View Full Version : Refuting Evolution
We haven't had an evolution thread in at least a week, and that just won't do. Here's a clip from a documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnxQiCg9qpg) that shows some sort of program for children, teaching them that evolution is bunk.
I really don't understand the literalist impulse that forces people to choose between science and faith. I also don't understand why a testable theory such as evolution is offensive, but other testable theories such as gravity and thermodynamics are not.
Why the selectivity?
P.S.: If you don't watch the clip, you won't hear the great clap-along song ...
We haven't had an evolution thread in at least a week, and that just won't do. Here's a clip from a documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnxQiCg9qpg) that shows some sort of program for children, teaching them that evolution is bunk.
I really don't understand the literalist impulse that forces people to choose between science and faith. I also don't understand why a testable theory such as evolution is offensive, but other testable theories such as gravity and thermodynamics are not.
Why the selectivity?
P.S.: If you don't watch the clip, you won't hear the great clap-along song ...
"It makes more sense to me"
"It's easy to explain to my children"
"God said it, I believe it"....
There you have it. It's easy to believe, its easy to hear, and it's easy to understand! The average Christian need not think any more!
"I want to win a noble prize"- You look real smart...
"The school system is bias towards evolution" Yeah no kidding. Seperation between church and state? Last time I checked, the state ran public schools.
"The school system is bias towards evolution" Yeah no kidding. Seperation between church and state? Last time I checked, the state ran public schools.The school system is, or should be, biased towards truth, and therefore evolution ;)
That said, i'm stepping out of this arguement and letting you guys do the fighting :laugh4:
The average Christian need not think
The crux of the issue.
Fisherking
01-30-2007, 08:41
ROFLMAO! Okay I'll bite….
Some people believe in the Bible and God as portrayed in the Bible.
Some people believe in every theory put fourth by Science.
Some people even believe in Government and the Minimumwage as the route to salvation.
All of these are articles of faith if you don't do anything but except them.
The Bible is frequently proven right as a historybook but I don't except every premise it puts forward. Science frequently proves its self wrong in some areas and sometimes right in others. Government proves its self incompetent on a daily bases.
Science and belief in a God are not mutually exclusive. The more we discover in science the more there seems to be intelligence behind the design.
All three need careful scrutiny in order to get at the greater truth behind them, especially the last one.
Blind faith in any of the above is dangerous and ultimately if taken to the extremes, harmful to humanity.
Pannonian
01-30-2007, 09:12
ROFLMAO! Okay I'll bite….
Some people believe in the Bible and God as portrayed in the Bible.
Some people believe in every theory put fourth by Science.
Some people even believe in Government and the Minimumwage as the route to salvation.
All of these are articles of faith if you don't do anything but except them.
The Bible is frequently proven right as a historybook but I don't except every premise it puts forward. Science frequently proves its self wrong in some areas and sometimes right in others. Government proves its self incompetent on a daily bases.
Science and belief in a God are not mutually exclusive. The more we discover in science the more there seems to be intelligence behind the design.
All three need careful scrutiny in order to get at the greater truth behind them, especially the last one.
Blind faith in any of the above is dangerous and ultimately if taken to the extremes, harmful to humanity.
It's funny how the above paragraph presents logical couplets that therefore seem balanced, but which are always skewed to one side. For greater effect, there is even a completely unrelated point thrown in to prove how right the comparisons are. Then the seemingly moderate summation introduces certain ideas into the picture, before ending with a bland "we need an open mind" line that implies anyone who doesn't agree with your previous points therefore has a closed mind.
A wonderful example of propaganda rhetoric, but of little worth except as a collection of well-presented logical fallacies. You should play Mafia.
Tribesman
01-30-2007, 09:29
Here's a clip from a documentary that shows some sort of program for children, teaching them that evolution is bunk.
Never trust a man with a beard:yes:
Fisherking
01-30-2007, 09:32
It's funny how the above paragraph presents logical couplets that therefore seem balanced, but which are always skewed to one side. For greater effect, there is even a completely unrelated point thrown in to prove how right the comparisons are. Then the seemingly moderate summation introduces certain ideas into the picture, before ending with a bland "we need an open mind" line that implies anyone who doesn't agree with your previous points therefore has a closed mind.
A wonderful example of propaganda rhetoric, but of little worth except as a collection of well-presented logical fallacies. You should play Mafia.
Logic is no more the perfect gage than emotion.
Both can mislead…
A closed mind is not going to get anything out of a new thought and a mind so open that everything falls out is not going to remember it.
I really don't care if you agree or disagree. But I am overjoyed that you thought about it!
rory_20_uk
01-30-2007, 10:09
Science is based upon empirical data gained from many experiments that are independantly repeatable. Theories do come and go, but often those that are refuted are refined by their replacements.
The Bible is a book which was made by people after choosing from the many texts that were available at the time. The reasoning for the choice is now unknown. Some texts are not in the Bible appear to have not been available at the time (dead Sea scrolls) but of course are still not included.
Basically the Bible is an example of extreme closed mind thinking. Nothing is added, and nothing is taken away. This has been the case for many hundreds of years. There is no evidence, just "facts". To say that the Bible is uniform is testament to what happens to those who'se views disagreed. Most were stamped out. Even so there are many versions with different translations, as well as differences in the Catholic ad Protestant Bible.
~:smoking:
Comparing religious views with scientific ones will not work. One is a product of evidence and observation, and changes with time, whilst the other is a fixed view point which tries to push any evidence into fitting in.
Religious things are not meant to be taken literally, particularly not in a time when the average man on the street can access such a wealth of knowledge.
Never trust a man with a beard:yes:
well....I have never been so offended in my life! :laugh4:
as for the question......Science offers logical reasoning as a way to come up with the way life probably evolved on earth...but there is always that small uncertainty....which comes from the honest realization that we don´t know everything.
this tiny bit of uncertainty bothers some people to no end.....they want to be 100% sure....110% sure if possible.....
even if they are 110% sure of a fairy tale...and that´s what religion offers them.......it´s a confortable state of mind....if you can trick yourself into beliving in it. :juggle2:
Fisherking
01-30-2007, 11:13
Comparing religious views with scientific ones will not work. One is a product of evidence and observation, and changes with time, whilst the other is a fixed view point which tries to push any evidence into fitting in.
Religious things are not meant to be taken literally, particularly not in a time when the average man on the street can access such a wealth of knowledge.
You miss the point here…Those people are dealing with Faith. Many people also put Faith in science and in government….meaning that they accept it without thinking about it…
Not everything put forth as science is actually a repeatable experiment but theoretical …actually evolution is one of these, it is in the realm of theory and not fully proven. Therefore an article of Faith that it will some day be proven.
People who wish to ignore fact are everywhere. You see them every day. There isn't much you can do about it.
It is frustrating but look at the bright side…maybe some day they will ignore a truck or something and you can say "I told you so!"
doc_bean
01-30-2007, 11:47
You miss the point here…Those people are dealing with Faith. Many people also put Faith in science and in government….meaning that they accept it without thinking about it…
You use faith as too broad a term.
Most people think that world wasn't created a second ago, yet we have no proof that it wasn't. Most people believe they'll die, though they haven't yet.
Why do they have faith in those things ? Because they seem logical, even without absolute proof we are willing to accept certain hypotheses as true, does this require faith ? In your definition, it does.
On the other end we have religious faith, which isn't about some everyday thing like the existence of a car, it's about a bearded man in the sky who was also his own son who died even though he could have prevented his own death if he wanted to but he didn't and who resurrct a few days later to say hi to some old friends and then turned into a light that made his apostles speak all languages of the world. This all happened about 2000y ago, and the earliest records of all this happening date to at least 50y after his death.
Now, do you say there might be a difference between believing that the world j didn't ust appear out of nothing a second ago and believing in the above story ? Both require faith.
Now science is somewhere between these two extremes, on the one hand it doesn't always appear trivial, on the other hand, it doesn't just seem to appear out of thin air. While science does require a certain degree of belief, the order (and possibly even nature) is totally different from the kind of believe that religion requires.
Also: Lemur: all the really good evolution threads were started by creationists afaik. They usually run off after such a thread.
It is frustrating but look at the bright side…maybe some day they will ignore a truck or something and you can say "I told you so!"
The whole 'Christians don't believe in gravity', Mel Gibson and Mount Rushmore thing.
Family Guy reference...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-30-2007, 12:11
As I recall Newton was called a heratic and wizard because he discovered light could be split, and he suggested gravity might be what stops us from floating away.
I do not have faith in science because I have been shown evidence, I do have a belief that science is correct but it is based on that evidence.
By contrast my faith in god has no evidence to support it other than the fact that the concept seems to have been around since the year dot. As to the idea of "intelligent design" I think it would have ended up going pretty much this way, if God did intervene it was most likely that big asteroid that landed in the Gulf of Mexico.
Most people think that world wasn't created a second ago, yet we have no proof that it wasn't.
Of course you have no proof, since the world just popped out of nowhere a second ago, you didn't have enough time to proove anything and you never will since the world just popped out of nowhere a second before you read this...:clown:
They believe in it, get over it. Atheists can be such sciencefundies :beam:
Science and belief in a God are not mutually exclusive. The more we discover in science the more there seems to be intelligence behind the design.
All three need careful scrutiny in order to get at the greater truth behind them, especially the last one.
Blind faith in any of the above is dangerous and ultimately if taken to the extremes, harmful to humanity.
Hey, thanks for playing. As doc bean admonished me earlier in the thread, it's sort of presumptuous of me to start an evolution thread, since I hold the more common view.
I'm glad you don't find science and religious faith to be exclusive; that's the us-or-them trend that really worries me. This is America, after all, and I want everyone to be free to believe and worship as they like, but once the preacher starts breaking it down to where people who hold with widely accepted scientific theories are the enemy, well, no good can come of that.
Rameusb5
01-30-2007, 17:28
Most people (that I have talked to) don't think that evolution discounts the existance of "God."
The problem is, evolution DOES contradict some of the things that are said in the bible, if you interpret it literally (which is somewhat dubious unless you read it in it's original language). This is why some Christians hate the idea of evolution. They can't admit that maybe the MESSAGE is right but the exact letter is wrong.
I was thinking about this the other day. Our sun will eventually die out, and if it does this in the way that scientists predict, it will kill everything on earth when this happens. Granted, this is a few billion years off. So the question is, why would God create a world only to destroy it several billion years later? Is THAT when revalations will happen?
This leads me to another point. Shouldn't we, as a race, be trying to make SOME kind of attempt to colonize other worlds? I realize that there's a couple billion years to go before the sun goes "poof," but it would be kind of embarassing to "leave it to the next generation" until it's so late that they aren't able to develop the technology to leave the solar system in time.
Sure, colonizing other planets and moons in our Solar System is one thing, but leaving it behind and finding another habital planet? That could take forever!
Don Corleone
01-30-2007, 17:55
Truth be told, I think these Evolution/Creationism debates are all a straw man, dragged out by secularists, to discredit faith in any form. As a practicing Christian, who during a wandering phase visited several different denominations, even in the bible belt of North Carolina, I've only come across a limited few hardline 6-day creationists. Sure, it's easy to point at the few reactionaries out there and claim that's the entire Christian persona, but honestly folks, the majority of Christians agree that the earth is 4 billion years old and life has evolved from rudimentary DNA/RNA combinations (though it's nowhere as simple as it's usually presented). The only way my views, and the views of the vast majority of Chrisitans I know, from the secularist human view is that I (we) would tell you that it wasn't random, that God was the fine hand in the details throughout the billions of years the cosmos has been around.
I'm more or less with TH.
Also, not to nitpick... well I guess it is to nitpick. Thermodynamics and Gravity aren't considered theories. It's a small, but valid difference, that is worth noting along with the "Man evolved from apes" statement being false. I figure if you want to mock someone for their beliefs, it's at least worth taking the time to have your own information straight. :yes:
Dutch_guy
01-30-2007, 18:13
Well, don't wish to disrupt the debate, but I just had to say this video completely ruined my day. Shocking, really :embarassed:
:balloon2:
Thermodynamics and Gravity aren't considered theories. It's a small, but valid difference, that is worth noting along with the "Man evolved from apes" statement being false. I figure if you want to mock someone for their beliefs, it's at least worth taking the time to have your own information straight. :yes:
It's all in the phrasing, and you're quite right, I should have said the theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theories_of_gravitation) and the various laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics). Forgive my unclear brevity.
As for "mocking," well, that's in the eye of the beholder.
It's all in the phrasing, and you're quite right, I should have said the theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theories_of_gravitation) and the various laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics). Forgive my unclear brevity.
As for "mocking," well, that's in the eye of the beholder.
Actually, wasn't Newton's theory of gravity disproved?
Actually, wasn't Newton's theory of gravity disproved?
Yuppers. That's the great thing about a real theory—it can be tested and disproved. That's how science advances. (And for what it's worth, in 99% of real-world situations, Newton's theorems work just fine. You don't have to bring relativity into the equation until you're dealing with large masses and/or high relative velocities.)
Yuppers. That's the great thing about a real theory—it can be tested and disproved. That's how science advances. (And for what it's worth, in 99% of real-world situations, Newton's theorems work just fine. You don't have to bring relativity into the equation until you're dealing with large masses and/or high relative velocities.)
I'm under the impression even NASA use Newtonian stuff for space planning.
Einsteinian things make people's brains melt.
Plus of course quantum physics throws a rather awkward spanner in the works...
Yuppers. That's the great thing about a real theory—it can be tested and disproved. That's how science advances. (And for what it's worth, in 99% of real-world situations, Newton's theorems work just fine. You don't have to bring relativity into the equation until you're dealing with large masses and/or high relative velocities.)
So, when you said "testable" you meant it was testable, but just not true?
"I don't believe that Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago"
I almost wanted to answer:
"You don't believe in the truth?"
oh and this is a good one:
"Does it anywhere say jetplane in the bible?"
"noooo"
"Well done, that's because it's a brand new word. So does it say Dinosaur in the bible?"
"noooo"
"Yeah because it too is a brand new world."
To this idiot I want to answer:
"Of course it's a new word, you blithering idiot, we only discovered them 150-200 years ago
Fisherking
01-30-2007, 20:54
You use faith as too broad a term.
Most people think .......
Also: Lemur: all the really good evolution threads were started by creationists afaik. They usually run off after such a thread.
faith (TRUST)
noun [U]
great trust or confidence in something or someone:
1.She has no faith in modern medicine.
2.You'll cope - I have great faith in you.
3.After the trial, his family said they had lost all faith in the judicial system.
4.Ministers must start keeping their promises if they want to restore faith in the government.
I wouldn't say I used it in an unusual way nor nearly too broad.
Words tend to mean things but some times different things to different people, yet we must put trust in or have faith in those words to convey our meanings. Some languages have the exact same words with the same spelling and completely different meanings. Can you offer universal proof that one or the other is correct? Our little old word nice once meant someone of low worth and not to be trusted,faithless, all the same you are likely a nice guy.
As a rule I see scientific methods as a way to answer some of our eternal questions.
On the other hand I believe in some things that science has not been able to prove beyond a doubt. I am willing to accept anecdotal evidence that some things are so. According to science (mathematics and the principles of aerodynamics) bumblebees can't fly. It is repeatable in observation but this is still anecdotal…therefore it must be a theory which cannot be proven beyond scientific doubt.
You (and I perhaps to a lesser degree) believe in the theory of evolution. But it is still an article of faith because we have never found a single living example of macro evolution. We have some anecdotal evidence in the form of bones and birds' beaks but it still remains largely conjecture but even that only points to micro evolution. We haven't caught up with any new species developing from an old one. We think we have some evidence though….
We take it on faith that Darwin will win out.
Quit frankly Creation and Evolution are both less likely than our being seeded by some benevolent Aliens. (Achems Razor) After all isn't that a simpler conclusion than all this jumping about with gods and changing animals…how on earth could a pidgin become a stork after all. To top that look where genetic engineering is today and think how it may be in a decade or so.
Everyone can argue his point until the cows come home and still not have hard proof nor convince anyone but himself.~:wave:
Don Corleone
01-30-2007, 20:59
Well, to your point Fisherking, there are certain 'leaps' in evolution, where key physiological traits all of a sudden appeared (such as the re-design of the hip socket between reptiles and mammals) with no intermediary fossils. But generally speaking, when you move from animal A to animal B, there are lots of fossils of creatures in between that offer evidence of the transition.
When Xiahou chided Lemur earlier for saying we're descended from apes (modern apes) he was alluding to this. In fact, we don't come from chimps, gorilla or orangutangs. We all do share a common ancestor, however, and there are fossil records of the creatures that stand between our current form and our common ancestor to 'strongly suggest' that we in fact evolved from them.... I can hear Navaros screaming already...
doc_bean
01-30-2007, 21:10
faith (TRUST)
noun [U]
great trust or confidence in something or someone:
1.She has no faith in modern medicine.
2.You'll cope - I have great faith in you.
3.After the trial, his family said they had lost all faith in the judicial system.
4.Ministers must start keeping their promises if they want to restore faith in the government.
So don't you agree with my point above ? That there is at least a quantitave difference ? Arguing semantics is side stepping the issue, and not something I enjoy.
I wouldn't say I used it in an unusual way nor nearly too broad.
Words tend to mean things but some times different things to different people, yet we must put trust in or have faith in those words to convey our meanings. Some languages have the exact same words with the same spelling and completely different meanings. Can you offer universal proof that one or the other is correct? Our little old word nice once meant someone of low worth and not to be trusted,faithless, all the same you are likely a nice guy.
Yes, 'faith' doesn't always mean the same thing in every situation.
As a rule I see scientific methods as a way to answer some of our eternal questions
I'd disagree, the eternal questions tend to be 'Why ?', science can only answer 'How ?'
On the other hand I believe in some things that science has not been able to prove beyond a doubt. I am willing to accept anecdotal evidence that some things are so. According to science (mathematics and the principles of aerodynamics) bumblebees can't fly. It is repeatable in observation but this is still anecdotal…therefore it must be a theory which cannot be proven beyond scientific doubt.
Huh, I've lost you hear, why can't they fly ?
You (and I perhaps to a lesser degree) believe in the theory of evolution. But it is still an article of faith because we have never found a single living example of macro evolution. We have some anecdotal evidence in the form of bones and birds' beaks but it still remains largely conjecture but even that only points to micro evolution. We haven't caught up with any new species developing from an old one. We think we have some evidence though….
We take it on faith that Darwin will win out.
Well that paragraph is certainly open to interpretation, but let's say I agree, for the most part.
Quit frankly Creation and Evolution are both less likely than our being seeded by some benevolent Aliens. (Achems Razor) After all isn't that a simpler conclusion than all this jumping about with gods and changing animals…
Not really, since the big question would then be: Where did the aliens come from ? How did they come to be ?
how on earth could a pidgin become a stork after all. To top that look where genetic engineering is today and think how it may be in a decade or so.
Everyone can argue his point until the cows come home and still not have hard proof nor convince anyone but himself.~:wave:
That's usually the conclusion of these kinds of threads. I tend to find them horribly depressing, but I get sucked in almost every time.
Everyone can argue his point until the cows come home and still not have hard proof nor convince anyone but himself.
Well actually...
You can look at the mutation rates of certain genes (the more critical and complex the protein formed, the slower the rate of mutation as mutations are more likely to be fatal/a burden), and from this have a pretty good idea of when two species shared a common ancestor, by comparing the differences. You then correlate this with any fossil evidence, and find they match up nicely.
Or you can believe aliens/gods did it all.
So, when you said "testable" you meant it was testable, but just not true?
For once you've got me completely baffled. Are you arguing that Newtonian physics, because they do not apply on the relativistic or quantum levels, are hogwash? Or are you saying that by citing a correct-but-incomplete theory, I have somehow invalidated my stated position that faith and science can co-exist peacefully? (A position that seems to be lost on you and Don. I'm still having trouble finding the post in which I mocked all religion and stated that we came from apes. Citation?)
Papewaio
01-30-2007, 22:21
Not everything put forth as science is actually a repeatable experiment but theoretical …actually evolution is one of these, it is in the realm of theory and not fully proven.
No theory in science can be 'fully' proven, it has to be able to be disproven otherwise it ain't a theory.
Watchman
01-30-2007, 22:45
On the other hand I believe in some things that science has not been able to prove beyond a doubt. I am willing to accept anecdotal evidence that some things are so. According to science (mathematics and the principles of aerodynamics) bumblebees can't fly. It is repeatable in observation but this is still anecdotal…therefore it must be a theory which cannot be proven beyond scientific doubt.IIRC the thing with bumblebees went so that some bright fellow noted that according to the laws of aerodynamics and such at the time bumblebees should not be able to fly. Since nobody had told the little blighters, the issue was duly looked into. IIRC the answer has something to do with turbulences and the way the bumblies interact with those, and as turbulences are too chaotic to be properly calculated etc. with the math and machinery we currently have...
Shelve under "Work In Progress" and "Pending Suitable Instruments".
...it is in the realm of theory and not fully proven.Well, conclusively proving about any theory is strictly speaking right about impossible. Sooner or later you'll have to fall back on logical induction, as it simply isn't practical to keep dropping light and heavy objects ad infinitum to see if they indeed always fall with equal speed (ceteris paribus as usual). At some point you'll just have to assume that as all the tests thus far have yielded the same result the thing works like you think it does. Sort of like you strictly speaking cannot count on the sun rising tomorrow just because it has always done so in the past, at least so far as you know, but not making that as such unfounded inductive leap would obviously make life quite difficult.
If one were to be truly rigorous about his or her terminology, no theory could ever be declared "proven" - merely "strenghtened" or somesuch (I'm unfamiliar with the relevant jargon in English), hopefully to the point where it can be assumed to be correct until actually proven wrong. Obviously most people aren't that strict over the matter, for the sake of convenience if nothing else, but this playing fast and loose with the terminology is probably one major cause of the somewhat mistaken view so many common people (plus most creationists by what I've seen of their terminology) have on how this whole "theory" thingie actually works.
Don Corleone
01-30-2007, 23:06
For once you've got me completely baffled. Are you arguing that Newtonian physics, because they do not apply on the relativistic or quantum levels, are hogwash? Or are you saying that by citing a correct-but-incomplete theory, I have somehow invalidated my stated position that faith and science can co-exist peacefully? (A position that seems to be lost on you and Don. I'm still having trouble finding the post in which I mocked all religion and stated that we came from apes. Citation?)
I didn't say you did. I was just saying X's rebuttal that we didn't actually come from apes is factually true, and tried to use it as an example of how the whole progression of evolution actually went. Sorry for not making that more clear. :bow:
My only point is (and this isn't actually pointed at you) that threads such as this tend to take on a 'if you agree creationsim is folly, then religion at large must be folly' tone to them.
That bumblebee myth seems to date back to the 30's http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_09_13_04.html
The persistence of the bumblebee myth also highlights a misunderstanding about science, models, and mathematics. The real issue isn't that scientists can be wrong. The real issue is that there's a crucial difference between a "thing" and a mathematical model of the "thing."
.....
So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee.
CBR
Marshal Murat
01-30-2007, 23:44
I liked two things.
1. "Does your Grandfather look like this?" Are you saying that evolution is *snap*, oh boy, a New Being. Golly, that was quick.
2.Behemoth, why can't that be an alligator come up from the Nile?
The jet plane issue...
Did they have a word for Roman? I'm not sure if the original Greek (or whatever script it was) translated exactly to Roman, it could be a correlation, that they used something like 'People of Rome' or whatever.
I believe that science over-rules the 6-day theory. The 6-day idea is, to me, a metaphor that God created the Earth, and they are taking it WAY TO SERIOUSLY.
Also, what happened to the dinosaurs? Did Noah decide that they weren't required on the ship? So what about the aquatic dinosaurs? Did they just give up because the world was now their playground? If they lived, then what happened to them now? Was it because they couldn't compete in the new enviroment and thus it resulted that they died out? Now that sounds a lot like some Englishman's theory about 'the strongest survive'?
Watchman
01-30-2007, 23:50
Just to nitpick, but that's actually "survival of the fittest" which is a bit another thing.
Man that video made me laugh :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I was clapping along with the clapping song - that was better than the wiggles!! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
There is some serious brainwashing going on there, such hardcore stuff for such little minds
you know what it reminded me of
those PLO child suicide bomber videos :no: :oops:
Edit: least I dont have to be looking over my shoulder ofr any of those bright young hopefuls usurping me in my job 20 years from now - looks like Ill be working long into retirement at this rate *looks old*
Papewaio
01-31-2007, 01:42
I'm more or less with TH.
Also, not to nitpick... well I guess it is to nitpick. Thermodynamics and Gravity aren't considered theories. It's a small, but valid difference, that is worth noting along with the "Man evolved from apes" statement being false. I figure if you want to mock someone for their beliefs, it's at least worth taking the time to have your own information straight. :yes:
Thermodynamics is normally termed as a Law... which is more a naming convention then any real difference between a Law and Theory... ones just been tested more times then the other... which if applied to a person you would call them a street walker not a Law. :laugh4:
As for "Man evolved from apes" you are correct. It should be "Man and Ape evolved from a common ancestor". They are relatives not ancestors to us, its like calling a cousin a grandparent which is a no no outside of Tasmania. :inquisitive: :clown:
My world history class teaches evolution. The first question on the midterm exam was "When did the species known as homo sapiens first appear?" answer was 100k-400k years ago. What makes no sense to me is how they managed to get that big of a gap.
What, are you looking for a particular year or month, or something? It's not like there was a sudden 'jump' from one species to another.
As for "Man evolved from apes" you are correct. It should be "Man and Ape evolved from a common ancestor". They are relatives not ancestors to us, its like calling a cousin a grandparent which is a no no outside of Tasmania. :inquisitive: :clown:
Your forgetting parts of the United States - especially Arkansas where cousins last I checked were allowed to marry.
KukriKhan
01-31-2007, 04:21
What, are you looking for a particular year or month, or something? It's not like there was a sudden 'jump' from one species to another.
Yeah why not? Creationists have gone through their data - the bible - and arrived at an actual date & time of creation (1420 in the afternoon, Sunday 23 October 4004 BCE, if I remember correctly). Ussher link (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/ussher.html)
Surely science can be as precise, even as an estimate.
Yeah why not? Creationists have gone through their data - the bible - and arrived at an actual date & time of creation (1420 in the afternoon, Sunday 23 October 4004 BCE, if I remember correctly). Ussher link (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/ussher.html)
Surely science can be as precise, even as an estimate.
I thought GOD rested on the Sabath - but then is that Sunday (Christian) or Saturday (Jewish)
I guess if it was old testament GOD then he mustve rested on saturday
but then if he was an omnipotent being would it matter what day of the week it was - Oh its all so confuising Im going back to old 400 k give or take a coupla hundg k. But at what point is it a man - oh thats right its the point where the monkey picks up the bone and clubs the other monkeys to death - now that sounds like biblical man to me.
Papewaio
01-31-2007, 04:53
Yeah why not? Creationists have gone through their data - the bible - and arrived at an actual date & time of creation (1420 in the afternoon, Sunday 23 October 4004 BCE, if I remember correctly). Ussher link (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/ussher.html)
Surely science can be as precise, even as an estimate.
Precision and accuracy are two different things.
KukriKhan
01-31-2007, 05:47
Precision and accuracy are two different things.
Yes, the target thingee:
https://jimcee.homestead.com/accuracy_precision_03.gif
They differentiate mostly in the input, yes? GIGO, DIDO and all that?
So the question is: given the various data, why can science not give a both accurate and precise date of creation, as the creationists have, given their data?
Then it would just be an arguement of sources. Resolvable.
I really don't understand the literalist impulse that forces people to choose between science and faith. I also don't understand why a testable theory such as evolution is offensive, but other testable theories such as gravity and thermodynamics are not.
That statement is completely incorrect. Evolution is not testable. Nor is it repeatable or observable. It does not meet the requirements of the scientific method, hence evolution is not even a theory. To call it a theory gives it far more credit than it is worthy of getting.
Kudos to that program that teaches kids evolution is bunk. Most of the children's programs I've seen teach garbage propaganda that evolution is true and are always spouting off wild speculative age claims of species as if they are facts - which is totally disgusting.
Cheers to all educational formats that keep the pro-evolution propaganda out. It's about darn time. :2thumbsup:
That statement is completely incorrect. Evolution is not testable. Nor is it repeatable or observable. It does not meet the requirements of the scientific method, hence evolution is not even a theory. To call it a theory gives it far more credit than it is worthy of getting.
Kudos to that program that teaches kids evolution is bunk. Most of the children's programs I've seen teach garbage propganda that evolution is true and are always spouting off wild speculative age claims of species as if they are facts - which is totally disgusting.
Cheers to all educational formats that keep the pro-evolution propaganda out. It's about darn time. :2thumbsup:
Sooner than I expected...
So Nav, you think you programs you saw were good? Comparing one's grandfather to a monkey?
So Nav, you think you programs you saw were good? Comparing one's grandfather to a monkey?
That was a great comparison, pretty much sums up how ludicrous the whole "evolution" concept of one species turning into something that it is not really is.
I was especially disgusted to see all those little kids raising their hands to indicate their young minds had already been universally infested with pro-evolution propaganda. Just goes to show the extreme zeal with which evolutionists insist on pushing their propaganda onto everyone in the world.:idea2:
That statement is completely incorrect. Evolution is not testable. Nor is it repeatable or observable. It does not meet the requirements of the scientific method, hence evolution is not even a theory. To call it a theory gives it far more credit than it is worthy of getting.
Kudos to that program that teaches kids evolution is bunk. Most of the children's programs I've seen teach garbage propganda that evolution is true and are always spouting off wild speculative age claims of species as if they are facts - which is totally disgusting.
Cheers to all educational formats that keep the pro-evolution propaganda out. It's about darn time. :2thumbsup:
What part of evolution is not testable? Does that non-testable equate to an invalid theory?
Do you wish to get into the discussion about how Darwain postulated his theory of evolution and then how he used man's artifical selection in breeding to demonstrated the possiblity that the theory is sound.
Do you really understand what constitutes a theory?
How exactly does the theory of evolution not meet the requirements for being a valid theory?
Enlighten me with you wisdom on what constitutes a valid theory and what does not. Because your statement is incorrect based upon the basic definition of what a theory is. Here to help with the discussion only - lets use a base definition of how is a theory defined.
Would you agree that this defintion is adequate in describing what a theory is?
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
Sure it's a fact that an apple dropped will fall to the Earth and can be observed. But no one has ever observed an ape turning into a man, or a fish growing legs, or any of the other ludicrousities that evolution requires.
KukriKhan
01-31-2007, 06:55
And so, ever on the edge, the Org has invented a new word: ludicrousities.
OED will be so proud.
And so, ever on the edge, the Org has invented a new word: ludicrousities.
OED will be so proud.
LUDICROUSITIES
isnt that like nude twister or something
Sure it's a fact that an apple dropped will fall to the Earth and can be observed. But no one has ever observed an ape turning into a man, or a fish growing legs, or any of the other ludicrousities that evolution requires.
Hmm. Micro-evolution is easily observed. Here's a serious question: If evolution is bunk, how do anti-bacteria resistant strains of bacteria come into existence?
Samurai Waki
01-31-2007, 08:42
and just because we can't physically see evolution happening. Doesn't mean its not there. Another good example would be the Theory of Plate Tectonics, we know its happening, we just can't see it happen until after the fact.
Evolution is still something we've only began to develop an interest in, and applying it effectively has proven to be tricky, but far from impossible. Theres some codes that need to be cracked, but we're well on our way, I would say we're closer to having a working model on what evolution truly is, and how we're affected by it rather than how god created the earth and man, and for what reason.
At least I know that if there is a god, it's entire reason for humanity would not include a single thing navaros believes in.
Lorenzo_H
01-31-2007, 08:53
I hate evolutionism, but I don't know if I can be bothered wasting time arguing it...
Surely science can be as precise, even as an estimate.
Don't call me 'Shirley'. You are joking, right?
Sure it's a fact that an apple dropped will fall to the Earth and can be observed. But no one has ever observed an ape turning into a man, or a fish growing legs, or any of the other ludicrousities that evolution requires.
Maybe that has to do with the fact that evolution takes time ... tho it can easely be observed. It's hard to date anything older then 12,000 years, as you'll get in trouble with the Younger Dryas, so Dendro-Chronology and C-14 are out. All you have left is TL, but that doesn't work very well either.
If you want to date finds older then 100,000 years you look at the teeth of mice. Yes the teeth. Back then mice evolved that quickly that they looked different over only a couple of 1000 years.
Anyway the main argument against Evolution used is this:
Darwin made up evolution and to support it he came up with the Dinosaurs. (and all others obviously)
This obviously is not true, we already found Dinosaurs and then a fella named Darwin said:
Wait a minute, this ain't in the bible, surely there must be more.
So he went to the Galapagos Isles and discovered that they had birds there. These birds all looked the same and different. So Darwin said:
They all look alike, so they should have the same ancestor, but they are different, so that's Evolution
And he was right
Anyway as I said earlier Evolution can be observed. Do you really think that 6000 years ago cows looked like this:
http://www.zuivelonline.nl/images/1.HolsteinerFrisian(zwartbo.jpg
surely not
Do you think that these 2 cows had the same mom and dad but one just happened to look different from the other one:
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/india/environment/pictures/cow.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/thumb/5/56/LakenvelderKoeien.JPG/350px-LakenvelderKoeien.JPG
surely not
No this is what we call evolution, and it's true
Maybe that has to do with the fact that evolution takes time ... tho it can easely be observed. It's hard to date anything older then 12,000 years, as you'll get in trouble with the Younger Dryas, so Dendro-Chronology and C-14 are out. All you have left is TL, but that doesn't work very well either.
If you want to date finds older then 100,000 years you look at the teeth of mice. Yes the teeth. Back then mice evolved that quickly that they looked different over only a couple of 1000 years.
You can date things, you just need the precence (or lack of) certain unstable isotopes. Of course these don't exist in all rocks, so you need to find something distinguishable (say teeth, shells) in the same layer as something you can date. Then you find those shells elsewhere, and can date it.
The joys of science.
Of course these don't exist in all rocks, so you need to find something distinguishable (say teeth, shells) in the same layer as something you can date.
nah by now there's a proper typology (there has to be as it's undatable), so you can say:
mmm this one looks like that one, so let's say: 200,000 years old ... could be 250,000 tho
AntiochusIII
01-31-2007, 14:10
I hate evolutionism, but I don't know if I can be bothered wasting time arguing it...I find the term evolutionism to be offensive.
- PC Brigade Card-carrying member
nah by now there's a proper typology (there has to be as it's undatable), so you can say:
You have to have dated it at one point...
Maybe that works for shorter term stuff, but longer term you *do* look for identifying shells etc that have been found with deposits which can be dated before.
You can't just guess, else you end up with the 19th/early 20th century business with no one having any real idea of how old the Earth is. Their guesses were pretty respectable though, considering they had no grasp of radioactive decay or plate tectonics.
Cronos Impera
01-31-2007, 14:38
Never trust a man with a beard:yes:
Gah...I have a beard sometimes and I'm 0% Christian.
Sure it's a fact that an apple dropped will fall to the Earth and can be observed. But no one has ever observed an ape turning into a man, or a fish growing legs, or any of the other ludicrousities that evolution requires.
That doesn't answer the post. Are you avoiding answering the question because you don't want to have to define what constitutes a valid theory?
Truth is discovered through investigation and questioning.
One can easily show that Darwin's theory has several key flaws, but you made a definitive claim that its not a valid theory. Most dealing with the fact that because of lack of technology he did not state RNA and DNA he used other terms, that have been shown to be incorrect by technology, which some say invalidate the theory itself, but the updated science has not invalidated the theory, it has made corrections on the thesis of it.
So inother words were back to the orginial question. Coming to an agreement on what consitutes a valid theory. I posted an easily found definition so we could come to an agreement on a definition.
It seems that your unable to commit to a definition of what constitutes a theory. Is it because it would show that you claim is false? Or is it because you don't understand what constitutes a valid theory in science?
One doesnot have to observe the actual event for the theory to be valid.
You have to have dated it at one point...
Well it is possible with TL dating, but damned difficult, it's possible but you can be wrong by about 25,000 years (the further you go back ofcourse).
This dating together with the typology will give you a somewhat correct date
You can't just guess, else you end up with the 19th/early 20th century business with no one having any real idea of how old the Earth is.
With the conventional methods you can't date the Earth. Earth is dated with 50% science and 50% guessing and luck.
One can easily show that Darwin's theory has several key flaws
Aye, that's true, that's why people are still perfecting it ... Darwins original theory (1.0) was wrong, but the current one (version 1773.72347f) is far better
KukriKhan
01-31-2007, 14:58
Don't call me 'Shirley'. You are joking, right?
Hmmm, mixing 'precise' and 'estimate' in the same sentence gave it away, huh, Churly? :)
OTOH, not being able to fix a "date Homo Sapiens appeared" to anything give-or-take 300k years seems a little sloppy, don't you think?
Aye, that's true, that's why people are still perfecting it ... Darwins original theory (1.0) was wrong, but the current one (version 1773.72347f) is far better
And hence we see science is working. Had his theory sat unaltered for 150 years then I'd be highly dubious as well.
OTOH, not being able to fix a "date Homo Sapiens appeared" to anything give-or-take 300k years seems a little sloppy, don't you think?
Well considering the lack of fossil evidence, and the difficulties with actually deciding what is a species and what isn't from fossils anyway (which is basically impossible)...
Don Corleone
01-31-2007, 15:11
Hmm. Micro-evolution is easily observed. Here's a serious question: If evolution is bunk, how do anti-bacteria resistant strains of bacteria come into existence?
Hmmm, could it be.....
SATAN!?!?!? :devil:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/churchlady02.jpg
OTOH, not being able to fix a "date Homo Sapiens appeared" to anything give-or-take 300k years seems a little sloppy, don't you think?
There's a fixed date, but it depends on the part of the world, the problem is the name.
Common now is that we have H. Erectus, H. Neanderthaliensis, H. Sapiens, etc. That used to be H. Erectus, H Sapiens Neanderthaliensis, H. Sapiens Sapiens, H. Sapiens Cro Magnon, etc.
So nowaday we go by the first one, which means H. Sapiens is about 200,000 years old. If however we take the old one H. Sapiens is 300,000 years old, as that is the age of H. Neanderthaliensis.
Next to that H. Sapiens stayed in Africa till 100,000 years ago, and they didn't enter Europe till 35,000 BP.
If you have old textbooks you get different dates, if you live in Europe you learn that H. Sapiens appeared about 35,000 years ago, but not the appeared.
That was a great comparison, pretty much sums up how ludicrous the whole "evolution" concept of one species turning into something that it is not really is.
No, not really. It shows how ludicrous your views of evolution really are. Evolutionists do not try to argue that ones relatives were apes. Only, that we descended from Apes many millions of years ago. It really isn't that hard to understand or grasp, if you put down a collection of human works that is 2000 years old and just open your close mind for a few minutes.
Hmmm, could it be.....
SATAN!?!?!? :devil:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/churchlady02.jpg
:laugh4:
Indeed, Tom. Anything bad= Satan
Anything good= God
I thought this was common knowledge by now in the Christian Republic of America. ~:rolleyes:
The term 'evolutionist' should be banned. It's like calling everyone 'physicsists' or 'chemistryists'. Yes, we believe in chemistry! Even though it's not mentioned in the Bible.
rory_20_uk
01-31-2007, 18:24
embryology. Fascinating area. One can see early foetuses with gill slits, the gill slits join to becom the neck. Dolphins with small legs that are resorbed, humans with tails.
It is like evolution in a nutshell - the modern fish growing legs if you like.
~:smoking:
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-31-2007, 18:43
embryology. Fascinating area. One can see early foetuses with gill slits, the gill slits join to becom the neck. Dolphins with small legs that are resorbed, humans with tails.
It might be fascinating, but I wish I didn't have to learn so bloody much of it.
rory_20_uk
01-31-2007, 18:45
Heh. Our exam was a cakewalk. We got a "revision" session the week before the exam - the questions covered was the exam (wish I'd known that at the time!)
~:smoking:
yesdachi
01-31-2007, 20:56
Apples don’t drop from trees, they are not pulled to the ground by gravity, they are thrown to the earth by god! Often at people that are laying around contemplating the intricacies of his universe. Back to work Newton… doink!:tomato2:
Fisherking
02-01-2007, 10:37
So don't you agree with my point above ? That there is at least a quantitave difference ? Arguing semantics is side stepping the issue, and not something I enjoy.
Yes, 'faith' doesn't always mean the same thing in every situation.
I'd disagree, the eternal questions tend to be 'Why ?', science can only answer 'How ?'
Huh, I've lost you hear, why can't they fly ?
Well that paragraph is certainly open to interpretation, but let's say I agree, for the most part.
Not really, since the big question would then be: Where did the aliens come from ? How did they come to be ?
That's usually the conclusion of these kinds of threads. I tend to find them horribly depressing, but I get sucked in almost every time.
Well actually...
You can look at the mutation rates of certain genes (the more critical and complex the protein formed, the slower the rate of mutation as mutations are more likely to be fatal/a burden), and from this have a pretty good idea of when two species shared a common ancestor, by comparing the differences. You then correlate this with any fossil evidence, and find they match up nicely.
Or you can believe aliens/gods did it all.
Sorry Doc and BDC, I couldn't play for a couple of days but will try to address your comments and questions even though things have moved on a bit.
Doc, I used that phrase as an example of mankind's ever questing nature and not as asking just the why or how of things…
Bumblebees: I don't know if the intent was to prove or disprove their capabilities but it seems they are deemed too heavy for their wings and muscles to provide sufficient lift to get them off the ground. Watchman has a little bit on it below.
As to Aliens seeding us and Achems Razor I find it amusing that you responded with more questions… See mankind's ever questioning nature…
Actually some of the basis of this can be found in the Babylonian and Sumerian texts from which the biblical accounts were derived. The Eloheim (a plural) specifically Enki and his sister (I forget her name) set about genetically manipulating the eggs of ape women and the blood and sperm of his people to make a hybrid they called the adamu as workers. They used 49 of their women to implant the eggs. This was unsatisfactory to Enki so he set about making the adamu capable of reproducing themselves. If this is not interesting enough, you should also know that they had knowledge of the outer planets, described them and numbered them from the outside into the Sun…Earths number was 7.
The Bible abridged most of this and started off with sketchy accounts of the creation of the planets and Adam & Eve also making the Eloheim not a counsel of overlords but the one God.
Of course this is a modern assessment of what is explained in the texts but it is not hard to glean such a conclusion from what is represented there. Anecdotal at the very best but interesting that the oldest known civilization on earth would have something like that as their creation story.
The depressing aspects of life in this world is that many times what we see as clear and concise information is not just disregarded but often made light of.
BDC…You know that even as frustrating as it is, this too can be termed anecdotal.
Rather than beating a dead horse we could move on to some of the amazing things offered by Quantum Physics …oh like Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" or how thought affects particles in motion….as in how measured and unmeasured particles behave differently, and how gravity doesn't seem to work right.
There is more than enough there to drive us all mad.
In my estimation we were given the capacity to use logic and also we were given emotion. Using just one or the other is playing with only half a deck. Some things we know intuitively and others only through logic. Both can be mistaken! Ideally mistakes produce learning. By choosing only one or the other we make ourselves only half the person we were born to be.
Fisherking
02-01-2007, 11:39
Jumping on the other side of the issue for a moment, those Christians who think the earth is around 4000 years old have there heads where the sun doesn't shine.
The Irish monk who originally made those calculations was not privy to or ignored the fact that many of the translations of years were not years at all but other time periods. Several scalars have made further extrapolations based on times given in the bible and supporting texts and come up with around 3.5 to 4 Billion years….Duh!!!
Why wouldn't god use evolution at least for some of his creatures…?
Those who choose to ignore facts given from their own testaments are worse than ignorant and perpetrating a fraud on their followers.
Edit:
Even the idea of the world being created in 7 days is a misrepresentation which may be more nearly translated as ages…very long ones….
If you choose to believe something at least do your best to get to the root of what is said and don't take self appointed experts opinions on something that could be so important.
doc_bean
02-01-2007, 11:51
Why wouldn't god use evolution at least for some of his creatures…?
Thats usually 'our' point. Evolution stands regardless of whether or not God or aliens were involved.
Fisherking
02-01-2007, 19:21
ROFLOL Did I ever once say I didn't believe it occurred?
All I said is it has not been proven past the theory stage! Or more accurately the thing about some people believe in the Bible……its all a matter of faith…..
That's why I said:
ROFLMAO! Okay I'll bite….
In my first post.
It is kind of like being the kid assigned to take the unpopular point of view in debate class……:laugh4:
It doesn't make anything less heart felt or less interesting does it?
Now you know where I stand…right in the middle with both sides gunning for me…
:2thumbsup:
All I said is it has not been proven past the theory stage!
Um, well, see that's the thing of it—nothing gets proven past the "theory stage." Every accepted scientific fact is open to being disproved. If some bright young lad from MIT can disprove or refine the second law of thermodynamics, well, that's how the cookie crumbles.
Science is not supposed to have sacred cows; every bovine is fair game. (Note that I say "supposed," since scientists and researchers are just as subject to groupthink as any other bunch of people, and they can move like a herd at times.)
Fisherking
02-01-2007, 19:41
Um, well, see that's the thing of it—nothing gets proven past the "theory stage." Every accepted scientific fact is open to being disproved. If some bright young lad from MIT can disprove or refine the second law of thermodynamics, well, that's how the cookie crumbles.
Science is not supposed to have sacred cows; every bovine is fair game. (Note that I say "supposed," since scientists and researchers are just as subject to groupthink as any other bunch of people, and they can move like a herd at times.)
I am in total agreement, especially about the herd part.
Reenk Roink
02-01-2007, 22:18
Science is not supposed to have sacred cows; every bovine is fair game.
Feyerabend would argue that the (flawed in his opinion) scientific method would be Science's "sacred cow".
Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits.
Marshal Murat
02-02-2007, 03:42
If there is no evolution....
Why are there different skin colors? If 'God created Adam and Eve', then it's settled. There is only one skin color. Yet I see blacks, whites, asians, latinos, and every other kind of skin color! Where in the Bible does it say 'God created Adam and Eve, Beth and Sue, Ju and Qui, Mumboto and Undique?'
If this 'evolution' thing never happened, why are there races pre-disposed to the areas where they live? Sickle-Cell Anemia, while a genetic disorder helps prevent malaria. You want to know where malaria is? Africa! Surprise there, that a genetic disease that helps prevent malaria is found in that spot!
Asians have the folded eye-lids so they can see while it is bright and sunny on the snow (that's what I have heard). Why would God allow them to deviate from the original template? Its just terrible!
Evolution isn't *snap* your a man. It takes time, developing to your world.
Not want to keep rehashing
evolution
god
evolution
and to play devils advocate for a moment
I think there could be something to the scientific method - sacred cow argument
our observations are constrained by the physical five senses, anything outside this that we are unable to see, touch, smell, or hear (at least the resulting effects of some process) then it doesnt exist according to science. If we can measure it with our limited human arsenal of senses - then it doesnt exist according to humans. The other side of this coin is to believe that if we can think of something or have an idea or thought about something - it therefore exists. Because the idea of it exists.
Animals can 'sense' things that we dont - like sunamis and earthquakes - is it just a matter of them being able to feel things we cant (earth tremors) - like hearing frequencys of sound - or are they sensing something outside the five senses??
certainly there are people who blindly believe 'in science' without having tested the theories for themselves, (or in some case even understanding the methodology and assumptions that are carried with it) I mean I havent tested half the popular theories out there (or seen an atom) - but I accept them to be truth (because I can see their expression and reason that the explanation is logical). Ive met some 'young people' who believe that science will solve all the worlds problems - but to them science is some black box much like GOD, they figure if someone can invent an ipod then we will solve global warming and world hunger the same way. They little understand the building blocks of observations, assumptions and theories that have brought us to where we are, but are happy to stand on this 'iceburg' of knowledge and believe 'this method' will provide answers to any future questions/problems that the human race should encounter.
Then if we are dealing with energys or forms beyond our physical limitation, one may expect there could be some observer effect also.
I mean if we're going to discuss this issue over and over - lets go outside the known :yes:
TevashSzat
02-02-2007, 04:39
Hmmm, could it be.....
SATAN!?!?!? :devil:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/churchlady02.jpg
What would you say about something that is both good and bad?
Take sickle cell anemia for example, one who inherits two recessive genes for it will develop deformed red blood cells that will often get stuck within capillaries blocking off oxygen supply to parts of the body. On the other hand, one who recieves only one recessive gene for sickle cell anemia and the other gene is a dominant normal one, their red blood cells will not become deformed, but the red blood cell membrane will become weaker. This actually protects people with only one gene of it from malaria since their red blood cells will burst as soon as the parasite that causes it tries to lay its eggs within the cell.
Papewaio
02-02-2007, 06:41
You have to have dated it at one point...
When it comes to evolution, he doesn't have to date, only his ancestors. :clown:
Fisherking
02-02-2007, 10:02
If there is no evolution....
Why are there different skin colors? If 'God created Adam and Eve', then it's settled. There is only one skin color. Yet I see blacks, whites, asians, latinos, and every other kind of skin color! Where in the Bible does it say 'God created Adam and Eve, Beth and Sue, Ju and Qui, Mumboto and Undique?'
If this 'evolution' thing never happened, why are there races pre-disposed to the areas where they live? Sickle-Cell Anemia, while a genetic disorder helps prevent malaria. You want to know where malaria is? Africa! Surprise there, that a genetic disease that helps prevent malaria is found in that spot!
Asians have the folded eye-lids so they can see while it is bright and sunny on the snow (that's what I have heard). Why would God allow them to deviate from the original template? Its just terrible!
Evolution isn't *snap* your a man. It takes time, developing to your world.
...something ...Take sickle cell anemia for example,.... something...
Let's not go there…let's separate evolution from adaptation. This is how Victorians to Early Post WWII views justified racism…black came first so all else is more evolved. It could be carried on to O blood type came first then A then B so be is the more evolved…not a good plan.
It just shows how animals, including humans can adapt to their environment over time with random mutations.
Papewaio
02-02-2007, 10:56
They differentiate mostly in the input, yes? GIGO, DIDO and all that?
So the question is: given the various data, why can science not give a both accurate and precise date of creation, as the creationists have, given their data?
Then it would just be an arguement of sources. Resolvable.
Well the age of the earth is 4.55 Ga +/- 1%... or 4.55 Billion Years +/- 45 million years.
Papewaio
02-02-2007, 11:34
Feyerabend would argue that the (flawed in his opinion) scientific method would be Science's "sacred cow".
From what I have recently read of this persons opinion, he does not actually debunk the scientific method, he performs a character assassination on scientists, and goes on about what makes a bad scientist and then uses their actions to debunk the scientific method by association. He doesn't actually disprove it, he just has a jealous mewling op ed about it.
Fisherking
02-02-2007, 11:34
The age of mankind is roughly given at 325,000 years…some give it as much less…
But there is evidence of gold mining in South Africa dated to 400,000+ years.
I doubt man is much older than what is given…but why would monkeys need gold?
Reenk Roink
02-02-2007, 14:54
From what I have recently read of this persons opinion, he does not actually debunk the scientific method, he performs a character assassination on scientists, and goes on about what makes a bad scientist and then uses their actions to debunk the scientific method by association. He doesn't actually disprove it, he just has a jealous mewling op ed about it.
What a hostile reaction to one of the most interesting fellows in the philosophy of science.
Feyerabend is no anti-science guy as some would like to portray him as, he is merely extremely critical of the concept of a scientific method. He believes the scientific method restricts knowledge and advocates anarchism or "anything goes" in science (though in politics, he is a social democrat :laugh4:).
I agree that Feyerabend is quite harsh in his criticism of Popper, but he in no way attempts to completely dismiss him without any argument like what you read about him.
Ironside
02-02-2007, 16:51
The age of mankind is roughly given at 325,000 years…some give it as much less…
But there is evidence of gold mining in South Africa dated to 400,000+ years.
I doubt man is much older than what is given…but why would monkeys need gold?
Why does a magpie like shiny stuff?
All you need is someone smart enough to mine, and it's not impossible that some bright early homonoid came up with mining in an area with a lot of gold.
Evolution is a continous process, making exact dates very hard to determine (aka. when was humaniods smart enough to mine? And smart enough to try?).
I doubt man is much older than what is given…but why would monkeys need gold?
go get into girl monkeys pants :laugh4: :2thumbsup: what else?:smash:
Cronos Impera
02-02-2007, 21:27
The age of mankind is roughly given at 325,000 years…some give it as much less…
But there is evidence of gold mining in South Africa dated to 400,000+ years.
I doubt man is much older than what is given…but why would monkeys need gold?
Sources for that? I thought mining appeared historically in The Middle East? Can you cite a source, s'il vous plait?
TevashSzat
02-03-2007, 02:11
Fisherking, just to let you know, the Paleolithic Age is dated to be from 400,000B.C. - 7000B.C which would mean that 402,000 years has pased since humans were relatively advanced enough to make tools so it wont surprise me that some neolithic people were advanced enough to mine gold.
You make mining gold sound as if it is some extremely advanced technique, but actually ancient ways of mining especially in Africa consisted of just digging holes in the ground where there might be gold and then panning the dirt from said holes until they find specks of gold dust.
Also, you misquoted me on page three.
Tribesman
02-03-2007, 09:59
Fisherking, just to let you know, the Paleolithic Age is dated to be from 400,000B.C. - 7000B.C
That is complete rubbish , the Paloelithic Age is more correctly dated to starting less than 5000 years ago and still being here now .:yes:
You really should read more stuff by that beardy bollox in the opening clip so you don't get misled by all this evolotionism scientism heretic nonsense .
Fisherking
02-03-2007, 10:32
Fisherking, just to let you know,....
You make mining gold sound as if it is some extremely advanced technique, but actually ancient ways of mining especially in Africa consisted of just digging holes in the ground where there might be gold and then panning the dirt from said holes until they find specks of gold dust.
Also, you misquoted me on page three.
Yes I understand that and it was just some holes in the ground…one more than 60 feet deep if I remember the article…but it has been some time now… :sweatdrop: (I have not had the time to do a thorough search, but I fear it may be as hard to find as the 450,000 year old weapons cache found in Germany several years ago):no:
I did misquote you and made the correction…I don't know what happened…I cut and pasted something that was wrong…:oops:
The whole point however was more of Who or what did the mining before mankind…you can through in a why too if you like.
TevashSzat
02-03-2007, 11:17
Tribesman, that would be the neolithic age u r talking about. If u doubt me, look up the dates of it in wikipedia or other sources which say it may have started up to 2.5 million years ago. I am just giving the start of the upper paleolithic age.
Actually, the neolithic age ended a couple thousand years ago, so i dont know where u get your stuff from, read any decent history book and u will see that i am right
Banquo's Ghost
02-03-2007, 11:20
Tribesman, that would be the neolithic age u r talking about. If u doubt me, look up the dates of it in wikipedia or other sources which say it may have started up to 2.5 million years ago. I am just giving the start of the upper paleolithic age.
Tribesman was being a tad sarcastic, not disputing your figures. He was pointing up that some creationists believe the earth is only some 4000 years old according to intepretations of the Bible.
:bow:
Ironside
02-03-2007, 11:31
The whole point however was more of Who or what did the mining before mankind…you can through in a why too if you like.
I was already commenting on it, it was mankind version 0.8 and it was because of "ohhh shiny stuff, me want". It's not like gold have many practical uses (I'm only aware of computers).
Rodion Romanovich
02-03-2007, 16:04
We haven't had an evolution thread in at least a week, and that just won't do. Here's a clip from a documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnxQiCg9qpg) that shows some sort of program for children, teaching them that evolution is bunk.
I really don't understand the literalist impulse that forces people to choose between science and faith. I also don't understand why a testable theory such as evolution is offensive, but other testable theories such as gravity and thermodynamics are not.
Why the selectivity?
P.S.: If you don't watch the clip, you won't hear the great clap-along song ...
Well, if people stopped calling evolution a theory, and realized that in fact it's neither a theory nor a fact, but a model, then nobody would be offended. Unlike religious dogma, a model doesn't come with any claims of being the absolute truth. Atheists, agnocistists, and scientists should perhaps start to become offended by religious dogma claiming its creationism stories to be the absolute truth, along with their accusing evolution of being a theory, when in fact its a model.
Well, if people stopped calling evolution a theory, and realized that in fact it's neither a theory nor a fact, but a model, then nobody would be offended.
Theory = model (so long as it 's testable, repeatable, etc.)
Rodion Romanovich
02-03-2007, 16:44
But isn't the word theory, unlike model, often associated with making some metaphysical/ontological claim?
TevashSzat
02-03-2007, 17:18
I would agree with lemur that theories are usually models except for their different connotations
Tribesman
02-03-2007, 18:10
Actually, the neolithic age ended a couple thousand years ago, so i dont know where u get your stuff from, read any decent history book and u will see that i am right
Nope .
Read some of the stuff from the beardy bollox in the opening clip and you will see that you are really really wrong you scientisticmysticismic devil worshiper .:yes:
Oh since I don't generally provide links , then perhaps you can peruse some of the other cretinist threads for links to Hams theories , they are a common source for those that lack faith and knowledge .
Fisherking
02-03-2007, 21:48
The one thing I think I can safely say about mankind's knowledge is "we don't know half as much as we think we do".
I was very sorry when I found out that your intentions were good and not what I supposed they were.
Sitting Bull
There is no exact date humans appeared. There are no exact points species appear.
One generation can always breed with the preceeding one or the one after it.
Watchman
02-04-2007, 01:05
Well, some of those crazily hybridising "superspecies" thingies - like some polyps - thumb their invertebrate noses at that, too. Some of the mixes go all parthenogenetic, and hence per definition don't bother with this whole breeding malarky at all anymore...
The ones that don't ditch reproductive interaction can be pretty random about what exactly their, uh, output will mix with as well, I was given to understand.
Yes I understand that and it was just some holes in the ground…one more than 60 feet deep if I remember the article…but it has been some time now… :sweatdrop: (I have not had the time to do a thorough search, but I fear it may be as hard to find as the 450,000 year old weapons cache found in Germany several years ago):no:
I did misquote you and made the correction…I don't know what happened…I cut and pasted something that was wrong…:oops:
The whole point however was more of Who or what did the mining before mankind…you can through in a why too if you like.
Well that depends on what you call mankind. If by mankind you mean only Homo Sapiens. If by mankind you mean anything from the homo genus. Homo erectus/Homo ergaster had stone tools and used fire. And some of these tools are 2 million years old. So theoritcally they could have mined gold. Motivation for expending that kind of energy could be an issue though.
Watchman
02-04-2007, 01:31
And what exactly constitutes the "mining" here, anyway ?
Probably digging a hole where there be shinies in the ground.
Watchman
02-04-2007, 01:36
Mice dig holes too. Big deal.
Tribesman
02-04-2007, 01:38
They dug the hole because they dropped the keys to their spaceship in a fissure.
True but mice don't dig holes big enough for you to stand in do they. Nor would they leave behind not so noice shiney things they dug out of their holes either.
Watchman
02-04-2007, 01:43
Bigger animals tend to dig bigger holes. Big deal.
Now, what's the basis for the implicit assumption the hominids in question dug the holes specifically in search of shiny stuff, and not for example burrowing little animals and edible roots ? I can see where a shiny thing found on the side could pique the ominvore-gatherer curiosity and get carried along for a while though.
Because "evidence of mining" says to me "hmm looks like a man dun dug this 'ere hole." Also "evidence of mining" says broken mining implements in the vacinity of the man dug hole.
Watchman
02-04-2007, 02:03
"Mining implements" as in "digging stick", I take it ?
Marshal Murat
02-04-2007, 02:04
So what is the difference between adaptation and evolution?
evolution, noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.
An adaptation is...
adaptation, noun
1. the act of adapting.
2. the state of being adapted; adjustment.
3. something produced by adapting: an adaptation of a play for television.
4. Biology.
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.
5. Physiology. the decrease in response of sensory receptor organs, as those of vision, touch, temperature, olfaction, audition, and pain, to changed, constantly applied, environmental conditions.
6. Ophthalmology. the regulating by the pupil of the quantity of light entering the eye.
Adaptation and evolution mean something different in your dictionaries.
Adaptation leads to evolution. Those that exhibit traits that give a benefit to their off-spring are chosen as mates, and these traits become so common that it is assumed that everyone will exhibit those traits.
Therefore, the sickle-cell trait that provides protection against malaria is beneficial to those that have it, they live longer, are stronger, and are chosen as mates. However if it becomes to common a trait, you have genetic defects, and sickle-cell anemia becomes prevalent.
If man hadn't adapted, then we would have died in Africa, not spread across the Earth and in such variety.
Need more examples?
Melatonin (If this is the correct protein) is present in large amounts in blacks. This allows them to survive in the Sun's UV rays longer, and avoid sun-burn. White people don't contain as much melatonin, because they are farther north and south of the equator, and don't require as much melatonin in their blood, because the sun is out for a shorter period than usual. A darker skinned person won't survive in the snow, because they are visible to predators. The trait becomes so prevalent that it becomes a part of everyone's genetic code. However, like sickle-cell anemia, there are white people who can't stand to be in the sun for to long. While it isn't life threatening anymore, it is either a genetic problem, or a random strike of God, and I'm favoring a genetic problem.
In those days more like a large pointy stone to chip rock.
Watchman
02-04-2007, 02:22
In those days more like a large pointy stone to chip rock.Geh, give the details already. I'm getting tired of fishing for them.
Need more examples?
Melatonin (If this is the correct protein) is present in large amounts in blacks. This allows them to survive in the Sun's UV rays longer, and avoid sun-burn. White people don't contain as much melatonin, because they are farther north and south of the equator, and don't require as much melatonin in their blood, because the sun is out for a shorter period than usual. A darker skinned person won't survive in the snow, because they are visible to predators. The trait becomes so prevalent that it becomes a part of everyone's genetic code. However, like sickle-cell anemia, there are white people who can't stand to be in the sun for to long. While it isn't life threatening anymore, it is either a genetic problem, or a random strike of God, and I'm favoring a genetic problem.A side note is that light skin makes for better vitamin D production with sunlight.
Here's a parallel. Around here we have exactly one type of poisonous reptile, one of our two native snakes (let's just call it "viper" for short, I don't know the actual English name of the species). In these climates cold-blooded animals of course hibernate over the winter, and reactivate once it's warm enough. The reptiles at least like to lie on sunny rocks to warm themselves up. Now, around these parts a virtually black mutation of the "viper" is fairly common (they're normally light gray with a darker saw-tooth pattern along the spine), and since their scales absorb more of the incoming sunlight they duly "warm up" faster and generally have more energy to go around. This is obviously particularly advantageous given that said snakes mate in the spring soon after waking up, giving the black variants a leg up in the competition.
On the other hand, the black colour sort of stands out on the gray and brown rocks, and duly a way greater proportion of the poorly camouflaged black variants get eaten by birds and such. Which rather compensates the gray baseline "vipers" for the advantage the black variants have around the mating season... End result, the reative numbers remain essentially stable.
Geh, give the details already. I'm getting tired of fishing for them.
I can't as fisherking didn't enough for a good google. But I do know how the Aztecs mined Obsidian. The Aztecs only had stone implements. I also know that putting stone blades on the end of a stick was a Homo Sapien invention. And that the Egyptians quarried granite with copper.
The Aztec Obsidian mine was bascially a hole in the ground just big enough for you to stoop or crawl in. Which followed the path of the Obsidian deposit, branching off in places. What the program showed in the actualy mining was they would break off a chunk of obsidian with a hammer or pick. But since were dealing with Homo erectus (in all probability) they would only have a big rock to break the seams face with. Maybe a large hand axe to chip with. The Egyptian reference is that in terms of hardness, granite>copper. So each time an egyptian worker chiped the granite he was wearing away his pick. So eventually you'd have to get a new head. What this has to do with anything is that if the H. erectus miners were using stone tools softer than the rock of the mine their implements woulds wear away or break and be discarded around the mine. Thus leaving evidence of mining.
Cronos Impera
02-04-2007, 13:38
Ok, time for a compromise.
www.rael.org
Humanity is too stupid to evolve on its own and survive countless hazards without some sort of intervention. Aliens are the solution. All our Gods are extraterestrial beings guiding our footsteps on this planet.Why do you think history keeps repeting itself? Because the aliens are making scientific videos back home on their homeworld teaching their childrean about evolution.
Fisherking
02-04-2007, 13:46
Ok, time for a compromise.
www.rael.org
Humanity is too stupid to evolve on its own and survive countless hazards without some sort of intervention. Aliens are the solution. All our Gods are extraterestrial beings guiding our footsteps on this planet.Why do you think history keeps repeting itself? Because the aliens are making scientific videos back home on their homeworld teaching their childrean about evolution.
ROFLMAO
If they are making videos of us…then it is counter-evolution….
~;p
Marshal Murat
02-04-2007, 15:52
Which links us to Stargate SG-1! I like where this is leading...
I KNOW THERE IS A STARGATE OUT THERE!
TevashSzat
02-04-2007, 17:41
The secret Stargate is buried under the sands of Egypt........shhhhhhhh dont tell anyone...
We haven't had an evolution thread in at least a week, and that just won't do. Here's a clip from a documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnxQiCg9qpg) that shows some sort of program for children, teaching them that evolution is bunk.
I really don't understand the literalist impulse that forces people to choose between science and faith. I also don't understand why a testable theory such as evolution is offensive, but other testable theories such as gravity and thermodynamics are not.
Why the selectivity?
P.S.: If you don't watch the clip, you won't hear the great clap-along song ...
Back to the topic
I was thinking this was just the usual religeous brain washing video, but then if you look closely you will see a MIRACLE on this video, check it out.
did you watch it again
did you see it
They interview a mother about why she thinks creation is better than evolution
"it just makes sense" she says
do you see the miracle?
The fact this woman can speak and breathe at the same time !!!!
it is my professional opinion that; this woman has no brain
therefore for her to not only keep bodily fuctions going and communicate at the same time... must be a miracle
there is a GOD!!!
Looks as though fundamentalist Christian creationists have some unwelcome company (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/02/islamic_creatio.html):
February 03, 2007
ISLAMIC CREATIONISM INVADES FRANCE (Updated)
An article in yesterday's edition of Le Figaro, the conservative French daily, brings newsAtlas_de_la_creation that a new book written from an Islamic Creationist perspective, ""L'Atlas de la Création" (cover, right) is making waves in France. According to the newspaper, dozens of thousands of free copies of this diatribe against Darwinism were sent from Turkey and Germany to nearly all French schools and universities. The article does not say who paid for this expensive, lavishly-illustrated, 770-page anti-intellectual propaganda tome to be so massively distributed (although it asks the question.). Nor how whomever sent it was able to get a list of the "dozens of thousands" in educational establishments to whom it was individually addressed.
The French Education Ministry reacted by advising all educational establishments that the book does not conform to the national science-based curriculum and "should not be included in the centers of documentation and information in scholarly establishments," and commissioned a dissection and refutation of the book.
Harun_yahya The book's pseudonymous author, a Turk named Harun Yahya ( photo left -- real name: Adnan Oktar), makes a number of astonishing claims -- including that Charles Darwin is "the real source of terrorism." For example, a photo of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers carries a caption reading, "Those who perpetuate terror in the world are in reality the Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy which validates and encourages conflict." Yahya also pretends to portray "the secret links between Darwinism and the bloody ideologies of fascism and communism."
I was curious about the author, and a Google search rapidly revealed that Yahya -- who says he is 50 and the author of dozens of books, and that his pseudonym was "formed from the names 'Harun' and 'Yahya' in the esteemed memory of the two Prophets who struggled against infidelity" -- maintains an expensively-designed, multi-media English-language website. On it, Yahya quotes another of his books, "The Evolution Deceit," as claiming: ""The theory of evolution is nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system."
An article about Yahya on Wikipedia says that he has plagiarized much of his writings from U.S. Creationist texts published here in the 1950s; that he has been in mental hospitals; and that a shadowy foundation Yahya controls -- the BAV Foundation -- has persecuted Turkish university professors who dared to teach evolution (including a number of them who won a lawsuit against him.)
One can also find on Yahya's website another of his hobby-horses: he denounces what he sees as the dark, deleterious, conspiratorial effects of Freemasonry worldwide. In a book called "Global Freemasonry," summarized on his website, Yahya claims that, "Freemasons have played an important role in Europe's alienation from religion, and in its place, the founding of a new order based on the philosophies of materialism and secular humanism. We will also see how Masonry has been influential in the imposition of these dogmas to non-Western civilizations...[how] Masonry has been used to help establish and perpetuate a social order based on these dogmas. Their philosophy and the methods they use to establish this philosophy will be exposed and criticized." Mad conspiracy theories about the Freemasons abound in the Western world -- usually as part and parcel of a dangerous reactionary politics -- and have for centuries, but they also exist in the Islamic world: in 2004, as the BBC reported, a Turkish Masonic lodge in Istanbul was bombed, with 1 dead and 6 seriously injured.
Another of Yahya's books is called, "Judaism and Freemasonry" -- and yet another is entitled "The Holocaust Hoax," a book which has led scholars to categorize Yahya as a Holocaust denier.
Contrary to the fundamentalist Christian Creationists in the U.S. who have been attacking the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in local school boards and many state legislatures, and demanding with an alarming degree of success that Creationism be taught in the public schools, Yahya's Qur'an-based attack on Darwinism does not claim that the world and those who inhabit it were created only 6,000 years ago. Instead, Yahya admits that Earth is really 4.6 billion years old, but his "Atlas" uses hundreds of photos of fossils found over several centuries to "prove" that "the species have never changed" [sic]. This pseudo-scientific clap-trap, says noted French biologist Hervé Le Guyeder, makes this "new form of creationism even more insidious than the Christian-inspired one wreaking havoc in North America."
The photos in Yahya's "Atlas" show hundreds of fossils of fish, hyenas, ants, starfish, tree-leaves, and so on that are dozens of millions of years old, and which he then compares to photos of their actual descendants to prove his claim that "living things did not undergo a process of evolution, but were really created" [sic]. Biologist Le Guyeder commented that, "This method of argument may quite well be effective in seducing a public that is ill-informed--but the reality is that these species, which are a priori similar, are in fact very different from each other in their anatomy and genetic composition, and most of them would be incapable of reproducing between each other!"
If the millions of French ghetto youth of Muslim origin (and, for that matter, Muslim youth throughout the world) buy into Yahya's Islamic version of Creationism, the effects would be disastrous. These young people would be locked out of, and skeptical about, many of the advances in medical and scientific research in the two centuries since Darwin first articulated the theory of evolution (including the dangers of global warming, which U.S. Creationists deny exists) -- and the concomitants of such Creationist obscurantism are, as we have also seen here in the U.S with the Christian version., misogyny, homophobia, and other primitive prejudices.
For example, in a very useful essay on the website of the National Center for Science Education entitled "Cloning Creationism in Turkey," which contains an analysis of Yahya's writing, Dr. Taner Edis of Truman State University in Missouri notes, "When, in another echo of Christian creationists, Harun Yahya digresses to denounce evolution because it describes homosexuality as natural, therefore 'seeking to legitimize perversion' (Yahya 1997: 307), this might seem bizarrely out of place in an argument that is ostensibly about biology. From a fundamentalist perspective, however, it makes perfect sense — worries about morality and social decay are intimately connected to the fundamentalist view of biology. "
Edis also points out the strong ties betweeen the foundation Yahya controls -- Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV; the Science Research Foundation) -- and the well-funded Institute of Creation Research (ICR), the flagship Creationist institution in the U.S. In April and July 1998, Yahya's BAV held 3 "international conferences" in the major cities of Turkey, with a theme of "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation" -- and these conferences featured U.S. Creationist notables from the ICR like John D. Morris (son of ICR's founder Henry Morris, whose works Yahya lifts from wholesale) and Duane Gish. (At its founding in 1970, ICR was initially funded by Rev. Tim LaHaye, a major Christian Right fundamentalist leader, through LaHaye's Christian Heritage College.)
Yahya's website, by the way, links to a number of Christian fundamentalist-run Creationist websites here in the U..S., including the ICR.
What's even scarier is that Yahya's website claims that, "Many works of Harun Yahya are being currently translated into English, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Albanian, Serbo-Croat (Bosnian), Polish, Urdu, Indonesian, Kazakh, Azeri, Malay and Malayalam. The target is to translate all books into English and many other languages in the near future..." One would dearly love to know who is forking over the considerable sums of money necessary for this global publication program (some suspect Yahya is getting money from U.S. Creationists); whether other countries with large Muslim populations will be targeted for an Islamic Creationist propaganda blitz as France has been; and to what degree Yahya's theories have gained a serious foothold outside Turkey in Islamic circles world-wide, especially among the young. And one can only pity those who are gullible enough to buy this illuminé's fantasies.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 16:41
United Sectarians, huh ? Nice to see the fundies can agree on something across the confesisonal gap. :dizzy2:
doc_bean
02-05-2007, 16:41
Looks as though fundamentalist Christian creationists have some unwelcome company (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/02/islamic_creatio.html):
We had a creationist muslim in my zoology class. He failed it, and that with a professor who happily read Genesis during the first class (and didn't in anyway make fun of it or did it for sarcastic purposes).
TevashSzat
02-06-2007, 02:54
Back to the topic
I was thinking this was just the usual religeous brain washing video, but then if you look closely you will see a MIRACLE on this video, check it out.
did you watch it again
did you see it
They interview a mother about why she thinks creation is better than evolution
"it just makes sense" she says
do you see the miracle?
The fact this woman can speak and breathe at the same time !!!!
it is my professional opinion that; this woman has no brain
therefore for her to not only keep bodily fuctions going and communicate at the same time... must be a miracle
there is a GOD!!!
She also said that the dinosaur bones and all of those fossils supposedly support the claim that earth was made a mere few thousand years ago in three days. I wonder if she knows what carbon dating tells us about those bones
Fisherking
02-06-2007, 07:18
Lecturing a fundamentalist Christian on science is about as futile as lecturing a socialist on economics. You can have all the facts, data, rules governing the information etc. but it is something they don't want to believe.
They want to whine that they are right and what the rest of the world believes is a lie. Facts and natural law have no effect and if someone chooses to remain ignorant there is not a darned thing you can do about it.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Lorenzo_H
02-06-2007, 13:18
Things do not get better when left alone. It always requires some sort of intervention.
AntiochusIII
02-06-2007, 15:12
Things do not get better when left alone. It always requires some sort of intervention.It does?
:balloon:
Mind you, even the most primitive (ahem) version of the theory of evolution does not claim things to get "better" -- merely that things that adapt more to the environment have more chances of survival generally. Getting more evolved and complex =/= better.
Things do not get better when left alone. It always requires some sort of intervention.
You're right. Time to nip this religious stuff in the bud before the ignorant get swept along..
KafirChobee
02-08-2007, 23:11
Isn't the real debate here - as some have rubbed against - about educating rather than enforcing false ideas. Or, is brainwashing still a bad idea?
For those that blindly accept any idea that conforms with what they have been taught (or as in the video - spoon fed) I suggest they challenge everything. Regardless of the source.
Maybe, it is as simple as the premise represented in the movie "Inherit the Wind". That a closed mind in just that, closed. That taking away the ability to challenge an idea, concept, theory or even a religious mantra deprives people of the freedom to exchange opposing ideas in a meaningful manner.
The process of evaluating a theory, versus accepting a blind leap of faith because someone said that is what God would want one to do? Well?
As for there being no fish with feet? Er, last year they found just that - a fossil of a fish with webbed feet. It was a pretty big deal at the time since it proved Darwins premise that all life came from the seas.
Then again, all religions since the beginning of mans attempts to justify his life on this planet have had a creationist plan set down by this god or that to explain how life began. How man began, and how we depend upon the gods.
:balloon2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.