There are oodles of threads on this forum debating God, intelligence, origins, etc, but not much about the mechanics of evolutionary change.
What are the basic mechanics of evolution? Everything is always changing, but what is the basic principle? Do you think there is more than one, or do you think it has been nailed down?
Darwinian evolution, variation and selection, with the oft stated idea of competition of the phenotypes for reproduction, is the usual accepted model. But there are problems with it. For example, the possibility of a beneficial mutation or other beneficial genetic change sounds nice, but the odds are very high the individual creature would get knocked off for some other reason before it can reproduce.
What about the Neutralist Theory (Motoo Kimura 30yrs ago). At the genetic level most changes that continue and spread randomly in the gene pool are neutral and are not subjected to phenotype selection pressure. What do you think, guys? Is this a clue? What if the environment changes?
AI researchers and biochemists are now using random recombination (for example http://www.pnas.org/content/101/18/7011.abstract) Does this have anything to do with the mechanics of biological evolution?
And a related question (personal opinion) how do you get new ideas on your own? Did they evolve in your brain? Do you make breakfast the same way everyone else does, and why do you do it that way?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...PBB1ggD98OHP580
I was thinking of starting a thread similar to this one to post this link.
It's about a "yellow" lobster. They say the odds are one in 30 million of it happening. It also says life is not good for these lobsters because they are easy to spot by predators.
If the yellow lobsters occured where they would have an advantage they would pass on their genes and that population of lobsters would become yellow. And if the first one died before passing on it's genes, then about 30 million lobsters later another would have a chance.
More is said about beneficial mutations than disadvantages. But to understand I think you need to look at both sides.
I was thinking of starting a thread similar to this one to post this link.
It's about a "yellow" lobster. They say the odds are one in 30 million of it happening. It also says life is not good for these lobsters because they are easy to spot by predators.
If the yellow lobsters occured where they would have an advantage they would pass on their genes and that population of lobsters would become yellow. And if the first one died before passing on it's genes, then about 30 million lobsters later another would have a chance.
More is said about beneficial mutations than disadvantages. But to understand I think you need to look at both sides.
The idea of a buildup of neutral mutations is a strong one. Remember that there are chaperone proteins that 'force' proteins to become the shape that they're supposed to be. This means that a protein would continues its function, even with mutations. However, in stressful environments, chaperone function changes. This means that new phenotypes will become available during stressful events.
Natural Selection is a strong component of evolution, but there is also the idea of exploiting new environments. The ancestor of whales did not need to outcompete hippos in rivers, because they were able to go much deeper and take advantage of new environments.
Natural Selection is a strong component of evolution, but there is also the idea of exploiting new environments. The ancestor of whales did not need to outcompete hippos in rivers, because they were able to go much deeper and take advantage of new environments.
QUOTE (sporacle+Jun 16 2009, 08:05 AM)
Darwinian evolution, variation and selection, with the oft stated idea of competition of the phenotypes for reproduction, is the usual accepted model. But there are problems with it. For example, the possibility of a beneficial mutation or other beneficial genetic change sounds nice, but the odds are very high the individual creature would get knocked off for some other reason before it can reproduce.
Yes, that's certainly true in natural wild environments. Even if it is possible for two mutants of the same or different species to give birth to offspring of a new species that can successfully reproduce among themselve but not with their parents, it seems the odds against them forming successful populations millions strong in the wild would be against them. So the odds against that happening in the wild for all of the millions of different species that exist do seem extremely high.
How about in controlled conditions? Have humans bred completely different species that can't reproduce with the animals they originated from? Dogs, chickens, cattle, horses, cats, pigs, rabbits, turkeys, ducks, geese, sheep and goats can. Have humans bred different species of animals that can't? Apparently not very many, if any.
Yes, that's certainly true in natural wild environments. Even if it is possible for two mutants of the same or different species to give birth to offspring of a new species that can successfully reproduce among themselve but not with their parents, it seems the odds against them forming successful populations millions strong in the wild would be against them. So the odds against that happening in the wild for all of the millions of different species that exist do seem extremely high.
How about in controlled conditions? Have humans bred completely different species that can't reproduce with the animals they originated from? Dogs, chickens, cattle, horses, cats, pigs, rabbits, turkeys, ducks, geese, sheep and goats can. Have humans bred different species of animals that can't? Apparently not very many, if any.
QUOTE (sporacle+)
What about the Neutralist Theory (Motoo Kimura 30yrs ago). At the genetic level most changes that continue and spread randomly in the gene pool are neutral and are not subjected to phenotype selection pressure. What do you think, guys? Is this a clue? What if the environment changes?
Are there any examples at all people are aware of where new species have come into existence in that way? If not, then it doesn't sound like a clue to anything worth thinking much about, except maybe to make up a sci-fi story about such on a planet bombarded by heavy x-rays from its star, and the life that resulted from genetic changes caused by that, or some such idea. Fortunately for us we don't have a big problem with Sol doing that lately, probably with much thanks to our good friend the atmosphere.
Are there any examples at all people are aware of where new species have come into existence in that way? If not, then it doesn't sound like a clue to anything worth thinking much about, except maybe to make up a sci-fi story about such on a planet bombarded by heavy x-rays from its star, and the life that resulted from genetic changes caused by that, or some such idea. Fortunately for us we don't have a big problem with Sol doing that lately, probably with much thanks to our good friend the atmosphere.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 16 2009, 04:30 PM)
Even if it is possible for two mutants of the same or different species to give birth to offspring of a new species
Nothing gives birth to an animal of a new species.
Where did you get that eroneous idea?
No hippo gave birth to a whale.
But some hippos went farther into the water and generation by generation slowly became whales.
But at no time did an animal of onespecies give birth to an animal of another species.
Nothing gives birth to an animal of a new species.
Where did you get that eroneous idea?
No hippo gave birth to a whale.
But some hippos went farther into the water and generation by generation slowly became whales.
But at no time did an animal of onespecies give birth to an animal of another species.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 16 2009, 04:40 PM)
Nothing gives birth to an animal of a new species.
Where did you get that eroneous idea?
No hippo gave birth to a whale.
But some hippos went farther into the water and generation by generation slowly became whales.
But at no time did an animal of onespecies give birth to an animal of another species.
Species actually only evolve within their kinds. If an ape and a person tried to have intercorse you wouldn't get an ape man.
zorses and zonkeys; wholphin, huarizo- an alpaca and llama mix.
Where did you get that eroneous idea?
No hippo gave birth to a whale.
But some hippos went farther into the water and generation by generation slowly became whales.
But at no time did an animal of onespecies give birth to an animal of another species.
Species actually only evolve within their kinds. If an ape and a person tried to have intercorse you wouldn't get an ape man.
zorses and zonkeys; wholphin, huarizo- an alpaca and llama mix.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 16 2009, 04:56 PM)
Species actually only evolve within their kinds. If an ape and a person tried to have intercorse you wouldn't get an ape man.
zorses and zonkeys; wholphin, huarizo- an alpaca and llama mix.
That is according to creationist logic not evolutionary evidence.
All mammals evolved from one population of mammals.
Hippo ancestor populations became hippo populations and whale populations (and probably dolphin populations and porpoise populations.
zorses and zonkeys; wholphin, huarizo- an alpaca and llama mix.
That is according to creationist logic not evolutionary evidence.
All mammals evolved from one population of mammals.
Hippo ancestor populations became hippo populations and whale populations (and probably dolphin populations and porpoise populations.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 16 2009, 04:40 PM)
Nothing gives birth to an animal of a new species.
Where did you get that eroneous idea?
It's what evolution suggests.
Where did you get that eroneous idea?
It's what evolution suggests.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
No hippo gave birth to a whale.
But some hippos went farther into the water and generation by generation slowly became whales.
But at no time did an animal of onespecies give birth to an animal of another species.
How could they become whales slowly or quickly without giving birth to a different species somewhere along the way? And don't try sticking to "slowly became" because animals don't turn into other animals after they are born. The only way it could happen would be for them to give birth to species other than what they are themselves.
(In this particular example the split happened before hippos or whales had come into existence, btw. It was not hippos that became whales, but something earlier than either.)
But some hippos went farther into the water and generation by generation slowly became whales.
But at no time did an animal of onespecies give birth to an animal of another species.
How could they become whales slowly or quickly without giving birth to a different species somewhere along the way? And don't try sticking to "slowly became" because animals don't turn into other animals after they are born. The only way it could happen would be for them to give birth to species other than what they are themselves.
(In this particular example the split happened before hippos or whales had come into existence, btw. It was not hippos that became whales, but something earlier than either.)
Look up ring species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina
Are the Ensatina salamanders, one species, or 19, or some number in between?
Species are not all as separate as you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina
Are the Ensatina salamanders, one species, or 19, or some number in between?
Species are not all as separate as you think.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 16 2009, 07:23 PM)
Look up ring species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina
Thanks for the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina
Thanks for the links.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Are the Ensatina salamanders, one species, or 19, or some number in between?
So far I guess I'd say two, since only the one subspecies can't interbreed.
So far I guess I'd say two, since only the one subspecies can't interbreed.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Species are not all as separate as you think.
Apparently not. I should learn more about it.
Apparently not. I should learn more about it.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_Dav...kly08240701.asp
Is a column about if you are a "lumper" or a "splitter".
I got some other interesting hits when I googled it. I will have to check them out later.
Is a column about if you are a "lumper" or a "splitter".
I got some other interesting hits when I googled it. I will have to check them out later.
Looking at the timeline of plant evolution it doesn't fit well with evolution of organisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution
Could you explain how mustard or corn (popcorn) seeds evolve into people? Or animals?
Genesis 1:11-12 gives an answer (KJV because its public domain)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Could you explain how mustard or corn (popcorn) seeds evolve into people? Or animals?
Genesis 1:11-12 gives an answer (KJV because its public domain)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 17 2009, 09:50 AM)
Could you explain how mustard or corn (popcorn) seeds evolve into people?
It can't be too hard. It appears you've grown a nice strawman without much effort.
It can't be too hard. It appears you've grown a nice strawman without much effort.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 17 2009, 02:56 PM)
It can't be too hard. It appears you've grown a nice strawman without much effort.
Please explain/continue. How does plant evolution work?
I'm not even an expert on the subject and I know about eukaryotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
You seem to be fairly intelligent, certainly you're capable of looking this stuff up yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
You seem to be fairly intelligent, certainly you're capable of looking this stuff up yourself.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 17 2009, 03:35 PM)
I'm not even an expert on the subject and I know about eukaryotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
You seem to be fairly intelligent, certainly you're capable of looking this stuff up yourself.
This is 2 years old, it explains the secular plant evolution concepts taught in classrooms. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-plants
A better question was "how do plants reproduce?", and I found the answers on the web.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
You seem to be fairly intelligent, certainly you're capable of looking this stuff up yourself.
This is 2 years old, it explains the secular plant evolution concepts taught in classrooms. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-plants
A better question was "how do plants reproduce?", and I found the answers on the web.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 17 2009, 02:57 PM)
Please explain/continue. How does plant evolution work?
They are a different branch.
The branch in question occurred at the cellular level AFAIK.
If you want to understand Evolution start with nothing then look at reality.
There is a story of a western guy going to a zen master. The western guy keeps talking and talking and saying what he knows already. The zen master offers him some tea, then proceeds to fill the cup and keeps pouring the tea. The western guy exclaims, what are you doing. And the zen master says I'm demonstrating that if you want to fill something it must first be empty. If you want to learn zen, then you must empty your mind of what you think you know.
Tracer if you want to learn evolution you must forget what you think you know and forget the Bible. Once you understand evolution then you can evaluate the Bible. But if you want to evaluate evolution, you must evaluate it based on reality.
They are a different branch.
The branch in question occurred at the cellular level AFAIK.
If you want to understand Evolution start with nothing then look at reality.
There is a story of a western guy going to a zen master. The western guy keeps talking and talking and saying what he knows already. The zen master offers him some tea, then proceeds to fill the cup and keeps pouring the tea. The western guy exclaims, what are you doing. And the zen master says I'm demonstrating that if you want to fill something it must first be empty. If you want to learn zen, then you must empty your mind of what you think you know.
Tracer if you want to learn evolution you must forget what you think you know and forget the Bible. Once you understand evolution then you can evaluate the Bible. But if you want to evaluate evolution, you must evaluate it based on reality.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 17 2009, 02:50 PM)
Looking at the timeline of plant evolution it doesn't fit well with evolution of organisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution
Could you explain how mustard or corn (popcorn) seeds evolve into people? Or animals?
Genesis 1:11-12 gives an answer (KJV because its public domain)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The sequence is wrong in the Bible, from all info we have. The Bible describes it as plants existing before the sun, moon and stars, which everything we know tells us was not the case.
Could you explain how mustard or corn (popcorn) seeds evolve into people? Or animals?
Genesis 1:11-12 gives an answer (KJV because its public domain)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The sequence is wrong in the Bible, from all info we have. The Bible describes it as plants existing before the sun, moon and stars, which everything we know tells us was not the case.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 17 2009, 10:35 AM)
You seem to be fairly intelligent, certainly you're capable of looking this stuff up yourself.
Capable? Certainly. Willing? Not even remotely.
Capable? Certainly. Willing? Not even remotely.
QUOTE (sporacle+)
What are the basic mechanics of evolution?
Mutations occur. Most mutations produce negligible effects, a small portion produce harmful effects, and an even smaller portion produce helpful effects. Helpful effects increase an individuals odds of surviving to a mating age, while harmful effects decrease these odds and negligible effects don't affect them. Therefore, over time helpful effects become more prominent while the harmful effects disappear and negligible effects show no change.
No, they aren't. beneficial mutations reduce those odds, and they're not all that high to begin with.
Even if they were very high, there tends to be thousands or millions of individuals comprising a population. Some are bound to survive, and those that do are likely to have beneficial mutations.
No, they aren't. beneficial mutations reduce those odds, and they're not all that high to begin with.
Even if they were very high, there tends to be thousands or millions of individuals comprising a population. Some are bound to survive, and those that do are likely to have beneficial mutations.
What about the Neutralist Theory (Motoo Kimura 30yrs ago). At the genetic level most changes that continue and spread randomly in the gene pool are neutral and are not subjected to phenotype selection pressure. What do you think, guys? Is this a clue? What if the environment changes?
The key word there is "most." Not "all."
That's not related. Ideas are based on (in order of importance) past experience, details of the current situations, the mental drawing of connections and formulation of analogies and genetic predisposition towards certain personality traits. Plus there's almost certainly a random variable thrown in there, somewhere.
Mutations occur. Most mutations produce negligible effects, a small portion produce harmful effects, and an even smaller portion produce helpful effects. Helpful effects increase an individuals odds of surviving to a mating age, while harmful effects decrease these odds and negligible effects don't affect them. Therefore, over time helpful effects become more prominent while the harmful effects disappear and negligible effects show no change.
QUOTE
Darwinian evolution, variation and selection, with the oft stated idea of competition of the phenotypes for reproduction, is the usual accepted model. But there are problems with it. For example, the possibility of a beneficial mutation or other beneficial genetic change sounds nice, but the odds are very high the individual creature would get knocked off for some other reason before it can reproduce
No, they aren't. beneficial mutations reduce those odds, and they're not all that high to begin with.
Even if they were very high, there tends to be thousands or millions of individuals comprising a population. Some are bound to survive, and those that do are likely to have beneficial mutations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Darwinian evolution, variation and selection, with the oft stated idea of competition of the phenotypes for reproduction, is the usual accepted model. But there are problems with it. For example, the possibility of a beneficial mutation or other beneficial genetic change sounds nice, but the odds are very high the individual creature would get knocked off for some other reason before it can reproduce |
No, they aren't. beneficial mutations reduce those odds, and they're not all that high to begin with.
Even if they were very high, there tends to be thousands or millions of individuals comprising a population. Some are bound to survive, and those that do are likely to have beneficial mutations.
What about the Neutralist Theory (Motoo Kimura 30yrs ago). At the genetic level most changes that continue and spread randomly in the gene pool are neutral and are not subjected to phenotype selection pressure. What do you think, guys? Is this a clue? What if the environment changes?
The key word there is "most." Not "all."
QUOTE
And a related question (personal opinion) how do you get new ideas on your own? Did they evolve in your brain? Do you make breakfast the same way everyone else does, and why do you do it that way?
That's not related. Ideas are based on (in order of importance) past experience, details of the current situations, the mental drawing of connections and formulation of analogies and genetic predisposition towards certain personality traits. Plus there's almost certainly a random variable thrown in there, somewhere.
Only slight unease I feel about this is in regard to whether all the complexity and diversity that we see in Nature could have evolved over a period as short as 4 billion years. Has any attempt ever been made to map out a timescale, compiled and built up from how long it is likely to have taken for specific evolutionary events to have been completed - for example, how long would it take a very basic heart to evolve from some preceding organ or from undifferentiated muscle tissue?
(Please note - I have no religious/ID agenda)
(Please note - I have no religious/ID agenda)
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 17 2009, 05:54 PM)
(Please note - I have no religious/ID agenda)
Everyone has a worldview - you just stated you had a naturalistic secular worldview. Everyone has a motivation/drive. The heart wants what the heart wants.
Timescales -- Astronomy- age of jupiter, moon, etc.
Timescales -- Astronomy- age of jupiter, moon, etc.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 17 2009, 01:20 PM)
Everyone has a worldview - you just stated you had a naturalistic secular worldview. Everyone has a motivation/drive. The heart wants what the heart wants.
Timescales -- Astronomy- age of jupiter, moon, etc.
My heart doesn't "want" anything. My heart pumps blood.
Personally I want to understand reality as best I can. Reality has often dealt my "desires" a harsh blow.
Here's where Johannes Kepler is an ideal example. Kepler really wanted the solar system to fit into his "perfect solids" model. However, reality didn't agree with his model. He dumped his desires and went with reality.
You might want to try it sometime. True, you will have to abandon some long cherished beliefs. On the other hand, you may find the real world even more interesting than your imaginary one was.
Timescales -- Astronomy- age of jupiter, moon, etc.
My heart doesn't "want" anything. My heart pumps blood.
Personally I want to understand reality as best I can. Reality has often dealt my "desires" a harsh blow.
Here's where Johannes Kepler is an ideal example. Kepler really wanted the solar system to fit into his "perfect solids" model. However, reality didn't agree with his model. He dumped his desires and went with reality.
You might want to try it sometime. True, you will have to abandon some long cherished beliefs. On the other hand, you may find the real world even more interesting than your imaginary one was.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 17 2009, 06:20 PM)
Everyone has a worldview - you just stated you had a naturalistic secular worldview. Everyone has a motivation/drive. The heart wants what the heart wants.
Timescales -- Astronomy- age of jupiter, moon, etc.
I never said I did not have a "worldview" - whatever the hell that means. I was merely explaining that the question I asked was motivated by scientific curiosity / sheer awe of Nature´s wonders - and not by any other agenda.
And as for my heart - what it needs right now is a new set of coronary arteries - no doubt you´ll manage to conjure up a few !!
Timescales -- Astronomy- age of jupiter, moon, etc.
I never said I did not have a "worldview" - whatever the hell that means. I was merely explaining that the question I asked was motivated by scientific curiosity / sheer awe of Nature´s wonders - and not by any other agenda.
And as for my heart - what it needs right now is a new set of coronary arteries - no doubt you´ll manage to conjure up a few !!
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 17 2009, 07:43 PM)
I never said I did not have a "worldview" - whatever the hell that means. I was merely explaining that the question I asked was motivated by scientific curiosity / sheer awe of Nature´s wonders - and not by any other agenda.
And as for my heart - what it needs right now is a new set of coronary arteries - no doubt you´ll manage to conjure up a few !!
lol, They do have total heart replacements now.
Worldview/perception - how you view the world
And as for my heart - what it needs right now is a new set of coronary arteries - no doubt you´ll manage to conjure up a few !!
lol, They do have total heart replacements now.
Worldview/perception - how you view the world
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 17 2009, 12:57 PM)
The sequence is wrong in the Bible, from all info we have. The Bible describes it as plants existing before the sun, moon and stars, which everything we know tells us was not the case.
Actually the Bible says plants were created 1 day before the Sun. Moon, and stars.
from what we know plants can survive at least 1 Day without sunlight.
Actually the Bible says plants were created 1 day before the Sun. Moon, and stars.
from what we know plants can survive at least 1 Day without sunlight.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2009, 05:43 PM)
Actually the Bible says plants were created 1 day before the Sun. Moon, and stars.
from what we know plants can survive at least 1 Day without sunlight.
The bible doesn't necessarily state that...
The word translated to "day" might also be translated to "era" and the words "morning" and "evening" might also be translated as "chaos" and "order" respectively.
Not that I'm endorsing creationism in any way, shape or form. Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction.
from what we know plants can survive at least 1 Day without sunlight.
The bible doesn't necessarily state that...
The word translated to "day" might also be translated to "era" and the words "morning" and "evening" might also be translated as "chaos" and "order" respectively.
Not that I'm endorsing creationism in any way, shape or form. Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2009, 10:43 PM)
Actually the Bible says plants were created 1 day before the Sun. Moon, and stars.
from what we know plants can survive at least 1 Day without sunlight.
Gen. 1:3 KJV "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Day 1, these questions have been asked online before.
from what we know plants can survive at least 1 Day without sunlight.
Gen. 1:3 KJV "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Day 1, these questions have been asked online before.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 17 2009, 08:39 PM)
The bible doesn't necessarily state that...
The word translated to "day" might also be translated to "era" and the words "morning" and "evening" might also be translated as "chaos" and "order" respectively.
Not that I'm endorsing creationism in any way, shape or form. Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction.
plants may have a hard time surviving an "era" without sunlight.
The word translated to "day" might also be translated to "era" and the words "morning" and "evening" might also be translated as "chaos" and "order" respectively.
Not that I'm endorsing creationism in any way, shape or form. Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction.
plants may have a hard time surviving an "era" without sunlight.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 17 2009, 08:45 PM)
Gen. 1:3 KJV "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Day 1, these questions have been asked online before.
Gen. 1:14-19 KJV
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen. 1:14-19 KJV
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 18 2009, 12:45 AM)
Gen. 1:3 KJV "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Day 1, these questions have been asked online before.
Science deals with data and reproducable evidence.
Is the author of genesis still around? Can he be interviewed?
Did he detail how to verify the data?
Or is it indistinguishable from a campfire story?
Science deals with data and reproducable evidence.
Is the author of genesis still around? Can he be interviewed?
Did he detail how to verify the data?
Or is it indistinguishable from a campfire story?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2009, 07:47 PM)
plants may have a hard time surviving an "era" without sunlight.
That would be the most important implication of my post to what you said.
That would be the most important implication of my post to what you said.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 18 2009, 09:22 AM)
That would be the most important implication of my post to what you said.
And my issue would not be with you but those who would push an alternate creation account and claim it to be biblical.
And my issue would not be with you but those who would push an alternate creation account and claim it to be biblical.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Today at 4:33 PM
Negative Hope you get a heart attack here.
TracerTong Posted: Jun 17 2009, 10:19 PM
Positive Hope you don't get a heart attack here.
Having rather stupidly mentioned that I suffered from heart trouble on this thread I received these two items of feedback. I don´t think I need comment.
Negative Hope you get a heart attack here.
TracerTong Posted: Jun 17 2009, 10:19 PM
Positive Hope you don't get a heart attack here.
Having rather stupidly mentioned that I suffered from heart trouble on this thread I received these two items of feedback. I don´t think I need comment.
Science Magazine, June 5, 2009, has an article on the evolution sex. This likely occured before plants evolved.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 18 2009, 07:05 PM)
And my issue would not be with you but those who would push an alternate creation account and claim it to be biblical.
Another point of my post was that there are multiple 'creation accounts' which are consistant with the bible. In fact, if one reads the bible as alegory, instead of literal truth, any 'creation account', even one in which there is no act of creation is consistant.
Even a literal interpretation, however, can be made to be consistant with accepted theories about the origin of this planet and the life on it. In my opinion, the originators and retellers of the stories which comprise the book of Genesis likely intended them to be ambiguous, to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong.
Another point of my post was that there are multiple 'creation accounts' which are consistant with the bible. In fact, if one reads the bible as alegory, instead of literal truth, any 'creation account', even one in which there is no act of creation is consistant.
Even a literal interpretation, however, can be made to be consistant with accepted theories about the origin of this planet and the life on it. In my opinion, the originators and retellers of the stories which comprise the book of Genesis likely intended them to be ambiguous, to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 19 2009, 04:40 PM)
rather stupidly I don´t think.
What's new?
What's new?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 19 2009, 11:32 PM)
Another point of my post was that there are multiple 'creation accounts' which are consistant with the bible. In fact, if one reads the bible as alegory, instead of literal truth, any 'creation account', even one in which there is no act of creation is consistant.
Even a literal interpretation, however, can be made to be consistant with accepted theories about the origin of this planet and the life on it. In my opinion, the originators and retellers of the stories which comprise the book of Genesis likely intended them to be ambiguous, to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong.
Also another point you made "Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction. " So why should any opinion you have of the Genesis account matter to me.
Even a literal interpretation, however, can be made to be consistant with accepted theories about the origin of this planet and the life on it. In my opinion, the originators and retellers of the stories which comprise the book of Genesis likely intended them to be ambiguous, to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong.
Also another point you made "Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction. " So why should any opinion you have of the Genesis account matter to me.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 20 2009, 01:20 AM)
Also another point you made "Creationism in all of it's aspects is pure fiction. " So why should any opinion you have of the Genesis account matter to me.
Because they're accurate.
If truth doesn't matter to you...Well, you're not being a very good christian, then.
(Pssst: There is such a thing as a question mark.)
Because they're accurate.
If truth doesn't matter to you...Well, you're not being a very good christian, then.
(Pssst: There is such a thing as a question mark.)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 20 2009, 10:42 PM)
Because they're accurate.
If truth doesn't matter to you...Well, you're not being a very good christian, then.
(Pssst: There is such a thing as a question mark.)
I distinguish between what is consistent with the Genesis account and you don't.
If truth doesn't matter to you...Well, you're not being a very good christian, then.
(Pssst: There is such a thing as a question mark.)
I distinguish between what is consistent with the Genesis account and you don't.
QUOTE (mjolnirpants+)
In my opinion, the originators and retellers of the stories which comprise the book of Genesis likely intended them to be ambiguous, to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong.
I cannot prove this opinion of yours to be incorrect, but it certainly is contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology.
It is far more likely that originators of such myths fully understood the metaphorical character of their constructs. The failure of some followers and adapters of these creation myths to maintain that recognition should not be seen as a weakness of the myths, nor should it undermine the value the myths played in creating a cohesive society.
It is far more likely that originators of such myths fully understood the metaphorical character of their constructs. The failure of some followers and adapters of these creation myths to maintain that recognition should not be seen as a weakness of the myths, nor should it undermine the value the myths played in creating a cohesive society.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 20 2009, 11:39 PM)
I distinguish between what is consistent with the Genesis account and you don't.
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (John Galt+)
I cannot prove this opinion of yours to be incorrect, but it certainly is contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology.
I've read just one of your posts and already I think you're stupid.
Point 1: You tell me I'm wrong, then espouse an almost identical position.
I claimed the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth purposefully left those myths ambiguous in order that they maintain the ability to cohere with other creation accounts, thus never letting them be proven wrong.
You claim I'm wrong, and that the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth understood these myths were highly metaphorical, -which would incidentally never let them be proven wrong- and then fail to offer any reason why this is so.
The two positions are virtually identical in meaning, except that instead of offering a good reason why they might have done so, you instead criticize apologists for supposedly perceiving this as some sort of weakness.
Point 2: You criticize apologists and atheists for perceiving the ambiguity of the Judeo-Christian cosmogony as a weakness, despite the fact that ambiguity is a weakness in scientific theories (Which, given the context of this discussion, the Judeo-Chriastian cosmogony must be considered to be).
Point 3: You never bother to provide anything resembling an explanation or evidence for why my claim is "contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology."
In fact, most myths are not very detailed. Almost every ancient myth in existence can be interpreted in a number of ways, and this becomes even more true when you're dealing with creation myths.
How exactly would anyone in their right mind (even a primitive hunter-gatherer) not see some difficulties in actions like a giant vomiting up the sun (which he'd never actually eaten...), humanoid beings giving birth to patches of land or even the entire planet, the world springing forth from an egg (laid by what, I don't know...) and other such poetic-yet-highly-impossible feats? Yet no details about the difficulties inherent in this are ever presented. Ancient man would have certainly wondered about the difficulties of giving birth to an island... Did it all come out as one coherent whole, or did the bedrock and larger rocks come out first, followed by the dirt? What exactly was this goddess laying/kneeling/standing on when she gave birth? How does anything (even a god) vomit up that which it hasn't eaten? Why didn't the sun burn this god's throat on the way up? When these questions are asked, the answer is usually either "I don't know," which is really just a deflection, or "It's a metaphor for the way the world came into being. There wasn't really an egg which cracked open and spilled out the earth, but a sort of cosmic thing which can best be thought of as an egg." (big bang analogy, anyone?) Christian authors have been arguing the metaphorical nature of the bible for as long as there's been a bible, and even longer in fact. The whole "interpreting myths as metaphors" thing isn't new. If people were doing it a thousand years ago, then they were almost certainly doing it a hundred thousand years ago.
That's an explanation. Here's some evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism(There are a ton of links to sources and references at the bottom of that page, so this isn't just a single piece of evidence.)
Not evidence that my claim is true, mind, but evidence that your counter-claim is wrong, and that my claim is consistent with psychological, literary and philosophical models of mythological cosmogony.
Point 4: As per point 1, and in contrast to point 3, if my claim is "contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology," then so is yours.
So you basically made a really stupid post. Congrats. It's only your third post and you're already making a bad impression on this new community you chose to join.
I've read just one of your posts and already I think you're stupid.
Point 1: You tell me I'm wrong, then espouse an almost identical position.
I claimed the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth purposefully left those myths ambiguous in order that they maintain the ability to cohere with other creation accounts, thus never letting them be proven wrong.
You claim I'm wrong, and that the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth understood these myths were highly metaphorical, -which would incidentally never let them be proven wrong- and then fail to offer any reason why this is so.
The two positions are virtually identical in meaning, except that instead of offering a good reason why they might have done so, you instead criticize apologists for supposedly perceiving this as some sort of weakness.
Point 2: You criticize apologists and atheists for perceiving the ambiguity of the Judeo-Christian cosmogony as a weakness, despite the fact that ambiguity is a weakness in scientific theories (Which, given the context of this discussion, the Judeo-Chriastian cosmogony must be considered to be).
Point 3: You never bother to provide anything resembling an explanation or evidence for why my claim is "contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology."
In fact, most myths are not very detailed. Almost every ancient myth in existence can be interpreted in a number of ways, and this becomes even more true when you're dealing with creation myths.
How exactly would anyone in their right mind (even a primitive hunter-gatherer) not see some difficulties in actions like a giant vomiting up the sun (which he'd never actually eaten...), humanoid beings giving birth to patches of land or even the entire planet, the world springing forth from an egg (laid by what, I don't know...) and other such poetic-yet-highly-impossible feats? Yet no details about the difficulties inherent in this are ever presented. Ancient man would have certainly wondered about the difficulties of giving birth to an island... Did it all come out as one coherent whole, or did the bedrock and larger rocks come out first, followed by the dirt? What exactly was this goddess laying/kneeling/standing on when she gave birth? How does anything (even a god) vomit up that which it hasn't eaten? Why didn't the sun burn this god's throat on the way up? When these questions are asked, the answer is usually either "I don't know," which is really just a deflection, or "It's a metaphor for the way the world came into being. There wasn't really an egg which cracked open and spilled out the earth, but a sort of cosmic thing which can best be thought of as an egg." (big bang analogy, anyone?) Christian authors have been arguing the metaphorical nature of the bible for as long as there's been a bible, and even longer in fact. The whole "interpreting myths as metaphors" thing isn't new. If people were doing it a thousand years ago, then they were almost certainly doing it a hundred thousand years ago.
That's an explanation. Here's some evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism(There are a ton of links to sources and references at the bottom of that page, so this isn't just a single piece of evidence.)
Not evidence that my claim is true, mind, but evidence that your counter-claim is wrong, and that my claim is consistent with psychological, literary and philosophical models of mythological cosmogony.
Point 4: As per point 1, and in contrast to point 3, if my claim is "contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology," then so is yours.
So you basically made a really stupid post. Congrats. It's only your third post and you're already making a bad impression on this new community you chose to join.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 22 2009, 12:49 AM)
Wrong.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 22 2009, 12:47 AM)
I don't think so.
Of course you don't. Seeing my point and understanding what I'm saying requires intelligence and rationality, two traits you've never demonstrated here.
Of course you don't. Seeing my point and understanding what I'm saying requires intelligence and rationality, two traits you've never demonstrated here.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 22 2009, 04:38 PM)
Of course you don't. Seeing my point and understanding what I'm saying requires intelligence and rationality, two traits you've never demonstrated here.
Try sharing a few examples to back up whatever points you're referring to, so people can get a better idea what you're talking about.
Try sharing a few examples to back up whatever points you're referring to, so people can get a better idea what you're talking about.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 21 2009, 04:39 AM)
I distinguish between what is consistent with the Genesis account and you don't.
Well the sequence is wrong in the account in Genesis. Even if plants could survive for a day without light or whatever, we are all composed of heavier elements that were created by the explosions of previous generations of stars. So the plants themselves are composed of matter that was produced in stelar explosions that occured before the Earth even existed. At least that's the current theory afaik.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
The presence of higher heavier elements indicates the generation of the star. In our solar system, the sun, the planets have heavier elements in them; this shows that our sun was born out of debris of a super nova explosion that has gone through four to five cycles.
http://home.att.net/~cat4a/nuclear_VII.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
. . .
In the very early universe, the only elements were hydrogen and helium. But since the formation of stars, lighter elements within the stars began fusing to create heavier elements, producing all the other naturally occurring elements.
. . .
helium fuses with carbon to make oxygen, and helium fuses with oxygen to make neon. Heavier nuclei can also fuse with each other, such as when carbon and oxygen fuse to make silicon or two silicon atoms fuse to make iron. Eventually, the interior of a massive star begins to resemble an onion, with different elements being created in different layers. However, elements heavier than iron are only produced in the extraordinary conditions created by the collapse and explosion of a star -- a supernova.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess...ess.eiu.fusion/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Well the sequence is wrong in the account in Genesis. Even if plants could survive for a day without light or whatever, we are all composed of heavier elements that were created by the explosions of previous generations of stars. So the plants themselves are composed of matter that was produced in stelar explosions that occured before the Earth even existed. At least that's the current theory afaik.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
The presence of higher heavier elements indicates the generation of the star. In our solar system, the sun, the planets have heavier elements in them; this shows that our sun was born out of debris of a super nova explosion that has gone through four to five cycles.
http://home.att.net/~cat4a/nuclear_VII.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
. . .
In the very early universe, the only elements were hydrogen and helium. But since the formation of stars, lighter elements within the stars began fusing to create heavier elements, producing all the other naturally occurring elements.
. . .
helium fuses with carbon to make oxygen, and helium fuses with oxygen to make neon. Heavier nuclei can also fuse with each other, such as when carbon and oxygen fuse to make silicon or two silicon atoms fuse to make iron. Eventually, the interior of a massive star begins to resemble an onion, with different elements being created in different layers. However, elements heavier than iron are only produced in the extraordinary conditions created by the collapse and explosion of a star -- a supernova.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess...ess.eiu.fusion/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Sounds like your aliens did a crappy job of documenting their work.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 22 2009, 01:20 PM)
Try sharing a few examples to back up whatever points you're referring to, so people can get a better idea what you're talking about.
Try reading the thread before posting, dumbass.
Try reading the thread before posting, dumbass.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 22 2009, 12:38 PM)
Of course you don't. Seeing my point and understanding what I'm saying requires intelligence and rationality, two traits you've never demonstrated here.
I said earlier that any opinion you have of the Genesis account doesn't matter to me, now I would like to include your opinion on anything.
That doesn't look too much like a question, does it.
I said earlier that any opinion you have of the Genesis account doesn't matter to me, now I would like to include your opinion on anything.
That doesn't look too much like a question, does it.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 22 2009, 02:50 PM)
Well the sequence is wrong in the account in Genesis. Even if plants could survive for a day without light or whatever, we are all composed of heavier elements that were created by the explosions of previous generations of stars. So the plants themselves are composed of matter that was produced in stelar explosions that occured before the Earth even existed. At least that's the current theory afaik.
I know about Thermonuclear fusion.
Part of my point was that I agreed that the Genesis account of creation does not agree with what we understand about the natural processes of this universe.
The other part is that is was a different time and different place and may take a different understanding.
I know about Thermonuclear fusion.
Part of my point was that I agreed that the Genesis account of creation does not agree with what we understand about the natural processes of this universe.
The other part is that is was a different time and different place and may take a different understanding.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
Try reading the thread before posting, dumbass.
I did, which is how I know there are no examples of you trying to back up anything at all.
If you want to try to pretend that there are
, then try presenting examples of whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about 
.
I did, which is how I know there are no examples of you trying to back up anything at all.
If you want to try to pretend that there are
, then try presenting examples of whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about .
QUOTE
I've read just one of your posts and already I think you're stupid.
This is somewhat off topic, but is it normal to greet new members in such a rude manner? Perhaps you are unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you. Certainly I cannot stop you behaving like that, but we might achieve more if you were less emotional.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've read just one of your posts and already I think you're stupid. |
This is somewhat off topic, but is it normal to greet new members in such a rude manner? Perhaps you are unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you. Certainly I cannot stop you behaving like that, but we might achieve more if you were less emotional.
I claimed the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth purposefully left those myths ambiguous in order that they maintain the ability to cohere with other creation accounts, thus never letting them be proven wrong.
You claim I'm wrong, and that the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth understood these myths were highly metaphorical, -which would incidentally never let them be proven wrong- and then fail to offer any reason why this is so.
I claimed the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth purposefully left those myths ambiguous in order that they maintain the ability to cohere with other creation accounts, thus never letting them be proven wrong.
You claim I'm wrong, and that the originators and re-tellers of the biblical creation myth understood these myths were highly metaphorical, -which would incidentally never let them be proven wrong- and then fail to offer any reason why this is so.
I hope, on reflection, you can see that our two positions are quite different.
You claim that they left the myths ambiguous specifically to prevent them being proven wrong.
Yet you concede that this aspect of them, in my version, is purely incidental.
Your version asks us to accept the ambiguity is a deliberate device to obfuscate. I claim nothing of the kind.
You object to me providing no reason for why the myths were highly metaphorical. I find that remark confusing since I did provide an explanation. As I noted, anthropologists and psychologists provide all the explanation we need. Man thinks metaphorically and has a long history of myth creation. (We see it at work today every time a new urban legend arises.) Since you are engaging in a discussion on this topic I imagine you are well versed in such matters, but that still leaves me puzzled by your remark.
If you could rephrase Point 2 in English it would be helpful.
Yes, actually it is.
You have not found a nice place here.
You claim that they left the myths ambiguous specifically to prevent them being proven wrong.
Yet you concede that this aspect of them, in my version, is purely incidental.
Your version asks us to accept the ambiguity is a deliberate device to obfuscate. I claim nothing of the kind.
You object to me providing no reason for why the myths were highly metaphorical. I find that remark confusing since I did provide an explanation. As I noted, anthropologists and psychologists provide all the explanation we need. Man thinks metaphorically and has a long history of myth creation. (We see it at work today every time a new urban legend arises.) Since you are engaging in a discussion on this topic I imagine you are well versed in such matters, but that still leaves me puzzled by your remark.
If you could rephrase Point 2 in English it would be helpful.
QUOTE
Point 3: You never bother to provide anything resembling an explanation or evidence for why my claim is "contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology."
I didn't expect you to require Anthropology 101. If you are unfamiliar with the work in this area it is difficult to summarise it for you in a few words. It's a bit like having a creationist ask me to prove evolution in a single post. If you could ask some specific questions I'll do my best to clarify things for you.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Point 3: You never bother to provide anything resembling an explanation or evidence for why my claim is "contrary to any reasonable understanding of the myth creation process constructed from anthropology or psychology." |
I didn't expect you to require Anthropology 101. If you are unfamiliar with the work in this area it is difficult to summarise it for you in a few words. It's a bit like having a creationist ask me to prove evolution in a single post. If you could ask some specific questions I'll do my best to clarify things for you.
So you basically made a really stupid post. Congrats. It's only your third post and you're already making a bad impression on this new community you chose to join.
So you basically made a really stupid post. Congrats. It's only your third post and you're already making a bad impression on this new community you chose to join.
Again, thank you for the warm welcome. Bear in mind that impressions are a two way street. Fortunately I do not intend to judge this community by your behaviour.
If you choose to respond can I suggest, again, that we will get a lot further without the sarcasm, snide comments, patronising tone and general rudeness.
If you choose to respond can I suggest, again, that we will get a lot further without the sarcasm, snide comments, patronising tone and general rudeness.
QUOTE
This is somewhat off topic, but is it normal to greet new members in such a rude manner?
Yes, actually it is.
You have not found a nice place here.
Thanks for the input AlexG. I see you have survived over 1800 posts, so perhaps it's not that bad.
QUOTE (John Galt+Jun 23 2009, 04:38 PM)
Thanks for the input AlexG. I see you have survived over 1800 posts, so perhaps it's not that bad.
It depends on what you like.
It depends on what you like.
QUOTE (John Galt+Jun 23 2009, 09:38 PM)
Thanks for the input AlexG. I see you have survived over 1800 posts, so perhaps it's not that bad.
I've found him to be one of the more consistent dipsh*ts. From my experience he is the type who likes to be critical, yet can't present anything any better himself. There is a good bit of that going around but he seems to be one of the most extreme cases from my experience so far. Simply being critical without suggesting an improvement is a relatively safe though extremely lame technique. The biggest "danger"
is that someone might point it out.
I've found him to be one of the more consistent dipsh*ts. From my experience he is the type who likes to be critical, yet can't present anything any better himself. There is a good bit of that going around but he seems to be one of the most extreme cases from my experience so far. Simply being critical without suggesting an improvement is a relatively safe though extremely lame technique. The biggest "danger"
is that someone might point it out.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 22 2009, 11:39 PM)
I know about Thermonuclear fusion.
Part of my point was that I agreed that the Genesis account of creation does not agree with what we understand about the natural processes of this universe.
The other part is that is was a different time and different place and may take a different understanding.
Agreed. We can't even mine our own asteriod belt yet, so there's no telling how thinking and understanding might change when humans finally learn to crawl...that is IF they ever learn to at all...
Part of my point was that I agreed that the Genesis account of creation does not agree with what we understand about the natural processes of this universe.
The other part is that is was a different time and different place and may take a different understanding.
Agreed. We can't even mine our own asteriod belt yet, so there's no telling how thinking and understanding might change when humans finally learn to crawl...that is IF they ever learn to at all...
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 24 2009, 03:38 PM)
I've found him to be one of the more consistent dipsh*ts. From my experience he is the type who likes to be critical, yet can't present anything any better himself. There is a good bit of that going around but he seems to be one of the most extreme cases from my experience so far. Simply being critical without suggesting an improvement is a relatively safe though extremely lame technique. The biggest "danger" is that someone might point it out.
Tell that philosophy to the FDA.
They are only critical of people selling food and drugs but never come up with anything better themselves.
Preventing people from spreading nonsense and bad logic is a good thing.
is that someone might point it out. Tell that philosophy to the FDA.
They are only critical of people selling food and drugs but never come up with anything better themselves.
Preventing people from spreading nonsense and bad logic is a good thing.
QUOTE (John Galt+Jun 23 2009, 04:11 PM)
This is somewhat off topic, but is it normal to greet new members in such a rude manner?
When they make stupid posts, it is.
No, actually, I'm very used to it.
No, actually, I'm very used to it.
Certainly I cannot stop you behaving like that, but we might achieve more if you were less emotional.
Yet another stupid thing to say, and this one blows the others out of the water!
No. You apparently don't understand this concept that exists in the English language called 'implications'. You see, when I used that word 're-tellers' in my claim, that came with the implication that the myths were already ambiguous to these people. Only the originators of such myths control how they're originated. Those who re-tell them don't, they only control how they're re-told. That means that with regards to the re-tellers of the myths, our statements are identical. They differ only with regards to the intentions of the originators of the myths. Since you never addressed this, you are leaving the subject open, meaning your counter claim did not actually disagree with my claim.
No. You apparently don't understand this concept that exists in the English language called 'implications'. You see, when I used that word 're-tellers' in my claim, that came with the implication that the myths were already ambiguous to these people. Only the originators of such myths control how they're originated. Those who re-tell them don't, they only control how they're re-told. That means that with regards to the re-tellers of the myths, our statements are identical. They differ only with regards to the intentions of the originators of the myths. Since you never addressed this, you are leaving the subject open, meaning your counter claim did not actually disagree with my claim.
You claim that they left the myths ambiguous specifically to prevent them being proven wrong. Yet you concede that this aspect of them, in my version, is purely incidental.
Allow me to help you with some difficulty you seem to be having.
The word "almost" is a qualifier. It means "very similar to" or "close, but not quite". Now go back and re-read what I said with that in mind.
A counter claim to mine would not be what you claimed (which affects only the re-tellers of these myths, and does make any statement whatsoever about the originators), but rather "These myths probably weren't originally ambiguous, it's just that the details were lost over time."
That's just one example. There are others which would actually be counter to my claim.
You did not provide any explanation. You provided a very similar claim as a counter claim, whined about people calling the ambiguity of these myths a weakness, and then went on to speculate off-topic about the artistic and cultural worth of these myths. In fact, I agree that these myths have a great cultural and artistic value. I would never -as was implied by your post- suggest that such myths are entirely useless, only useless in a scientific sense.
"Man thinks metaphorically?"
Do you even know what a metaphor or analogy is? That's yet another incredibly stupid thing to say. Man thinks in terms of absolute qualities, patterns, connections and similarities, which lends itself well to the creation and interpretation of metaphors and analogies. But to suggest that man thinks in terms of metaphors and analogies is incredibly stupid, given the practical application of so much knowledge demonstrated by so many people over the hundreds of thousands of years we have lived on this planet.
Even if man spoke in terms of metaphors and analogies, communication would be incredibly difficult. For instance, assume you want to say that the fire engine you just saw was red. You turn to your friend and say "the fire engine was like a rose."
Your friend saw the fire engine as well, but he didn't think its color was that remarkable, and instead noticed the smell of the diesel exhaust and the way the sunlight reflected off of it, so he says "No, it was like the surface of a swamp."
You realize he's misunderstanding you, and say "It was like blood."
Again, your friend is perceiving things differently, so he focuses on the function of blood, as a life-giving substance, and says "No, it was more like antibodies."
In the end, you've failed to communicate your ideas to your friend, or at best, you've spent hours discussing something as simple as color.
The fact is that metaphors and analogies don't work without the absolutes that constitute human thought processes. We see a fire engine and notice that it's a certain, absolute color, a certain, absolute shape, a certain, absolute smell, etc. With that knowledge, we then use our ability to discern patterns and similarities to form a metaphor, allowing us to say "That fire engine was the color of a rose."
If our basic thought processes were metaphors and analogies, how would we define the color of a rose? By comparison to other things, whose color is in turn defined by comparison to yet other things, including roses.
You did not provide any explanation. You provided a very similar claim as a counter claim, whined about people calling the ambiguity of these myths a weakness, and then went on to speculate off-topic about the artistic and cultural worth of these myths. In fact, I agree that these myths have a great cultural and artistic value. I would never -as was implied by your post- suggest that such myths are entirely useless, only useless in a scientific sense.
"Man thinks metaphorically?"
Do you even know what a metaphor or analogy is? That's yet another incredibly stupid thing to say. Man thinks in terms of absolute qualities, patterns, connections and similarities, which lends itself well to the creation and interpretation of metaphors and analogies. But to suggest that man thinks in terms of metaphors and analogies is incredibly stupid, given the practical application of so much knowledge demonstrated by so many people over the hundreds of thousands of years we have lived on this planet.
Even if man spoke in terms of metaphors and analogies, communication would be incredibly difficult. For instance, assume you want to say that the fire engine you just saw was red. You turn to your friend and say "the fire engine was like a rose."
Your friend saw the fire engine as well, but he didn't think its color was that remarkable, and instead noticed the smell of the diesel exhaust and the way the sunlight reflected off of it, so he says "No, it was like the surface of a swamp."
You realize he's misunderstanding you, and say "It was like blood."
Again, your friend is perceiving things differently, so he focuses on the function of blood, as a life-giving substance, and says "No, it was more like antibodies."
In the end, you've failed to communicate your ideas to your friend, or at best, you've spent hours discussing something as simple as color.
The fact is that metaphors and analogies don't work without the absolutes that constitute human thought processes. We see a fire engine and notice that it's a certain, absolute color, a certain, absolute shape, a certain, absolute smell, etc. With that knowledge, we then use our ability to discern patterns and similarities to form a metaphor, allowing us to say "That fire engine was the color of a rose."
If our basic thought processes were metaphors and analogies, how would we define the color of a rose? By comparison to other things, whose color is in turn defined by comparison to yet other things, including roses.
(We see it at work today every time a new urban legend arises.) Since you are engaging in a discussion on this topic I imagine you are well versed in such matters, but that still leaves me puzzled by your remark.
People who make consistently stupid posts are often puzzled by what I have to say.
It already is. The fact that you can't comprehend it is not my problem. Try asking a smart friend to read it for you and explain what I mean.
It already is. The fact that you can't comprehend it is not my problem. Try asking a smart friend to read it for you and explain what I mean.
I didn't expect you to require Anthropology 101. If you are unfamiliar with the work in this area it is difficult to summarise it for you in a few words. It's a bit like having a creationist ask me to prove evolution in a single post. If you could ask some specific questions I'll do my best to clarify things for you.
Oh this is nice, a smoke screen to hide the fact that you're insisting I'm wrong simply because you say so. But ok, I'll bite.
Specific question number one: Where is any evidence whatsoever that contradicts my claim?
I've already provided evidence that many educated and rational people hold at least part of the view I've claimed, and that this view is internally consistent and not contradicted by what we know about the way people view mythology.
The burden is now on you.
By the way, do you even know what fields are relevant to this discussion? "Anthropology" is such a generalized field that it would be virtually useless here. Cultural anthropology, psychology, ancient literature and philosophy would be relevant fields of study, but "anthropology" is nothing but the study of humans, and thus by definition includes a wide variety of fields.
Unfortunately for you, I assure you that this community will judge you by your behavior, which has thus far not been very impressive.
Unfortunately for you, I assure you that this community will judge you by your behavior, which has thus far not been very impressive.
If you choose to respond can I suggest, again, that we will get a lot further without the sarcasm, snide comments, patronising tone and general rudeness.
Do I really need to remind you that you've already claimed a section of my post you didn't understand wasn't written in English? I suppose that doesn't count as general rudeness, sarcasm, or a snide comment because you made it. (Yes, that last sentence was more sarcasm...)
You want me to drop the sarcasm and snide comments? Then you need to do three things:
1. Provide an explanation or evidence when you make a claim or counter claim. (for the record, my original claim is self-explanatory, which is why I didn't elaborate further to begin with. If you don't get it, I'll be a nice guy and spell it out for you.)
2. Either demonstrate some knowledge of the subject, or phrase your responses in such a way as to indicate that you lack it.
3. Don't ever make claims about someone's emotional or mental state over the internet (at least not without providing some evidence to support your claim). It's about the dumbest thing you can do.
Considering the source of this comment, this is one of the nicest things said about me. If an a$$hole like nopEda takes offense at what I've posted, I'm doing something right.
When they make stupid posts, it is.
QUOTE
Perhaps you are unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you.
No, actually, I'm very used to it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you are unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you. |
No, actually, I'm very used to it.
Certainly I cannot stop you behaving like that, but we might achieve more if you were less emotional.
Yet another stupid thing to say, and this one blows the others out of the water!
QUOTE
I hope, on reflection, you can see that our two positions are quite different.
No. You apparently don't understand this concept that exists in the English language called 'implications'. You see, when I used that word 're-tellers' in my claim, that came with the implication that the myths were already ambiguous to these people. Only the originators of such myths control how they're originated. Those who re-tell them don't, they only control how they're re-told. That means that with regards to the re-tellers of the myths, our statements are identical. They differ only with regards to the intentions of the originators of the myths. Since you never addressed this, you are leaving the subject open, meaning your counter claim did not actually disagree with my claim.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I hope, on reflection, you can see that our two positions are quite different. |
No. You apparently don't understand this concept that exists in the English language called 'implications'. You see, when I used that word 're-tellers' in my claim, that came with the implication that the myths were already ambiguous to these people. Only the originators of such myths control how they're originated. Those who re-tell them don't, they only control how they're re-told. That means that with regards to the re-tellers of the myths, our statements are identical. They differ only with regards to the intentions of the originators of the myths. Since you never addressed this, you are leaving the subject open, meaning your counter claim did not actually disagree with my claim.
You claim that they left the myths ambiguous specifically to prevent them being proven wrong. Yet you concede that this aspect of them, in my version, is purely incidental.
Allow me to help you with some difficulty you seem to be having.
The word "almost" is a qualifier. It means "very similar to" or "close, but not quite". Now go back and re-read what I said with that in mind.
A counter claim to mine would not be what you claimed (which affects only the re-tellers of these myths, and does make any statement whatsoever about the originators), but rather "These myths probably weren't originally ambiguous, it's just that the details were lost over time."
That's just one example. There are others which would actually be counter to my claim.
QUOTE
You object to me providing no reason for why the myths were highly metaphorical. I find that remark confusing since I did provide an explanation. As I noted, anthropologists and psychologists provide all the explanation we need. Man thinks metaphorically and has a long history of myth creation.
You did not provide any explanation. You provided a very similar claim as a counter claim, whined about people calling the ambiguity of these myths a weakness, and then went on to speculate off-topic about the artistic and cultural worth of these myths. In fact, I agree that these myths have a great cultural and artistic value. I would never -as was implied by your post- suggest that such myths are entirely useless, only useless in a scientific sense.
"Man thinks metaphorically?"
Do you even know what a metaphor or analogy is? That's yet another incredibly stupid thing to say. Man thinks in terms of absolute qualities, patterns, connections and similarities, which lends itself well to the creation and interpretation of metaphors and analogies. But to suggest that man thinks in terms of metaphors and analogies is incredibly stupid, given the practical application of so much knowledge demonstrated by so many people over the hundreds of thousands of years we have lived on this planet.
Even if man spoke in terms of metaphors and analogies, communication would be incredibly difficult. For instance, assume you want to say that the fire engine you just saw was red. You turn to your friend and say "the fire engine was like a rose."
Your friend saw the fire engine as well, but he didn't think its color was that remarkable, and instead noticed the smell of the diesel exhaust and the way the sunlight reflected off of it, so he says "No, it was like the surface of a swamp."
You realize he's misunderstanding you, and say "It was like blood."
Again, your friend is perceiving things differently, so he focuses on the function of blood, as a life-giving substance, and says "No, it was more like antibodies."
In the end, you've failed to communicate your ideas to your friend, or at best, you've spent hours discussing something as simple as color.
The fact is that metaphors and analogies don't work without the absolutes that constitute human thought processes. We see a fire engine and notice that it's a certain, absolute color, a certain, absolute shape, a certain, absolute smell, etc. With that knowledge, we then use our ability to discern patterns and similarities to form a metaphor, allowing us to say "That fire engine was the color of a rose."
If our basic thought processes were metaphors and analogies, how would we define the color of a rose? By comparison to other things, whose color is in turn defined by comparison to yet other things, including roses.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You object to me providing no reason for why the myths were highly metaphorical. I find that remark confusing since I did provide an explanation. As I noted, anthropologists and psychologists provide all the explanation we need. Man thinks metaphorically and has a long history of myth creation. |
You did not provide any explanation. You provided a very similar claim as a counter claim, whined about people calling the ambiguity of these myths a weakness, and then went on to speculate off-topic about the artistic and cultural worth of these myths. In fact, I agree that these myths have a great cultural and artistic value. I would never -as was implied by your post- suggest that such myths are entirely useless, only useless in a scientific sense.
"Man thinks metaphorically?"
Do you even know what a metaphor or analogy is? That's yet another incredibly stupid thing to say. Man thinks in terms of absolute qualities, patterns, connections and similarities, which lends itself well to the creation and interpretation of metaphors and analogies. But to suggest that man thinks in terms of metaphors and analogies is incredibly stupid, given the practical application of so much knowledge demonstrated by so many people over the hundreds of thousands of years we have lived on this planet.
Even if man spoke in terms of metaphors and analogies, communication would be incredibly difficult. For instance, assume you want to say that the fire engine you just saw was red. You turn to your friend and say "the fire engine was like a rose."
Your friend saw the fire engine as well, but he didn't think its color was that remarkable, and instead noticed the smell of the diesel exhaust and the way the sunlight reflected off of it, so he says "No, it was like the surface of a swamp."
You realize he's misunderstanding you, and say "It was like blood."
Again, your friend is perceiving things differently, so he focuses on the function of blood, as a life-giving substance, and says "No, it was more like antibodies."
In the end, you've failed to communicate your ideas to your friend, or at best, you've spent hours discussing something as simple as color.
The fact is that metaphors and analogies don't work without the absolutes that constitute human thought processes. We see a fire engine and notice that it's a certain, absolute color, a certain, absolute shape, a certain, absolute smell, etc. With that knowledge, we then use our ability to discern patterns and similarities to form a metaphor, allowing us to say "That fire engine was the color of a rose."
If our basic thought processes were metaphors and analogies, how would we define the color of a rose? By comparison to other things, whose color is in turn defined by comparison to yet other things, including roses.
(We see it at work today every time a new urban legend arises.) Since you are engaging in a discussion on this topic I imagine you are well versed in such matters, but that still leaves me puzzled by your remark.
People who make consistently stupid posts are often puzzled by what I have to say.
QUOTE
If you could rephrase Point 2 in English it would be helpful.
It already is. The fact that you can't comprehend it is not my problem. Try asking a smart friend to read it for you and explain what I mean.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you could rephrase Point 2 in English it would be helpful. |
It already is. The fact that you can't comprehend it is not my problem. Try asking a smart friend to read it for you and explain what I mean.
I didn't expect you to require Anthropology 101. If you are unfamiliar with the work in this area it is difficult to summarise it for you in a few words. It's a bit like having a creationist ask me to prove evolution in a single post. If you could ask some specific questions I'll do my best to clarify things for you.
Oh this is nice, a smoke screen to hide the fact that you're insisting I'm wrong simply because you say so. But ok, I'll bite.
Specific question number one: Where is any evidence whatsoever that contradicts my claim?
I've already provided evidence that many educated and rational people hold at least part of the view I've claimed, and that this view is internally consistent and not contradicted by what we know about the way people view mythology.
The burden is now on you.
By the way, do you even know what fields are relevant to this discussion? "Anthropology" is such a generalized field that it would be virtually useless here. Cultural anthropology, psychology, ancient literature and philosophy would be relevant fields of study, but "anthropology" is nothing but the study of humans, and thus by definition includes a wide variety of fields.
QUOTE
Again, thank you for the warm welcome. Bear in mind that impressions are a two way street. Fortunately I do not intend to judge this community by your behaviour.
Unfortunately for you, I assure you that this community will judge you by your behavior, which has thus far not been very impressive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, thank you for the warm welcome. Bear in mind that impressions are a two way street. Fortunately I do not intend to judge this community by your behaviour. |
Unfortunately for you, I assure you that this community will judge you by your behavior, which has thus far not been very impressive.
If you choose to respond can I suggest, again, that we will get a lot further without the sarcasm, snide comments, patronising tone and general rudeness.
Do I really need to remind you that you've already claimed a section of my post you didn't understand wasn't written in English? I suppose that doesn't count as general rudeness, sarcasm, or a snide comment because you made it. (Yes, that last sentence was more sarcasm...)
You want me to drop the sarcasm and snide comments? Then you need to do three things:
1. Provide an explanation or evidence when you make a claim or counter claim. (for the record, my original claim is self-explanatory, which is why I didn't elaborate further to begin with. If you don't get it, I'll be a nice guy and spell it out for you.)
2. Either demonstrate some knowledge of the subject, or phrase your responses in such a way as to indicate that you lack it.
3. Don't ever make claims about someone's emotional or mental state over the internet (at least not without providing some evidence to support your claim). It's about the dumbest thing you can do.
QUOTE
I've found him to be one of the more consistent dipsh*ts. From my experience he is the type who likes to be critical, yet can't present anything any better himself. There is a good bit of that going around but he seems to be one of the most extreme cases from my experience so far.
Considering the source of this comment, this is one of the nicest things said about me. If an a$$hole like nopEda takes offense at what I've posted, I'm doing something right.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 24 2009, 05:06 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I've found him to be one of the more consistent dipsh*ts. From my experience he is the type who likes to be critical, yet can't present anything any better himself. There is a good bit of that going around but he seems to be one of the most extreme cases from my experience so far. Simply being critical without suggesting an improvement is a relatively safe though extremely lame technique.
Considering the source of this comment, this is one of the nicest things said about me. If an a$$hole like nopEda takes offense at what I've posted, I'm doing something right.
I said you were critical without being able to provide anything any better, and pointed out how lame that is. It produces more of a feeling of disgust with a shade of pitty toward you than anything else, and not much if any feeling of offense. In order for something to be offensive there would have to be something at least somewhat respectable about it afaik or there would be nothing to take offense to, which is the case with your particular brand of whining. You don't really have a valid complaint, so another way of referring to your type of method is:
Bitching without a bitch.
Considering the source of this comment, this is one of the nicest things said about me. If an a$$hole like nopEda takes offense at what I've posted, I'm doing something right.
I said you were critical without being able to provide anything any better, and pointed out how lame that is. It produces more of a feeling of disgust with a shade of pitty toward you than anything else, and not much if any feeling of offense. In order for something to be offensive there would have to be something at least somewhat respectable about it afaik or there would be nothing to take offense to, which is the case with your particular brand of whining. You don't really have a valid complaint, so another way of referring to your type of method is: Bitching without a bitch
.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 24 2009, 04:11 PM)
Tell that philosophy to the FDA.
They are only critical of people selling food and drugs but never come up with anything better themselves.
Who are you saying comes up with their rules and guidelines since you say they don't do it?
They are only critical of people selling food and drugs but never come up with anything better themselves.
Who are you saying comes up with their rules and guidelines since you say they don't do it?
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 24 2009, 07:03 PM)
Who are you saying comes up with their rules and guidelines since you say they don't do it?
They don't come up with food and drugs.
Alexg shows understanding, logic, and knowledge.
They don't come up with food and drugs.
Alexg shows understanding, logic, and knowledge.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 24 2009, 02:14 PM)
Alexg shows understanding, logic, and knowledge.
Thank you.
nopEda shows none of those characteristics, which is why he invented his own language.
Thank you.
nopEda shows none of those characteristics, which is why he invented his own language.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 24 2009, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE (John Galt+)
If you choose to respond can I suggest, again, that we will get a lot further without the sarcasm, snide comments, patronising tone and general rudeness.
Do I really need to remind you that you've already claimed a section of my post you didn't understand wasn't written in English? I suppose that doesn't count as general rudeness, sarcasm, or a snide comment because you made it.
What rude stupid thing did you write to encourage it, do you even know?
Why would the ratio here be any different than that in the general public?
Why would the ratio here be any different than that in the general public?
Actually, there seems to be a considerably better ratio of intelligent people to numbnuts here. It's just that I would expect better from a supposed science forum (even this one). If we could get it down to 1 rational person for every two retards, I'd be happy.
Do I really need to remind you that you've already claimed a section of my post you didn't understand wasn't written in English? I suppose that doesn't count as general rudeness, sarcasm, or a snide comment because you made it.
What rude stupid thing did you write to encourage it, do you even know
?QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
You want me to drop the sarcasm and snide comments? Then you need to do three things:
1. Provide an explanation or evidence when you make a claim or counter claim. (for the record, my original claim is self-explanatory, which is why I didn't elaborate further to begin with. If you don't get it, I'll be a nice guy and spell it out for you.)
2. Either demonstrate some knowledge of the subject, or phrase your responses in such a way as to indicate that you lack it.
3. Don't ever make claims about someone's emotional or mental state over the internet (at least not without providing some evidence to support your claim). It's about the dumbest thing you can do.
You should try to be less critical and emotional unless you want to remind people of a mother hen.
A supposedly cow tipping mother hen...
What an image that conjures.
1. Provide an explanation or evidence when you make a claim or counter claim. (for the record, my original claim is self-explanatory, which is why I didn't elaborate further to begin with. If you don't get it, I'll be a nice guy and spell it out for you.)
2. Either demonstrate some knowledge of the subject, or phrase your responses in such a way as to indicate that you lack it.
3. Don't ever make claims about someone's emotional or mental state over the internet (at least not without providing some evidence to support your claim). It's about the dumbest thing you can do.
You should try to be less critical and emotional unless you want to remind people of a mother hen.
A supposedly cow tipping mother hen...
What an image that conjures.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 24 2009, 02:28 PM)
What rude stupid thing did you write to encourage it, do you even know ?
Nothing. It takes a mоrоn like you to think that such would be required.
How did I know you'd be dumb enough to do the same thing?
Jesus H. Christ, does this board advertise itself as a haven for retards or something? I swear, for every rational person who signs up, we get 4 or 5 complete dumbasses....
Nothing. It takes a mоrоn like you to think that such would be required.
QUOTE
You should try to be less critical and emotional unless you want to remind people of a mother hen.
How did I know you'd be dumb enough to do the same thing?
Jesus H. Christ, does this board advertise itself as a haven for retards or something? I swear, for every rational person who signs up, we get 4 or 5 complete dumbasses....
QUOTE
I swear, for every rational person who signs up, we get 4 or 5 complete dumbasses....
Why would the ratio here be any different than that in the general public?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 24 2009, 07:42 PM)
Nothing. It takes a mоrоn like you to think that such would be required.
Since you're rude and write stupid things, it's not all that strange for someone to ask the question. I also couldn't help but be amused by the fact that you dodged the question, and you did it in a very rude and stupid way .
Since you're rude and write stupid things, it's not all that strange for someone to ask the question.
I also couldn't help but be amused by the fact that you dodged the question, and you did it in a very rude and stupid way .
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 24 2009, 02:58 PM)
Why would the ratio here be any different than that in the general public?
Actually, there seems to be a considerably better ratio of intelligent people to numbnuts here. It's just that I would expect better from a supposed science forum (even this one). If we could get it down to 1 rational person for every two retards, I'd be happy.
QUOTE (NopEda+)
Since you're rude and write stupid things, it's not all that strange for someone to ask the question.
NopEda, the only time I ever wrote anything stupid on this forum was when I once accidentally deleted part of your post which I was quoting and typed it back in by hand.
And there was no dodging of the question, dumbass. The fact that you can't understand the meaning of my response just goes to further evince your own mental disability.
As far as general stupidity goes, check my feedback page. Then check yours. The only positive feedback you've gotten was from a certifiably disturbed, anti-semetic, juvenile and purposefully disruptive troll (discounting a single pos from a guy who's no better than you by any measure, and known to give posses to anyone with poor feedback), whereas mine comes from pretty much everyone with a good reputation on this forum. Your negative feedback comes from every member of good repute and then some, whereas mine comes from those of ill repute almost exclusively...
Let's compare, shall we?
NopEda's positive feedback:
Fairy's various incarnations
Edward 3
MjolnirPant's positive feedback:
Trippy
TheDoc
Sapo
bm1957
Ron
Trout
Sinister Utopia
xtrmn8r
am_Unition
vkamath
Beer w/Straw
kjw
gmilam
soundhertz
Gorgeous
N O M
"THEY"
Tikay
Raphie Frank
theory_of_nj
PhotoJack
gabba gabba hey
GeneSplicer
Masked Marauder
Grumpy
Derek1148
AlexG
Olanzapine
Bloy
occidental
Argyll
DuzmA
RobDegraves
Michael J
flyingbuttressman
You might notice I excluded a few.... Any handle I considered to be a possible sockpuppet was excluded, even the 'original' handle of the puppeteer. I'm sure some of those aren't sockpuppets, but better to be on the safe side. Besides, it's not like I was in danger of loosing. Even after nixing the possible sockpuppets, I've got a better reputation than you by a factor of 35 to 2. To put that in perspective, about 1 in 18 people have a third nipple. About 1 in 18 alcoholics get treatment. 1 in 18 men in the US are serving time in a penitentiary.
You get it now? No, of course not. You're stupid! That's the whole point of this, isn't it?
What it means is that if both of us knew everyone on the planet, on average, only those with third nipples would have anything "nice" to say about you. If we both knew everyone in the US, only those in prison would have anything "nice" to say about you. If we both knew every alcoholic in the US, only those in AA would have anything "nice" to say about you. That's nothing, my friend. Less than 10%. It's about 5.7%.
You understand now? Only 5.7% of people on this forum have anything "nice" to say about you. And what was it they had to say? Well, both of them possed you because people they disliked negged you. They didn't even say anything that was actually nice about you!
They just figured "Well, the enemy of my enemy..." and possed away.
So when it comes down to it, less than 6% of scientifically-interested people will tolerate you, and not one of them will have even the slightest nice thing to say about you.
So go ahead and call me stupid, dumbass. Make mоrоnic claims about me. Refuse to understand the simple English I use when I decides to slum it for a bit and lower myself to respond to you. Nobody gives a shіt what you think but you.
NopEda, the only time I ever wrote anything stupid on this forum was when I once accidentally deleted part of your post which I was quoting and typed it back in by hand.
And there was no dodging of the question, dumbass. The fact that you can't understand the meaning of my response just goes to further evince your own mental disability.
As far as general stupidity goes, check my feedback page. Then check yours. The only positive feedback you've gotten was from a certifiably disturbed, anti-semetic, juvenile and purposefully disruptive troll (discounting a single pos from a guy who's no better than you by any measure, and known to give posses to anyone with poor feedback), whereas mine comes from pretty much everyone with a good reputation on this forum. Your negative feedback comes from every member of good repute and then some, whereas mine comes from those of ill repute almost exclusively...
Let's compare, shall we?
NopEda's positive feedback:
Fairy's various incarnations
Edward 3
MjolnirPant's positive feedback:
Trippy
TheDoc
Sapo
bm1957
Ron
Trout
Sinister Utopia
xtrmn8r
am_Unition
vkamath
Beer w/Straw
kjw
gmilam
soundhertz
Gorgeous
N O M
"THEY"
Tikay
Raphie Frank
theory_of_nj
PhotoJack
gabba gabba hey
GeneSplicer
Masked Marauder
Grumpy
Derek1148
AlexG
Olanzapine
Bloy
occidental
Argyll
DuzmA
RobDegraves
Michael J
flyingbuttressman
You might notice I excluded a few.... Any handle I considered to be a possible sockpuppet was excluded, even the 'original' handle of the puppeteer. I'm sure some of those aren't sockpuppets, but better to be on the safe side. Besides, it's not like I was in danger of loosing. Even after nixing the possible sockpuppets, I've got a better reputation than you by a factor of 35 to 2. To put that in perspective, about 1 in 18 people have a third nipple. About 1 in 18 alcoholics get treatment. 1 in 18 men in the US are serving time in a penitentiary.
You get it now? No, of course not. You're stupid! That's the whole point of this, isn't it?
What it means is that if both of us knew everyone on the planet, on average, only those with third nipples would have anything "nice" to say about you. If we both knew everyone in the US, only those in prison would have anything "nice" to say about you. If we both knew every alcoholic in the US, only those in AA would have anything "nice" to say about you. That's nothing, my friend. Less than 10%. It's about 5.7%.
You understand now? Only 5.7% of people on this forum have anything "nice" to say about you. And what was it they had to say? Well, both of them possed you because people they disliked negged you. They didn't even say anything that was actually nice about you!
They just figured "Well, the enemy of my enemy..." and possed away.
So when it comes down to it, less than 6% of scientifically-interested people will tolerate you, and not one of them will have even the slightest nice thing to say about you.
So go ahead and call me stupid, dumbass. Make mоrоnic claims about me. Refuse to understand the simple English I use when I decides to slum it for a bit and lower myself to respond to you. Nobody gives a shіt what you think but you.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 25 2009, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (NopEda+)
Since you're rude and write stupid things, it's not all that strange for someone to ask the question.
Only 5.7% of people on this forum have anything "nice" to say about you.
That is hilarious. In case you haven't noticed
, I have made no attempt at all to be liked or popular. If I got positive feedback from a group of people like this then I wouldn't be doing what I do, which is point out things people want to deny. I am always much hated when I point out things people don't want to think about . It goes with the job you dumbass.
Just curious ... what job is that?
Let's see...
Janitor for a Creationist Museum?
Head blogger for the Alien Conspiracy Now website?
Spiritual adviser to Lindsay Lohan?
Drop a few hints will ya.
High Priest for a religion with one believer.
Only 5.7% of people on this forum have anything "nice" to say about you.
That is hilarious. In case you haven't noticed
, I have made no attempt at all to be liked or popular. If I got positive feedback from a group of people like this then I wouldn't be doing what I do, which is point out things people want to deny. I am always much hated when I point out things people don't want to think about . It goes with the job you dumbass.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 25 2009, 01:22 PM)
I am always much hated
Look at that! Just a lil bit of quote mining and it looks like you actually said something accurate for once in your pathetic life.
Look at that! Just a lil bit of quote mining and it looks like you actually said something accurate for once in your pathetic life.
QUOTE
It goes with the job
Just curious ... what job is that?
Let's see...
Janitor for a Creationist Museum?
Head blogger for the Alien Conspiracy Now website?
Spiritual adviser to Lindsay Lohan?
Drop a few hints will ya.
QUOTE
Just curious ... what job is that?
High Priest for a religion with one believer.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 25 2009, 06:25 PM)
Look at that! Just a lil bit of quote mining and it looks like you actually said something accurate for once in your pathetic life.
I can afford to be more honest than you can, in large part because I don't mind when people hate me for it. And bullshits like you are the people who have reason to hate me most.
I can afford to be more honest than you can, in large part because I don't mind when people hate me for it
. And bullshits like you are the people who have reason to hate me most.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 25 2009, 06:45 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
It goes with the job
If a creation exists there must be a creator.
Every thing that is made is evidence for a creator. God has made this obvious. But people choose not to acknowledge Him and do bad.
See Romans 1:16-32 NLT
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...32;&version=51;
But God sent His Son into the world, not to judge the world but to save it from the penalty of sin, which is death
See John 3:16-21 NLT
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...21;&version=51;
Unsupported and innacurate assumption.
Unsupported and innacurate assumption.
Are you saying self assemby without a cause?
We have now left the realm of rational discussion and have entered the faith based zone.
We have now left the realm of rational discussion and have entered the faith based zone.
What you believe is a factor in determining your actions.
Just curious ... what job is that?
Pointing out things people want to deny, and then usually the bullshit they try to cover them up with.
Pointing out things people want to deny, and then usually the bullshit they try to cover them up with.
QUOTE (nopEda+Jun 26 2009, 06:19 PM)
I can afford to be more honest than you can, in large part because I don't mind when people hate me for it . And bullshits like you are the people who have reason to hate me most.
Then why aren't you?
You argue that God exists, but you come on here but don't say that.
Instead you say "if". But you don't use "IF" properly.
That is very dishonest.
If God exists, he must be an alien. That says nothing
You have to continue.
There is no evidence for space aliens, therefore there is no evidence for God.
You won't accept that.
MP hates your dishonesty, which is so deep you are being dishonest with yourself.
. And bullshits like you are the people who have reason to hate me most. Then why aren't you?
You argue that God exists, but you come on here but don't say that.
Instead you say "if". But you don't use "IF" properly.
That is very dishonest.
If God exists, he must be an alien. That says nothing
You have to continue.
There is no evidence for space aliens, therefore there is no evidence for God.
You won't accept that.
MP hates your dishonesty, which is so deep you are being dishonest with yourself.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 26 2009, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE
If you want to understand Evolution start with nothing then look at reality."
If a creation exists there must be a creator.
Every thing that is made is evidence for a creator. God has made this obvious. But people choose not to acknowledge Him and do bad.
See Romans 1:16-32 NLT
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...32;&version=51;
But God sent His Son into the world, not to judge the world but to save it from the penalty of sin, which is death
See John 3:16-21 NLT
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...21;&version=51;
QUOTE (sporacle+Jun 16 2009, 08:05 AM)
There are oodles of threads on this forum debating God, intelligence, origins, etc, but not much about the mechanics of evolutionary change.
What are the basic mechanics of evolution?
There's an old book called the causes of evolution, it sounds like you've read it, or looked at it.
What are the basic mechanics of evolution?
There's an old book called the causes of evolution, it sounds like you've read it, or looked at it.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 04:04 PM)
If a creation exists there must be a creator.
Every thing that is made is evidence for a creator. God has made this obvious. But people choose not to acknowledge Him and do bad.
What does belief in a creator have to do with being "good" or "bad"?
Every thing that is made is evidence for a creator. God has made this obvious. But people choose not to acknowledge Him and do bad.
What does belief in a creator have to do with being "good" or "bad"?
QUOTE
If a creation exists there must be a creator.
Unsupported and innacurate assumption.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 26 2009, 09:14 PM)
Unsupported and innacurate assumption.
Are you saying self assemby without a cause?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 04:19 PM)
Are you saying self assemby without a cause?
I'm saying that physics shows that the universe could well arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations. No creator needed.
Positing God as the source of creation simply pushes the whole question of existence back a step to the question of where did God come from? It solves nothing and complicates the situtation with an unexplained and unexplainable cause.
I'm saying that physics shows that the universe could well arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations. No creator needed.
Positing God as the source of creation simply pushes the whole question of existence back a step to the question of where did God come from? It solves nothing and complicates the situtation with an unexplained and unexplainable cause.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 04:19 PM)
Are you saying self assemby without a cause?
Are you suggesting that a creator self-assembled without a cause?
Are you suggesting that a creator self-assembled without a cause?
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 26 2009, 09:13 PM)
What does belief in a creator have to do with being "good" or "bad"?
He is good, perfect we are not. As we believe in/trust Him he will help us to have love, peace, joy, kindness..
He is good, perfect we are not. As we believe in/trust Him he will help us to have love, peace, joy, kindness..
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 26 2009, 09:51 PM)
Are you suggesting that a creator self-assembled without a cause?
No but I believe that is what molecules to man evolution suggests. I believe that Jesus/God always was.
No but I believe that is what molecules to man evolution suggests. I believe that Jesus/God always was.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 26 2009, 09:22 PM)
I'm saying that physics shows that the universe could well arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations. No creator needed.
Positing God as the source of creation simply pushes the whole question of existence back a step to the question of where did God come from? It solves nothing and complicates the situtation with an unexplained and unexplainable cause.
Not if God is knowable.
Positing God as the source of creation simply pushes the whole question of existence back a step to the question of where did God come from? It solves nothing and complicates the situtation with an unexplained and unexplainable cause.
Not if God is knowable.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 05:33 PM)
Not if God is knowable.
Ok, then, where did God come from, how was He created and how did he create the universe.
Ok, then, where did God come from, how was He created and how did he create the universe.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 26 2009, 10:35 PM)
Ok, then, where did God come from, how was He created and how did he create the universe.
Like I said God always was. Genesis chapter 1 talks about the creation of the universe. I've been looking for the spacetime theorum. Some physicists say it like God exists outside of time. http://www.carm.org/questions/about-doctri...re-did-god-come Interesting topic. Biblical cosmology
Like I said God always was. Genesis chapter 1 talks about the creation of the universe. I've been looking for the spacetime theorum. Some physicists say it like God exists outside of time. http://www.carm.org/questions/about-doctri...re-did-god-come Interesting topic. Biblical cosmology
QUOTE
Like I said God always was. Genesis chapter 1 talks about the creation of the universe.
We have now left the realm of rational discussion and have entered the faith based zone.
The meaning of life is contained in every single expression of life. It is present in the infinity of forms and phenomena that exist in all of creation
QUOTE (Michael Jackson+Jun 26 2009, 11:03 PM)
The meaning of life is contained in every single expression of life. It is present in the infinity of forms and phenomena that exist in all of creation
beat it, Just beat it (couldn't resist
beat it, Just beat it
(couldn't resist
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 26 2009, 10:58 PM)
We have now left the realm of rational discussion and have entered the faith based zone.
What you believe is a factor in determining your actions.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 05:11 PM)
He is good, perfect we are not. As we believe in/trust Him he will help us to have love, peace, joy, kindness..
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 27 2009, 12:10 AM)
I assume you've never heard of the Westboro Baptist Church.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
That's a lie! (I didn't wait for the site to load)
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
That's a lie! (I didn't wait for the site to load)
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 26 2009, 08:04 PM)
That's a lie! (I didn't wait for the site to load)
But they believe and trust in "God". They even get their crap from the same bible you've been quoting. I wouldn't say it's made them kinder and more loving.
But they believe and trust in "God". They even get their crap from the same bible you've been quoting. I wouldn't say it's made them kinder and more loving.
Why would you even want to learn Darwin's theory? Aside from the fact that scientists are agreeing with it less and less, don't you know that Darwin's theory and explanation of "the battle of the fittest" was the motivating factor of the Holocaust - killing millions of Jews. Hitler YM"S was clearly a Darwinist, and that was the ideology that he used to poison the minds of the Germans. Just ask your local historian. [Moderator: Not according to the ADL (also this) or actually reading Hitler and Darwin (also this).]
Absolutely disgusts me that Yidden give it so much attention. I would not suggest it at all, especially if you are just looking for intellectual stimulation.
If you are into scientific study, and you want to read something that is not against Torah, [Moderator: The Torah contradicts itself on the exact order of events in the context of creation, so using the Torah as a filter on what facts you accept as true is itself against the Torah.] read Einsteins Thesis on the Theory of Relativity [Moderator: In reality a variety of papers from 1905-1929.]. Not only is this not against Torah, but really the Chachomim have explained the physics of nature this way even before Einstein came around. [Moderator: A grossly inadequate claim.] If anyone tells you that Einstein was the originator of the Theory of Relativity, they are wrong. You will find it cited in Torah sources dating earlier. Take a look at the Maharal's "Gvurois Hashem" for instance, where he explains relativity in the context of Yehoshua stopping the sun (how timely).[Moderator: This just reveals your ignorance of mechanics and relativity. For the Goyim, Yehoshua = Joshua and the topic is Joshua 10:13-14.]
In truth though, I wouldn't permit even that (for more general reasons). To me you sound like a frum individual, so know that there is absolutely nothing for you to find in any of these books (or should I say better: "there is nothing to be found"). [Moderator: What you permit is not at issue.]
Anyways, I'll leave it at that....
Absolutely disgusts me that Yidden give it so much attention. I would not suggest it at all, especially if you are just looking for intellectual stimulation.
If you are into scientific study, and you want to read something that is not against Torah, [Moderator: The Torah contradicts itself on the exact order of events in the context of creation, so using the Torah as a filter on what facts you accept as true is itself against the Torah.] read Einsteins Thesis on the Theory of Relativity [Moderator: In reality a variety of papers from 1905-1929.]. Not only is this not against Torah, but really the Chachomim have explained the physics of nature this way even before Einstein came around. [Moderator: A grossly inadequate claim.] If anyone tells you that Einstein was the originator of the Theory of Relativity, they are wrong. You will find it cited in Torah sources dating earlier. Take a look at the Maharal's "Gvurois Hashem" for instance, where he explains relativity in the context of Yehoshua stopping the sun (how timely).[Moderator: This just reveals your ignorance of mechanics and relativity. For the Goyim, Yehoshua = Joshua and the topic is Joshua 10:13-14.]
In truth though, I wouldn't permit even that (for more general reasons). To me you sound like a frum individual, so know that there is absolutely nothing for you to find in any of these books (or should I say better: "there is nothing to be found"). [Moderator: What you permit is not at issue.]
Anyways, I'll leave it at that....
QUOTE (David Goldburn+Jun 26 2009, 10:14 PM)
Why would you even want to learn Darwin's theory? Aside from the fact that scientists are agreeing with it less and less,
That is blatantly untrue.
Level of Support for Evolution
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06...ence_for_ev.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/...20statement.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/021...statement.shtmlhttp://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf...rdstatement.pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204...H%3E2.0.CO3B2-Phttp://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/20...006/story03.htmhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06...ence_for_ev.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/...20statement.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/021...statement.shtmlhttp://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf...rdstatement.pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204...H%3E2.0.CO3B2-Phttp://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/20...006/story03.htmhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
don't you know that Darwin's theory and explanation of "the battle of the fittest" was the motivating factor of the Holocaust - killing millions of Jews. Hitler YM"S was clearly a Darwinist, and that was the ideology that he used to poison the minds of the Germans. Just ask your local historian.
Again, absolutely untrue.
Social Darwinism
If you are into scientific study, and you want to read something that is not against Torah, read Einsteins Thesis on the Theory of Relativity. Not only is this not against Torah, but really the Chachomim have explained the physics of nature this way even before Einstein came around. If anyone tells you that Einstein was the originator of the Theory of Relativity, they are wrong. You will find it cited in Torah sources dating earlier.
Again, absolutely untrue.
Theory of Relativity
Take a look at the Maharal's "Gvurois Hashem" for instance, where he explains relativity in the context of Yehoshua stopping the sun (how timely).
Again, untrue. In fact, in searching for the name of this work, I found a post which is a very nearly verbatim copy of your post. So you're either spamming or plagiarizing.
Not only that, but your every claim is wrong. Do you understand? Everything you said is false, and demonstratively so.
That is blatantly untrue.
Level of Support for Evolution
QUOTE
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24] Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32] In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard[33] was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies.[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point.[20] The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science. There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[34][35][36][37] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[19] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[38][39]
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06...ence_for_ev.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/...20statement.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/021...statement.shtmlhttp://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf...rdstatement.pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204...H%3E2.0.CO3B2-Phttp://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/20...006/story03.htmhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24] Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32] In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard[33] was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies.[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point.[20] The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science. There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[34][35][36][37] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[19] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[38][39] |
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06...ence_for_ev.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/...20statement.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/021...statement.shtmlhttp://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf...rdstatement.pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204...H%3E2.0.CO3B2-Phttp://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/20...006/story03.htmhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
don't you know that Darwin's theory and explanation of "the battle of the fittest" was the motivating factor of the Holocaust - killing millions of Jews. Hitler YM"S was clearly a Darwinist, and that was the ideology that he used to poison the minds of the Germans. Just ask your local historian.
Again, absolutely untrue.
Social Darwinism
QUOTE
The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[15] However, Weickart himself writes in his book "From Darwin to Hitler": "The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[15] However, Weickart himself writes in his book "From Darwin to Hitler": "The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview". |
If you are into scientific study, and you want to read something that is not against Torah, read Einsteins Thesis on the Theory of Relativity. Not only is this not against Torah, but really the Chachomim have explained the physics of nature this way even before Einstein came around. If anyone tells you that Einstein was the originator of the Theory of Relativity, they are wrong. You will find it cited in Torah sources dating earlier.
Again, absolutely untrue.
Theory of Relativity
QUOTE
The theory of relativity, or simply relativity, generally refers specifically to two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity. However, the word "relativity" is sometimes used in reference to Galilean invariance. The term "theory of relativity" was coined by Max Planck in 1908 to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the principle of relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The theory of relativity, or simply relativity, generally refers specifically to two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity. However, the word "relativity" is sometimes used in reference to Galilean invariance. The term "theory of relativity" was coined by Max Planck in 1908 to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the principle of relativity. |
Take a look at the Maharal's "Gvurois Hashem" for instance, where he explains relativity in the context of Yehoshua stopping the sun (how timely).
Again, untrue. In fact, in searching for the name of this work, I found a post which is a very nearly verbatim copy of your post. So you're either spamming or plagiarizing.
Not only that, but your every claim is wrong. Do you understand? Everything you said is false, and demonstratively so.
QUOTE (David Goldburn+Jun 27 2009, 03:14 AM)
Anyways, I'll leave it at that....
Yes, I think that's enough dishonest drivel for one day.
Yes, I think that's enough dishonest drivel for one day.
Speaking of evolution, one of my interviews of the many Gods…
I approached a semitransparent theistic looking Embellishment who was holding out an eyeball in His hand for me to take note of.
It proclaimed, “I am the God of Intelligent Design. I was discerned when the Creationists noted an inexplicable complexity in Nature and so promulgated the theory that Nature must have a Grand Designer, for how could it have come about merely by chance?”
I replied, “You’re right about chance, but wrong about chance, for very little greatness, if any, comes about by mere chance, especially some giant leap in one bound up the sheer cliff side of Richard Dawkins’ Mt. Improbable—to find on top the great complexity of something like the eye that you show; however, it is an error to suppose that Chance is the alternative to Intelligent Design. Natural Selection is the means of your Design; it, unlike a one-shot chance, is a cumulative effect that winds and climbs slowly and gently around the other side of Mt, Improbable to eventually arrive at the great height of complexity from which we can view the beautiful sights through the eye.”
“But the widespread Watchtower publications always say that biological designs were created by Me instead of by chance! Just look at these eyeballs and the optic system hanging behind them! How could that come about by chance?”
“You, like your followers, may listen, but do not hear. IDers deceive by this approach, whether they mean to or not. Chance is not the opposite of Nature’s design; the Evolution of the Species through gradual Natural Selection is the path to complexity. A flatworm has an optical system that only senses light and dark, but it sees no image; Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye about as good as half a human eye, that sees but very blurry shapes; these are examples of vision at intermediate stages. ‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by chance—chance is not a likely designer at all! Really now, could a 747 be assembled by a hurricane blowing through Boeing’s warehouse of complete parts?”
“No, quite unlikely—that’s why we misleadingly use this 747 argument as a contrast to ID. So, then, Chance and Intelligent Design are not the two candidate solutions to the riddle posed by the Improbable? It’s not like a jackpot or nothing?”
“Your ID ideas persist, as all repetitions do, but, again, Chance, for one, is not a solution to the highly improbable Nature, and no sane anti-creationist or scientist ever said that it was. Intelligent Design is not a solution either—because it raises a bigger question than it solves, as You will see in a short while.”
“I’ll be darned. Natural selection is a good answer; it is a very long and summative process, one which breaks the problem of improbability into small pieces, each of which is only slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so—the product of all of which would be far beyond the reach of chance. The Creationists have been looking only at the end product, thinking it a single event, not even understanding the power of accumulation. They didn’t know much else, not having any other ideas at all, so they outright claimed that God did it, namely Me.”
“You see the light of the accumulative power and elegance of Evolution.”
“But what is to become of Me? I only ‘exist’ through the speculations of these Creationists. In fact, the improbability of Me is so HIGH, so much more so, compared to that of ‘simple’ Nature, that My origin…”
“…is a near-infinitely LARGER problem for the Creationists, the kind that they love to hate, that is, You can therefore only be explained by a higher Intelligent Designer. Far from terminating the regress, You’ve aggravated it with a vengeance that is way beyond repair—as beyond could ever be yonder of!”
(Basically, evolving organisms, are a stable platform, since they didn’t die off; they 'take on' chance to perhaps move on the the next stable level; so, evolution doesn’t just proceed by all kinds of chances right in a row like one trying to make a fortune at a roulette wheel.)
I approached a semitransparent theistic looking Embellishment who was holding out an eyeball in His hand for me to take note of.
It proclaimed, “I am the God of Intelligent Design. I was discerned when the Creationists noted an inexplicable complexity in Nature and so promulgated the theory that Nature must have a Grand Designer, for how could it have come about merely by chance?”
I replied, “You’re right about chance, but wrong about chance, for very little greatness, if any, comes about by mere chance, especially some giant leap in one bound up the sheer cliff side of Richard Dawkins’ Mt. Improbable—to find on top the great complexity of something like the eye that you show; however, it is an error to suppose that Chance is the alternative to Intelligent Design. Natural Selection is the means of your Design; it, unlike a one-shot chance, is a cumulative effect that winds and climbs slowly and gently around the other side of Mt, Improbable to eventually arrive at the great height of complexity from which we can view the beautiful sights through the eye.”
“But the widespread Watchtower publications always say that biological designs were created by Me instead of by chance! Just look at these eyeballs and the optic system hanging behind them! How could that come about by chance?”
“You, like your followers, may listen, but do not hear. IDers deceive by this approach, whether they mean to or not. Chance is not the opposite of Nature’s design; the Evolution of the Species through gradual Natural Selection is the path to complexity. A flatworm has an optical system that only senses light and dark, but it sees no image; Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye about as good as half a human eye, that sees but very blurry shapes; these are examples of vision at intermediate stages. ‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by chance—chance is not a likely designer at all! Really now, could a 747 be assembled by a hurricane blowing through Boeing’s warehouse of complete parts?”
“No, quite unlikely—that’s why we misleadingly use this 747 argument as a contrast to ID. So, then, Chance and Intelligent Design are not the two candidate solutions to the riddle posed by the Improbable? It’s not like a jackpot or nothing?”
“Your ID ideas persist, as all repetitions do, but, again, Chance, for one, is not a solution to the highly improbable Nature, and no sane anti-creationist or scientist ever said that it was. Intelligent Design is not a solution either—because it raises a bigger question than it solves, as You will see in a short while.”
“I’ll be darned. Natural selection is a good answer; it is a very long and summative process, one which breaks the problem of improbability into small pieces, each of which is only slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so—the product of all of which would be far beyond the reach of chance. The Creationists have been looking only at the end product, thinking it a single event, not even understanding the power of accumulation. They didn’t know much else, not having any other ideas at all, so they outright claimed that God did it, namely Me.”
“You see the light of the accumulative power and elegance of Evolution.”
“But what is to become of Me? I only ‘exist’ through the speculations of these Creationists. In fact, the improbability of Me is so HIGH, so much more so, compared to that of ‘simple’ Nature, that My origin…”
“…is a near-infinitely LARGER problem for the Creationists, the kind that they love to hate, that is, You can therefore only be explained by a higher Intelligent Designer. Far from terminating the regress, You’ve aggravated it with a vengeance that is way beyond repair—as beyond could ever be yonder of!”
(Basically, evolving organisms, are a stable platform, since they didn’t die off; they 'take on' chance to perhaps move on the the next stable level; so, evolution doesn’t just proceed by all kinds of chances right in a row like one trying to make a fortune at a roulette wheel.)
…With that, the poor Guy faded toward oblivion, which, remarkably, which was the very place I was visiting, and thus he soon reappeared, but in another guise:
“Hello, Austino, I am the God of Irreducible Complexity.”
“That you are—and so it shall become your downfall.”
“Eh?”
“Your believers have given You new clothes: Intelligent Design is falsely based on Irreducible Complexity—I recognize You as the God of ID.”
“That I am is what I really am now.”
“Well, Darwin said long ago that his theory would break down if Irreducible Complexity were shown to be true, and, yet, no proposal has ever stood up to analysis.”
“Yet, here I am, alive by mere possibility, Myself indeed irreducibly complex—the be all and end all—the Prime Maker. I keep tabs on every form and particle of the Universe and its constituents that I designed. Simple I am NOT. Yes, I am an extremely complex system, yet I have no parts, for then My parts would be even more absolute than Me!”
“If you existed you would surely be very very very complex, and irreducibly so…”
“…so…”
“…so, by the Creationist Theory, You cannot be explained except by a larger ID.”
“I’m falling…”
“…into the hole that they dug for you.”
“Hello, Austino, I am the God of Irreducible Complexity.”
“That you are—and so it shall become your downfall.”
“Eh?”
“Your believers have given You new clothes: Intelligent Design is falsely based on Irreducible Complexity—I recognize You as the God of ID.”
“That I am is what I really am now.”
“Well, Darwin said long ago that his theory would break down if Irreducible Complexity were shown to be true, and, yet, no proposal has ever stood up to analysis.”
“Yet, here I am, alive by mere possibility, Myself indeed irreducibly complex—the be all and end all—the Prime Maker. I keep tabs on every form and particle of the Universe and its constituents that I designed. Simple I am NOT. Yes, I am an extremely complex system, yet I have no parts, for then My parts would be even more absolute than Me!”
“If you existed you would surely be very very very complex, and irreducibly so…”
“…so…”
“…so, by the Creationist Theory, You cannot be explained except by a larger ID.”
“I’m falling…”
“…into the hole that they dug for you.”
You can help evolution and your own genetic pool by experimenting with various chemicals, which will mutate the genetic material passed onto your offspring. Your bound to get a few right ones, just remember to the selectively breed em (but not so as that they will be inbred,) . Ive got a cellar im digging for just such purposes.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.