarre argument. So, when the life expectancy was around 30 or 40 (say, in the time of Jesus), shouldn't women have entered menopause around the age of ten or twenty? And if a designer is setting the timers on women's fertility for optimum utility, I have a complaint: I want daughters' fertility switched off until they're old enough to handle it. Like around 30.

All women don't go through menopause in the same way. There is an underlying similar cause, but the symptoms and expression of that mechanism is different in everyone.

And, umm, how old is Geoffrey Simmons?

His age might not matter. I don't think he knows very much about sex. Look at this argument: women's bodies are perfectly designed to maximize their enjoyment of the missionary position!

    Intercourse: Face-to-face intercourse is relatively rare in the animal world, found only among whales, dolphins, dugongs, manatees, beavers, sea otters, centipedes, some crustaceans, a aNew Zealand songbird, and some primates like orangutans and bonobos [and squid. "Relatively rare," huh? -- pzm]

    One might ask, how did human males and females evolve to be so perfectly compatible? Pelvic thrusting during intercourse stimulates both individuals and deposits the sperm in the deepest possible spot. Vaginal rugae (folds) stimulate the penis. Every male aspect of intercourse—from the initial excitement set off by visual cues and pheromones, to a good mechanical fit, to stimulation, to the placement of sperm—matches up well with the female's equivalent interest, her means of being stimulated, the delivery of the egg, and her mechanisms to help the sperm on their voyage. Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs.

Please, somebody, show Dr Simmons where the clitoris is and explain female orgasms to him…for the sake of Mrs Simmons!

After that mercy is taken care of, explain evolution to him. I will note that Dr Simmons is the product of parents who had sufficient interest in sex and sufficiently compatible plumbing that they could generate him, and that they in turn had parents with compatible genitalia, and they came from parents likewise, and on and on back into the past. There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other, so his observation, from an evolutionary perspective, is completely trivial. Design is unnecessary.

I was really tempted to turn this debate into a sex education discussion, which would have been good for the Christian listeners. Imagine a Christian talk station that patiently explained to the male listeners what a clitoris was … there would be many happy smiling ladies in church.