quote: skyetyger said:
Neanderthals are not related to humans.
You obviously never met my ex-boss.
Hear is a good quote from S.J. Gould -evolutionary biologist and agnostic
quote:?In their recently aborted struggle to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed rhetorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science (creation science) not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that creation science?as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals?could not qualify as science by any standard definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.?They then pointed out, as Hutton had, that questions of ultimate origins are not resolvable by science. Thus, they claimed, creation science and evolution science are symmetrical?that is, equally religious. Creation science isn't science because it rests upon the untestable fashioning of life ex nihilo by God. Evolution science isn't science because it tries, as its major aim, to resolve the unresolvable and ultimate origin of life. But we do no such thing. We understand Hutton's wisdom??he has nowhere treated of the first origin?of any substance?but only of the transformations which bodies have undergone???
? "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding," Natural History 96 (October 1987): 18.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
I apoligize for "venting." I thought the DNA was proof enough but the "cultural anthropologist" study skulls and insist the neanderthal matches "primitive humans" in Australia..That racist statement burns me to the core..Comparing a modern human to a modern ape is exactly what that is...Neanderthal is a Modern Species of APE..Cro Magnon is a Modern MAN...
That sort of pseudo scientific racism is to be condemned in every case..and the "d-allele" that articles states the Cro Magnons inherited from the Neanderthals..The Cro's already had the genome.. And it has not been proven that the Neanderthals had it at all..
I am not a "creationist." I am a historian by education with a rabid interest in science, having grown up on farms and ranches where applied genetics is a stock in trade..
As a historian, I suggest any one reading this thread should be familiar with the terms "bestiality" "anthropomorphism" and "Cro Magnon"
As a avid reader of science..I think the topics I am trying to explain or argue are too large for this thread..A discussion of Darwin's finches is a book size subject..
Cro Magnon is 100% genetically identical to modern humans...neanderthals are 100% genetically identical to Great Apes...
Historians were angered in the 1960's about Cro artifacts being incorrectly attributed to neanderthal ..The artifacts were being fitted into the scheme of the theory rather than standing for independant analysis..The artifacts were being shoehorned into a preconceived mold..the theory..
I do apologize about my tone..There has been much racism in Darwinism..it is tainted with the stink of it and perhaps it is time for a new and better theory..
I had a conversation yesterday with a person who tests very high in IQ..and he said he didn't feel "smart." He didn't feel that he was born that way. He remembered feeling as small child that we couldn't overlook or skip logical steps..that everything had to be examined carefully and critically..We both felt that being "gifted" was a habit of thought, acquired at a young age rather than some....innate ability that distinguished us..In Other Words..we don't believe the d-allele was the entire reason for our ability to score highly on intelligence tests..and that other people were not less smart..or not less smart all the time..but then he said "I am not smarter all of the time." He was very glad to hear that Cro Magnon had been identified as what Cro Magnon really is....as he agreed...The hunters in the caves around the campfire..tossed the bones of the venerated monkey ancestors over their shoulders to be gathered up and treasured as holy relics..by the evolutionists..
quote: skyetyger said:
I am a historian by education with a rabid interest in science, having grown up on farms and ranches where applied genetics is a stock in trade..As a historian, I suggest any one reading this thread should be familiar with the terms "bestiality" "anthropomorphism" and "Cro Magnon"As a avid reader of science..I think the topics I am trying to explain or argue are too large for this thread.
You should stick to history - and we don't have to worry about your IQ either...
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
I think the topics I am trying to explain or argue are too large for this thread
Perhaps what you call "too large" I call simply "irrelevant"?
Either way, it seems you have no actual interest in what is being said to you, you simply want to go on with your dogma...about how evolution is too dogmatic....hmmm....
As I said, and others have said, you seem to have a big misconception about the basic precept, which is leading to a large amount of 'strawman' type arguments and a big missing of the actual points of the arguments for evolution. It is really pointless to try to discuss it until we can step back and address the basic precepts....
~shrug~
But you are, of course, free to feel however you want about the issue. I am comfortable with understanding the facts that have been put forward, and have been able to address the criticisms brought against evolutionary science because of the critical approach and critical peer reviews to which such science is subjected, and because of the number of times that incorrect conclusions have been challenged and overturned in the scientific community.
And because everything we learn *supports* the fact that evolution happened and continues to happen.
quote: skyetyger said:
The hunters in the caves around the campfire..tossed the bones of the venerated monkey ancestors over their shoulders to be gathered up and treasured as holy relics..by the evolutionists
Is a monkey an ape with a tail? I guess to you monkees, apes, neanderthals..it's all the same, give or take a gene or two?
Maybe you should subscribe to this theory instead, at least it makes more sense than we evolved from cute little monkees:
quote:I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.[/code]
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
The PROOF:
The DNA of the Neanderthal matches chimpanzees..
The DNA of the Cro Magnon matches human..
It is known that Cro Magnon is a modern human...exactly like yourselves..
Is it reasonable for you to assign human qualities to an ape based on a popular anthropomorphic adolescent sexual fantasy?
Anthropomorphism is assigning human characteristics to animals
IF..in 35,000 years..somebody finds a site in the forest where there is a campfire and a couple of beer cans..the largest and oldest population of "homo" remains found in the forest are chimpanzees..Then it will be possible for that "somebody who found" to KNOW for an absolute fact that Monkeys prefered Budweiser..
And that means that anyone living in the future time who drinks Bud..probably developed a genetic predisposition to Bud from his monkey ancestors because everyone knows..humans screw apes..
Now get a grip folks..That may be Darwinsim but it isn't history..it isn't anthropology and it isn't genetics..It isn't even science..
Neanderthal/monkey is not the past of man
APE the past and future of Neanderthal..
Genetics...
IT matters a great deal whether a vaccination or an antibiotic resistance is a "mutation" an "adaptation" or a mechanism within an organism which can be defeated.
Antibiotic resistance is "blanketed" in the popular mind as "evolution" "mutation" "adaptation" but that is sensationalism, a facile explanation for the people who are not really interested..It is comforting and we believe we have explained something...
To initiate a respnse..to AIDS or to defeat a bacterias response to antibiotics is not evolution...and does not prove evolution
All Medical Research..pre and post darwin is an attempt to understand the mechanism of a specific organisms response to environmental stimuli..
"Evolution" is not any specific organisms response to enviromental stimuli..That has never been proven
Evolution has not been proven..indeed not even defined..
The study of an organisms response to environment stimuli is pre-empted by Darwinism but does not require and indeed, in some cases, has been impeded by Darwinist Ape Chit..
That is why I say the "science" is a book length subject..
"Evolution" is not any specific organisms response to enviromental stimuli..That has never been proven
Of course it isn't. I do beleive that's what I've said
This appears to be one of those basic precepts that is tripping you up...nobody with any understanding of evolution has described evolution as an organism's response to stimuli.
quote: skyetyger said:
Evolution has not been proven..indeed not even defined..
Right.
~sigh~
And with this we're right back where we started.
Perhaps instead of reading all of the cutting edge articles on evolution, you should step back and read the basics?
Is there an echo in here??
Think I said that once or twice here already...
From: Out on the Sea of Madness... Insane since: Dec 2003
posted 11-24-2006 18:26
Why is is that creationists find it completely impossible to actually constuct logical, rational arguments in support of their views? And why are they also completely unable to actually present those views in textual form in some coherent and readable fashion?
Anyone else notice how both skyetyger and jade share so many simularities in typing style and presentation of ideas?
Stream of conciousness typing styles do nothing to present your ideas in the best light, and make it harder to even wade through the dross to find anything worth keeping.
Organisms Response to Environmental Stimuli..
Small Pox and The American Indian..
Small Pox killed whites and indians equally...the same as AIDS kills everyone..
The Whites had developed a "habit of thought" which gave them an edge...Consider a Bear...I have seen bears..I have a habit of thought concerning bears..You have seen dogs..you see bear..you say "nice doggy"
But that slight edge of "habit of thought" doesn't go very far in preventing or responding to AIDS or smallpox..
Vaccines are discovered..and smallpox cannot "adapt" "mutate" or "evolve" ....respond to environmental stimuli..
Now..the one side of this argument states that man "evolved" "mutated" or "adapted" to environmental stimuli..but
The other side is...smallpox did not..
Man has within his range the capability of responding effectively to enviromental stimuli "smallpox"...That is INHERENT..It has not been proven that man did not have that capability at any time..past present or future..Man always had the capability of responding to envirnmental stimuli with "habits of thought." Apes do not and there isn't any reason to assume that apes, past present or future can respond to environmental stimuli in any way other than exactly as they respond today..
Henry Ford said something about "the proof of evolution is that fewer chickens are being killed on the roads today by automobiles..that proves "natural selction."
RhyssaFireheart...
I have read technical papers that are much more difficult to understand than what I am writing..I could present this as a statistical comparision of DNA.
I am presenting very complex technical information as "analogies"
I don't "believe" anything..
Exactly what gives you the impression I am a "creationist?"
Prove THAT!
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-24-2006 23:16
skyetyger:
Just provide the links to the technical papers you refer to. I have no interest in 'proving' that you are a creationist. I am however quite interested in the 'technical papers' that have apparently provided you with this proof.
Simple enough?
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
Now..the one side of this argument states that man "evolved" "mutated" or "adapted" to environmental stimuli..but
The other side is...smallpox did not..
What exactly is it that you are trying to argue here skytyger????
What the hell does that statement have to do with *anything*???
Do you understand that the vast majority of what you have been arguing has nothing to do with evolution??
Many species have adapted to their environment over time. Many have also failed to adapt, or have adapted but been killed off anyway.
How well a species is able to adapt to their environment has no bearing on evolution. None.
Evolution is not a matter of better/worse. There is no goal. If an organism is able to survive, it passes on its genes - mutations and all. If it is not able to survive, it passes nothing on - mutations or not.
DL-44
I realize I have an interest in this subject not shared by very many people...It has been an abiding interest of mine for a very long time so the arguments may not be familiar to others...The same as one person may not understand the latest car model and all the arguments about design, etc...
But..
It has nothing to do with "how well." Or even whether a species failed to adapt or not..although all of those questions are intriguing...(to me at least) But...To answer you fairly...
I am commenting on two arguments..in fact..both of which are "evolution"..One involves "speciation" and the other "one point v multipoint origin"
Darwin's Finches adapt within a limited range..but at a genetic level, there isn't any change..and the Finches revert to type..
Neanderthals are not ancestors..indeed may not even be relatives..
These studies..were done to clarify points about the theory of evolution..and the origin of man/species
I have read reams of studies and evidence pro and con..most of which are factual, scientific studies conducted without bias but then again...
I should post some of the Darwinian "neanderthal" racist arguments I have had the nauseating experience of wading through as a Historian..But all varieties of human experience are history..after all..
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-25-2006 01:58
ST, you still have not posted any factual evidence supporting whatever your position truly is...nor have you posted anything even remotely approaching coherent thought yet.
Now, you have basically been asked to put up, or shut up.
Does that sink in?
I will put this succinctly - please post your factual evidence and position in a coherent manner.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
So..
The position posited in the Courts...that "evolution" merely addresses change...
There isn't any change that requires the theory of evolution
And the theory of evolution is much more to answer in the Rise of the Third Reich than Christianity..
It is a racist religion...or it is the religion of racist..
Without basis in scientific fact..
Gideon pointed out the time problems..I have pointed out the speciation and ape ancestor problems
Evolution is Dead...
Whether anyone chooses to practice Neanderthal worship, or Mohammed worship or Jesus worship is a right guaranteed by the Constitution but I can't wait to see the end of teaching children that blacks are inferior because their ancestors either were apes or had sexual congress with apes...and claim scientific proof.... that whites are superior because their ancestors either were or had sexual congress with apes....Or that women are superior to white men because white men have "neanderthal" genes.. the Y gene being somehow (scientifically, of course) more neanderthal than the X....IT has been taught by Court Order..
I have read it all...in academic literature..
A New Day Dawns...
but I can't wait to see the end of teaching children that blacks are inferior because their ancestors either were apes or had sexual congress with apes...and claim scientific proof.... that whites are superior because their ancestors either were or had sexual congress with apes...
DL-44
Nope, went to the same schools...
The current theory.."multipoint origin" explains the "evolution of race." It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior with direct evolution UP to whites. IT also replaced the theory that modern men were inferior to Cro because of interbreeding with Neanderthal (inferior European or Asiatic races) .which was Nazi credo...That has all been taught in various guises in American schools..
Darwin is inferior to superior..ape to man..so somebody has to be "it."
BUT Don't take my word for it..
Go research it..
Google Search
Darwin finch DNA
Neanderthal DNA
Cro Magnon
Eugenics
Marshall Grant
Social Darwinism..
Snd the list goes on and on..
quote: skyetyger said:
I have read reams of studies and evidence pro and con
I know you are a self-proclaimed historian, so you must enjoy reading books about evolution that were written at a time when infections were cured with amputations - but have you read anything since Darwin's Descent of Man which is circa 1871? Have you read anything that wasn't carved on stone tablets?
The only evolutionist you quote, and you quote him repeatedly is Darwin - do you have any idea how much the theory of evolution has evolved (pun intended) since Darwin? Do you even realize that Darwin's theory of evolution is outdated? Have you ever heard of punctuated equilibrium? oh, wait, i'm sure you have.
I would suggest you try to read some Niles Eldredge or Stephen Jay Gould but since you think evolution is about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or neanderthals having sex with lemurs (sorry, i meant monkeys) so you probably would not get much out of it.
But you are entitled to your beliefs....
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-25-2006 04:15
quote: skyetyger said:
but I can't wait to see the end of teaching children that
I put forward this notion some time back in another of these, 'we've done this to-death before' threads. That is; it is my opinion organized religion, in the traditional understanding of religion would very likely cease to exist within two generations if children were not indoctrinated, if you will.
Science does not provide the comfort of a belief system.
Cosmic soup baby!! =)
quote:
It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior
This is what the Mormons preached until not that very long ago... like in my life time.
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
quote:It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior with direct evolution UP to whites.
WHAT??!!! Are you on crack ? Evolution is blind. It has not goal.
It puts some of your previous statements in a different light. If this is where you come from, you've got a loooong way to go before you can argue about Evolution.
Evolution and Creation are both theories, but with some important differences.
Evolution has facts: whether in the test tube or in the fossil and geological records.
Evolution is supported by the fact that modern day whales still have remnants of limbs, all vertebrates have vestiges of gills during their embryonic development, and humans still have vestiges of a tail..that's a right a monkey like tail!
The geological record supports - even if you disbelieve carbon dating - that the earth is billions of years old...sedimentation studies (ex. the accumulation of silt and sand over time) will confirm that certain time periods, such as the age of dinosaurs, lasted for millions of years...yet the bible will imply the earth is a few thousand years old.
And the fossil record......the evolution of the horse, the camel, the existence of dinosaurs, trilobites, the burgess shale.....all of these support evolution and the fact that not all creatures were created in one fell swoop.
Creation does not have one shred of fact.
So whichever you believe is up to you. Freedom of choice and of beliefs. But don't confuse science and conjecture. Science is based on observable facts such as fossils. Creation has nothing to do with science or facts..in fact it violates all the physical laws as we know them...
Is there a God? Did he/she create the earth and mankind? If so, there isn't any science behind it..not as we define science today.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
DL-44
Nope, went to the same schools...
The current theory.."multipoint origin" explains the "evolution of
race." It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior with
direct evolution UP to whites. IT also replaced the theory that modern
men were inferior to Cro because of interbreeding with Neanderthal
(inferior European or Asiatic races) .which was Nazi credo...That has
all been taught in various guises in American schools..
Darwin is inferior to superior..ape to man..so somebody has to be "it."
BUT Don't take my word for it..
Go research it..
Google Search
Darwin finch DNA
Neanderthal DNA
Cro Magnon
Eugenics
Marshall Grant
Social Darwinism..
Snd the list goes on and on..
Eugenics? Social Darwinism? Nazi Credos?????
I'm sorry - I was under the strange impression that we had been discussing evolutionary science
As for the finches - yeah, I've done plenty of reading too. At best, any controversy around them would reduce the number of species from about 14 to about 6 actual species, with further variation within those species.
After a quick refresher, the only information readily available about them 'reverting to type' involves two groups, formerly thought to be 2 different species that were in fact just variations within the species.
The debate about where neanderthal falls in the family tree has raged for decades. Nothing new there...
Wow. My understanding of evolution is shattered....
ST, you very clearly have some issues with this subject that are beyond the scope of science. Whatever they are, and whatever racial issues you have, they don't bear on the sicence that supports evolution.
From: 2 steps away from a los angeles curb Insane since: Nov 2003
posted 11-25-2006 20:48
quote:anthropomorphic adolescent sexual fantasy
He he he, whew... took two pages, but finally some porn!
Mmmm... tentacles!
*UC scurries to North Wing to relocate SUHO's infamous Tentacle Porn collection... And, brings along his new multi megapixel camera in order to maybe get some new pictures of his pet...*
[edit]
He he he, no one will find me there... hah! It's abandoned! Everyone is gone!
It's MINE! ALL MINE!
* a naked UC runs through the abandoned North wing screaming "You'll never catch me! You'll never catch me!"
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-26-2006 03:41
Webshaman, you taught me a lot about my beliefs, and I thank you for that. You helped me understand that Evolution does exist, that it is real and factual. You helped me see massive holes in my arguments and in what I believe to be right. Thank you for not giving up, and continually beating the faults of my arguments to the dust. I have learned a bunch.
I still believe there is one God, the Son of God is Jesus Christ, He died because I am an inherent sinning human, and I will go to Heaven because of what He did. I still hold on to what the Bible says about the Creation of the Earth and all things therin, but your arguments have helped me understand preachers can be wrong and evolution could happen. I'm still shaky on the particulars and I probably will be until I can do some hard core research on my own. Don't get me wrong, all the info you and others have given me was great, but I really need more until I can accept that evolution is an observable fact. Who knows, the scientists could be wrong. The preachers could be wrong.
No offence to anyone involved, but I need to find out on my own. I have some wonderful new facilites and faculty now to help me understand these things now. Hopefully I can have that understanding solidified in the future.
The reason why I don't post much anymore is that there is only so much I can take of insults and brow-beating. Not from you, and not necessarily towards me either. I just don't like to see anyone insulted or put down for what they believe, even if they are being stubborn about it. Beliefs are very close roots in people's lives, it takes a lot to shake them.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-26-2006 03:46
Sleeping Wolf, I have a question for you: How do you know Creationism "does not have one shred of fact"?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote: Gideon said:
Sleeping Wolf, I have a question for you: How do you know Creationism "does not have one shred of fact"?
I consider a fact as measurable or observable. A fossil is fact - you can touch it.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
quote:Sleeping Wolf, I have a question for you: How do you know Creationism "does not have one shred of fact"?
I don't see what kind of facts could prove that creationism is right, especially if you take genesis literaly or believe in a ~6 thousands years old Earth. On the other hand every scientific record indicates that the Earth is 4-5 billions.
And this includes numerous radioactive isotopes dating techniques. Which techniques are also used to date the fossils. They all tend toward the billions years old Earth.
Were the Earth 6 thousands years old as Creationnists claim, it'd mean that either our scientific knowledge is good to put in the trash ( and who knows how we manage to build bridges, do medical imaging, probe the cosmos, ... ) or that the one behind the creation made its task much more complex by creating radioactive particles with half life of hundreds, thousands, millions years, fossilized bones and soft tissues of its own creatures, interleaved foot/paw prints in the geological layers, oriented magnetic particles toward the same direction in the geological layers of equal age, ...
I don't know for you but none of these suggestions sound really likely to me.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-26-2006 11:48
quote:Webshaman, you taught me a lot about my beliefs, and I thank you for that. You helped me understand that Evolution does exist, that it is real and factual. You helped me see massive holes in my arguments and in what I believe to be right. Thank you for not giving up, and continually beating the faults of my arguments to the dust. I have learned a bunch.
Then it was all worth it, and I would hope that you could see why many here strived to reach you. I hope that you continue to grow and strive forwards.
quote:I still believe there is one God, the Son of God is Jesus Christ, He died because I am an inherent sinning human, and I will go to Heaven because of what He did. I still hold on to what the Bible says about the Creation of the Earth and all things therin, but your arguments have helped me understand preachers can be wrong and evolution could happen.
As has been said countless times before, that is fine - what you choose to believe is your own, personal choice. It is only when that Belief system is used to attempt to counter others that it comes under scrutiny. It is only then that glaring holes in it's logic come to light (or not, as the case may be). Continue to belief as you wish - just remember, that if you do choose to use it to counter Science, you will run into problems. Or perhaps you will go the path of Bugs, Master Suho, & Co., and co-opt Religion and Science.
Please keep in mind that Science is a tool - a real, existant tool. Like math, it is a way of explaining and examining things. It is quite funny, I have not heard many Creationists expounding that Math is wrong, that it is not logical, etc. But when it comes to Science (of which math is a part, certainly), they do.
It is my personal view that if one is going to be Religious, that one should have a firm grasp of Science, to temper the rather extraneous parts of Religion into something more feasible and realistic.
In any event, Gid, carry on.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-26-2006 20:21
Poi, if the Creationists are correct, that doesn't mean all the science in the world is renedered completely useless. It just means that one theory is incorrect. That happened to the atomic model over and over again, and to my knowledge it is still being adjusted today. Doesn't mean all the research done before is wrong. Doesn't mean that all the methods were wrong. Just the interpretations of the data collected needed work, or some of the methods needed more accuracy. I keep learning more and more theories about this atomic model: like the Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion can explain some things, and I had been using that for my molecular model. However, I found out that the Molecular Orbital theory explains the color, shape, and charges better than the VSEPR model did. Doesn't mean that model is entirely incorrect, just means that it cannot account for some attributes of the atom like the MO model does.
Could this be the case with Creationism and Evolutionary Theory? When God gave Moses the Genesis story, He did put some science in there, but not a lot. God was more intent on showing us Adam and Eve, and the story of us and how we got here and became so attuned to sin. Perhaps some science is needed to know the rest of the story? This is what I want to find out.
I do like the critical observations of Creationists on Evolutionists, and Evolutionists on Creationists. It keeps both sharp.
Sleeping Wolf,
quote: SleepingWolf said:
I consider a fact as measurable or observable. A fossil is fact - you can touch
it.
So if Creationists do fossil research, then they have facts, right?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
If creationists are correct the accuracy issue of several fields of science is of an order of magnitude so high it would blow away most of it. The ratio is ~750.000 ( 4.5 billions / 6 thousands ). Well to put this figure into perspective, it's like saying that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is not ~384,000 kilometres but 512 metres.
Think twice about it.
Is it more likely that scientific records are off by such an order of magnitude or that fairies, leprechauns, trolls, the groke, ... and god ( damn I almost forgot him ) exist ?
Of course you're free to believe whatever you want. But beliefs and science are two completely different things.
Of course parts of science are being adjusted. The whole point of science is to be critical of itself. The particle model is one strong example. Quantum theory ( and string theories ) is so much more accurate in its prediction that it can only mean the particle model is, like Newton's theory of gravity in its time, an ok approximation but do not reflect what happens for real at the atomic and sub-atomic scale.
quote: Gideon said:
So if Creationists do fossil research, then they have facts, right?
No they don't.
If they have fossils in their greasy little hands then they have factual proof of animals (invertebrates, vertebrates) or plants that lived millions of years ago and that were never documented in the bible...and that are much too old to be explained by the bible.
I don't even know what does fossil research mean?
do you mean paleontology?
or does it mean finding a dinosaur femur and saying it is actually a rock that looks like a leg bone just as a grilled cheese sandwich might look like the virgin mary?
or does it mean finding the same bone and saying it was actually the bone of a very large donkey which was drowned during the flood?
creationists can't use fossil research to support their moronic cause...the best they can hope to do is twist the facts in their favour...by misinterpreting the truth...also called lying
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
Anything said after that is irrelevent. We have shown you repeatedly exactly how and why the creationists are wrong. The fact that you choose to believe what is contrary to the facts and the evidence has no bearing on the issue.
quote: Gideon said:
So if Creationists do fossil research, then they have facts, right?
Unfortunately, the creationists have proven this statement wrong by continually ignoring the facts they hold in front of them in favor of trying to make the facts fit a story. Again - we've been through this all before, ad nauseum. You've argued all of this repeatedly, and been shown in hundreds of different ways exactly how, where, and why the arguments you present fail.
There is only so much of a beating you can take for your beliefs? Then stop trying to present your beliefs as 'science' when they clearly fail to pass the basic tests of science.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 11-27-2006 15:40
quote: poi said:
Of course you're free to believe whatever you want. But beliefs and science are two completely different things.
Not necessarily.
I happen to believe that faith in a higher power is an idea. How do we express our ideas? We use tools. As WebShaman so succinctly and eloquently said earlier in this thread, science (and math) are tools. These tools are used to express our ideas - and they change, are replaced, and even *gasp!* evolve.
Is it possible for these two things to coexist in the intellectual arena? Possibly, provided the parties espousing both remained intellectual. A 'religious' person with some scientific background and an 'evolutionist' with a measure of faith would hold a good debate. Others would simply resort to name-calling, unsubstantiated proposals, and even stream-of-consciousness reasoning.
The point I'm trying to make is that beliefs and science are not completely different, they're simply kept seperate by insolent groups of devout followers. And yes, I consider some theorists of evolution devout. Some are even scary in that white-shirt-and-tie, knock-on-your-door-at-5a.m. "Have you found Jay-sus?" way.
There's also the fact that it's entirely possible that beliefs and science - ideas and tools - are two parts of the same whole. Different yet the same. Hmmm....
quote: poi said:
Of course parts of science are being adjusted. The whole point of science is to be critical of itself.
I think religion should be critical of itself as well. While there are things in the Word that should remain as they are (I happen to think "Love one another," "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are pretty good rules), I do think some things are open to interpretation. For example: "Let there be light" is God's way of throwing a cosmic light switch. But how would we mortals percieve it, even millions of our years later? Perhaps as the Big Bang. Genesis tells us the world was created in six days - what is a day to an omnipotent omniscient cosmic being? Maybe 24 Earth hours; maybe millions of years. The science does not exist to explain this; the tools haven't been discovered to express this idea.
JMO.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
It's all fine and good to make esoteric/philosophic statements about the nature of science and belief, and it is true that there are people who treat science in the same way that many treat religion.
But they are still 2 entirely seperate concepts, no matter how much many people would like them to be the same.
Can they coexist? Can they together define the way in which a person sees the world? Of course. But that is far from them being the same.
Religion goes well beyond the realm of observable, testable facts and theories that science relies upon, and in fact in many cases snubs and even harshly condemns such approaches outright.
Religion *should* be critical of itself, but far more often than not, it is only critical of others, and only defends its precepts no matter the facts.
Science, by its nature, accepts criticsim by all, and exists only because of criticism and constant redefinition. Religion generally exists only because of the lack thereof.
quote:
Genesis tells us the world was created in six days - what is a day to an omnipotent omniscient cosmic being? Maybe 24 Earth hours; maybe millions of years. The science does not exist to explain this
The science does not exist to explain it?
Why/how is it the job of science to explain the possible variations in interpretation of ancient literature?
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 11-27-2006 21:27
quote: DL-44 said:
Religion *should* be critical of itself, but far more often than not, it is only critical of others, and only defends its precepts no matter the facts.
That's the problem - both with religion and science. Let me try to clarify: I see faith and religion as two different things. I have faith in God, Jesus Christ and the promise of redemption; but I would not call myself religious due to the utter revulsion I feel when I see or hear of religious people (aggressive televangelism, lecherous Catholic priests, &c.). These 'devout' or 'religious' people would have us discard science as Godless thinking injected into our world by Satan meant to turn us from the One True Way and simply take things exactly as written (and, by the way, God needs money, please call the number at the bottom of your screen, athankyouverymuch).
By the same token, I see scientific theory and scientific fact as two different things. Theorists accept criticism and are always thinking of new ways and ideas to expand our understanding of ourselves and the worlds around us; the proponents of scientific fact would have us discard everything but the "hard evidence" and consider this existence a cosmic accident easily explained and replicated by laboratory experiments.
Goodness, instead of clarifying, I'm soapboxing. I apologize. But I do hope you see where I'm coming from.
quote: DL-44 said:
Science, by its nature, accepts criticsim by all, and exists only because of criticism and constant redefinition. Why/how is it the job of science to explain the possible variations in interpretation of ancient literature?
Science exists to assist us in dealing with the world we can perceive; we can sense (see, touch, &c.) God's creation but cannot explain its coming into being. The Bible tells us God created the world in six days; we can choose to take that at face value (faith/religion) or investigate it further to prove or disprove that (science). But what is our basis of a 'day'? Is it defined by God as it is defined by man? In this scientific realm, we need to question the nature of the 'given' value (day).
Again harkening back to WebShaman, let's look at it mathematically:
Creation = 6 * day
Where day = ?
We assume, as mortal men and women, that day = 24 Earth hours. But to God, at that point in His plan day could = 75,000,000 Earth years. Or 5.2 seconds. We don't know for sure, because we have no way of seeing the Universe as God sees it. At least, not yet. Maybe science will create that method - that is what I was driving at, DL-44.
It's not science's job to explain ancient lore, science's job in the hands of a human is the same as a calculator, computer, pen or screwdriver - to achieve an end through the use of the tool.
One more illustration: take an ice sculpture (God's creation). Now we are told that the sculptor (God) made the artwork using a tool. Now we can assume a regular chisel and clawhammer were used, given the delicacy of the artwork. However, perhaps the sculptor has had years of practice and can execute very fine work with a chainsaw. Then again maybe they worked in a meat locker for weeks with a taphammer and an olive fork. We won't know until we ask the sculptor, or find a way to see him at work.
*dismounts from soapbox again*
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
posted 11-22-2006 02:17
Are you on crack ? Evolution is blind. It has not goal. 
