The Crusade Against Evolution

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

Sorry, I gave you a roundabout answer before.

No, I'm not at all comparing creationism with those theories. Creationism is a belief, not a theory or fact at all. There is no comparison.


I happen to buy into it though. I have never really found anything in the Bible that conflicted with evolution. God creating the earth in seven days can be viewed as a metaphor. It is also a story that was told long ago and handed down by word of mouth for many generations before it was ever printed. It's exact meaning may be lost if it was ever understood at all. It could have been a very exact telling of the creation of the world at one time but the listener lacked comprehension and told it as best he could. I think this happens a lot in the bible.

Pluck someone out of a primitive and isolated culture in todays world (say a South American rainforest tribe) and let him observe you at this very moment. Put him back into his society and let him explain what you are doing. Now let that explanation get passed down through hundreds of generations and then finally written out. What you might end up with is something along the lines of "He sat in front of a beast (living thing) with seven eyes (perfect vision, all knowing)." What you were really doing is looking some crap up on the internet.

The original documents in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were recorded by God?s human secretaries, from Moses in 1513 B.C.E. down to shortly after 443 B.C.E. As far as is known today, none of these original writings are now in existence. However, from the beginning, great care was exercised in preserving the inspired writings, including authorized copies of them. About 642 B.C.E., in King Josiah?s time, ?the very book of the law? of Moses, doubtless the original copy, was found stored away in the house of Jehovah. It had by this time been faithfully preserved for 871 years. Bible writer Jeremiah manifested such great interest in this discovery that he made written record of it at 2 Kings 22:8-10, and about the year 460 B.C.E., Ezra again referred to the same incident. (2 Chron. 34:14-18)

From Ezra?s time forward, there was an increased demand for copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not all the Jews returned to Jerusalem and Palestine in the restoration of 537 B.C.E. and thereafter. Instead, thousands remained in Babylon, while others migrated for business and other reasons, with the result that they were to be found in most of the large commercial centers of the ancient world. Many Jews would make annual pilgrimages back to Jerusalem for the various temple festivals, and there they would share in the worship conducted in Biblical Hebrew. In Ezra?s time the Jews in these many faraway lands used local assembly places known as synagogues, where readings and discussions of the Hebrew Scriptures took place. Because of the many scattered places of worship, copyists had to multiply the supply of handwritten manuscripts.

These synagogues usually had a storage room known as the genizah. In the course of time, the Jews placed in the genizah discarded manuscripts that had become torn or worn with age, replacing them with new ones for current synagogue use. From time to time, the contents of the genizah would be solemnly buried in the earth, in order that the text?containing the holy name of Jehovah?might not be desecrated. Over the centuries, thousands of old Hebrew Bible manuscripts disappeared from use in this way. However, the well-stocked genizah of the synagogue in Old Cairo was spared this treatment, probably because it was walled up and forgotten until the middle of the 19th century. In 1890, when the synagogue was being repaired, the contents of the genizah were reexamined and its treasures were gradually either sold or donated. From this source, fairly complete manuscripts and thousands of fragments (some said to be of the sixth century C.E.) have found their way to Cambridge University Library and other libraries of Europe and America.

5 Today, in various libraries of the world, there have been counted and cataloged perhaps 6,000 manuscripts of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Until recently there were no such manuscripts (except for a few fragments) older than the tenth century C.E. Then, in 1947, in the area of the Dead Sea, there was discovered a scroll of the book of Isaiah, and in subsequent years additional priceless scrolls of the Hebrew Scriptures came to light as caves in the Dead Sea area surrendered rich treasures of manuscripts that had been hidden for nearly 1,900 years. Experts have now dated some of these as having been copied in the last few centuries B.C.E. The comparative study of the approximately 6,000 manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures gives a sound basis for establishing the Hebrew text and reveals faithfulness in the transmission of the text.

don't assume the bible is just big talk from stupid ancient times. fact is, they were much smarter then than we are now. from the ancient egyptians, phonecians, babylonians, and hebrews alot of our modern day stuff is atributed. just because you can use the internet to look up porn, doesn't mean we're more advanced for it. if you jump up eleven steps from the first, and i jump up one from there then of course i'll be higher than you, but i have the hindsight of your knowledge to make such a transition with ease. the bible was well documented and well kept. you gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please.

First, let me apologize on behalf of everyone bashing you about this post. I find the zealot stuff particularly tasteless. It's easy for everyone to jump on others about something they don't agree with. Kinda like you did with your "gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please." statement. Also, you jumped my sh1t about the wrong thing and missed your mark.

What you have just pointed out doesn't really relate to what I was saying. You are discussing the events since written history began when man was quite well "evolved" or "created." What I was trying to point out was that creationism and evolution do not have to conflict. The world being created in six days as was described in the the book of Genisis clearly occured before written history. Adam and Eve did not come into this world knowing how to write things down. Much of the book of genesis occured well before anyone could write. The only way the story could have been remembered is by the telling of it from one generation to the next. Cain and Able's story was told by mouth so many times before it was recorded it could easily be backwards!

Furthermore the details of how God created the earth could not have been understood by those it was described to. Visions of the future in Revelations (which were recorded in writing) could only be described by the person seeing them. Although the writings may be accurate to the originals today the original writing could have been inaccurate simply because the observer lacked the understanding to describe what he sees. Ask an early Roman to write down his vision of a future war and then have the writings passed down through history. What you'll end up with is an exact copy of what he said yet it will make no sense. Wars fought with fire sticks (rifles) and rolling rocks (tanks) ?? You follow me now or are you going to jump my sh1t again?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I know all that stuff Smilin. Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. The speed of light is a constant and a fact. Black holes are a fact. The theories about these things are the best we have at the moment, and each is true in the limited area in which it applies. Nobody fails to take an elevator because gravity is a theory. You have to understand that creationists take the notion of theory and throw out the facts. Evolution is a fact. It happened and the record is there in the rocks. The notion that the earth is 6000 years old is preposterous and the assumption that life requires a creator a violation of Occam's Razor.

dude, you have no clue what a fact is and how it relates to theory and you keep digging yourself in further. Evolution, Gravity and Black holes are all THEORIES.

Newton was wrong. He was using the best observations he had at the time and all empirical data supported him. That's why his THEORY was widely accepted. It was never called a FACT even by Newton himself. We have since discovered through Einstein that planetary bodies do not orbit the sun because they are attracted to it by gravity, they orbit the sun because that is a straight line between two points in a four dimensional space that is distorted by the mass of the sun.

You would make a poor scientist AND historian.

 

[GrGr]

First the schools and then the Universities. The ultimate creationist dream is to wind the clock back to the glorious days of the mid 19th century when theological factors dominated the agenda. Science emerged triumphant back then but some people still refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the scientific approach over theology.

 

[Smilin]

I don't really have a problem with creationism or any other form of beliefe being taught at a university. I just have a problem with it being taught in public schools.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GrGr
First the schools and then the Universities. The ultimate creationist dream is to wind the clock back to the glorious days of the mid 19th century when theological factors dominated the agenda. Science emerged triumphant back then but some people still refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the scientific approach over theology.

I see no conflict between science and religion. I see a conflict when people adhere to dogma they claim has to be true because it's what they think is meant by something in a book and scientific evidence says otherwise People don't want to think they are dead when they die and they insist that their religion has to be right. Because of their motivation not to feel the fear of death and their stubborn refusal to see their superfluous and vapid dogma as has nothing to do with real religious truth we wind up with zealots. If your faith in God depends on the truth of a book you have no faith at all. God can only be known through the heart when the you you call you is not. God is the Love that burns the self to ash. He cannot be known by the scientist or the religionists. He is known only to the Lover that has disappeared in the Beloved.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

[/b]What are these morons thinking? That's like saying you can't teach about the Galapagos Islands[/b] Ar eChristians trying to say that this place doesn't exist?

Why don't we just start burning books! That's logical. I don't think the halocaust ever happened. Let's ban it!

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I know all that stuff Smilin. Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. The speed of light is a constant and a fact. Black holes are a fact. The theories about these things are the best we have at the moment, and each is true in the limited area in which it applies. Nobody fails to take an elevator because gravity is a theory. You have to understand that creationists take the notion of theory and throw out the facts. Evolution is a fact. It happened and the record is there in the rocks. The notion that the earth is 6000 years old is preposterous and the assumption that life requires a creator a violation of Occam's Razor.

dude, you have no clue what a fact is and how it relates to theory and you keep digging yourself in further. Evolution, Gravity and Black holes are all THEORIES.

Newton was wrong. He was using the best observations he had at the time and all empirical data supported him. That's why his THEORY was widely accepted. It was never called a FACT even by Newton himself. We have since discovered through Einstein that planetary bodies do not orbit the sun because they are attracted to it by gravity, they orbit the sun because that is a straight line between two points in a four dimensional space that is distorted by the mass of the sun.

You would make a poor scientist AND historian.

1) Galapagos Islands
2) Gravity is a measure of acceleration. Acceleration does not exist?
3) Why does light bend around these voids in space if they arn't real?

You are joking arn't you/ Now I see how people actually vote for Bush.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GrGr
First the schools and then the Universities. The ultimate creationist dream is to wind the clock back to the glorious days of the mid 19th century when theological factors dominated the agenda. Science emerged triumphant back then but some people still refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the scientific approach over theology.

I see no conflict between science and religion. I see a conflict when people adhere to dogma they claim has to be true because it's what they think is meant by something in a book and scientific evidence says otherwise People don't want to think they are dead when they die and they insist that their religion has to be right. Because of their motivation not to feel the fear of death and their stubborn refusal to see their superfluous and vapid dogma as has nothing to do with real religious truth we wind up with zealots. If your faith in God depends on the truth of a book you have no faith at all. God can only be known through the heart when the you you call you is not. God is the Love that burns the self to ash. He cannot be known by the scientist or the religionists. He is known only to the Lover that has disappeared in the Beloved.

Only thinkers are capable of independant thought. Religion is not learned. It is taught. This is a MAJOR divide in my opinion. Evolution is learned!

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GrGr
First the schools and then the Universities. The ultimate creationist dream is to wind the clock back to the glorious days of the mid 19th century when theological factors dominated the agenda. Science emerged triumphant back then but some people still refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the scientific approach over theology.

I see no conflict between science and religion. I see a conflict when people adhere to dogma they claim has to be true because it's what they think is meant by something in a book and scientific evidence says otherwise People don't want to think they are dead when they die and they insist that their religion has to be right. Because of their motivation not to feel the fear of death and their stubborn refusal to see their superfluous and vapid dogma as has nothing to do with real religious truth we wind up with zealots. If your faith in God depends on the truth of a book you have no faith at all. God can only be known through the heart when the you you call you is not. God is the Love that burns the self to ash. He cannot be known by the scientist or the religionists. He is known only to the Lover that has disappeared in the Beloved.

I was referring to the time when which congregation somebody belonged to was as or more important than somebodys academic credentials. If scientific methods were to be undercut or infringed upon by theological dogma the results would be catastrophic. The creationist dream is to tame science into working within the confines of religious dogma.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GrGr
First the schools and then the Universities. The ultimate creationist dream is to wind the clock back to the glorious days of the mid 19th century when theological factors dominated the agenda. Science emerged triumphant back then but some people still refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the scientific approach over theology.

I see no conflict between science and religion. I see a conflict when people adhere to dogma they claim has to be true because it's what they think is meant by something in a book and scientific evidence says otherwise People don't want to think they are dead when they die and they insist that their religion has to be right. Because of their motivation not to feel the fear of death and their stubborn refusal to see their superfluous and vapid dogma as has nothing to do with real religious truth we wind up with zealots. If your faith in God depends on the truth of a book you have no faith at all. God can only be known through the heart when the you you call you is not. God is the Love that burns the self to ash. He cannot be known by the scientist or the religionists. He is known only to the Lover that has disappeared in the Beloved.

I was referring to the time when which congregation somebody belonged to was as or more important than somebody's academic credentials. If scientific methods were to be undercut or infringed upon by theological dogma the results would be catastrophic. The creationist dream is to tame science into working within the confines of religious dogma.

I totally agree. I gave what I think is the explanation. I tired to point out also and additionally that neither the scientist nor the religionists necessarily know anything at all about God. People like Infohawk are totally convinced that religion is bunk and the other side thinks the same about science. This whole huge debate is pointless because neither side knows squat. All this talk about theory are quaint little semantical diversions. What are called theories work for ordinary explanations. Things fall according to Newton in an ordinary room and according to Einstein relativistically. We see evidence of black holes in space. The scientist thinks it clever to call these things theories so the creationist can ccome along and say "see, see", everything in science is just a theory so I can dismiss it all. Lets cut through the crap and call a spade a spade. Evolution happened. The law of gravity's a fact. We use a different fact when we think relativistically. We may find a new way to think in situations there facts don't pan out. Something can be a fact in one dimension and not a fact in another. Lets talk about the dimension of common sense.

Creationism is a nut job excuse designed to obfuscate the obvious fact that the Bible is full of sh!t about some things. It is not the Word of God and is not literally true. That fact does not lead to the equally absurd notion that there is no God or that everything in the Bible is false.

Science by its very nature can say nothing at all about God. If there is a God He is known only to those who know Him. I maintain that that kind of Knowing takes place in the heart, and that there is a science of religious experience that is based on personal experience. Only the God Realized who has walked the path can point out the way. The God Realized have down the centuries left artifacts of their work. These are called religions, dead shells of once living tools for self realization. They were sophisticated psychologically scientific instruments for the transformation of man now manned by the deaf dumb and blind mechanically. They are tools designed for a particular audience at a particular time in a particular place but they can and do still speak to highly sensitive people.

 

[Infohawk]

People like Infohawk are totally convinced that religion is bunk and the other side thinks the same about science.

Enhh... wrong. Please stop your self-righteous bloating you two. Don't tell me or others what I think of religion. I've listened to your allegations for a little while now but you keep harping at it, so it's got to stop.

The difference between a zealot and me is that I am willing and capable of changing my mind and I have done this in the past. A zealot never will. It's the difference between reason and faith.

PS. If you're not going to respond to what I said here then refrain for speaking for me. Thanks

 

[SirStev0]

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

ridiculous creationalist teacher trying to prove the earth is only 6000 yrs old


this site is great ... i seriously watched 4 hrs of it and couldnt stop laughing... all the stuff he says is so damn funny and after watching it you seriously question your evolutionary beliefs, that is until the brainwashing stops working and you remember how stupid the arguements are


just some highlights...

humans walked with dinosaurs before the great flood

there was an ice layer of our atmosphere that caused a chamber full of oxygen that allowed humans incredibly long life and enomorous size ... it fell as the flood

the earth is not changing at the plates, they are just areas of the earth where water shot up and flooded the earth


and believe me it gets better


and for an even better time read this site and watch some guy pwn everything that is said

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

and for an even better time read this site and watch some guy pwn everything that is said

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm

I think these debunkers are heroes. It takes a lot of effort and patience to deal with the kind of nonsense that is crapped out by these nuts. I salute them and all scientists (well most of em).

 

[sandorski]

The problem with the whole debate is how the 2 divergent "Theories" are formed:

Evolution

Darwin Observed that in isolation, certain Animals differed significantly from others. He then postulated a Theory as to Why this had happened. Over 100+ years scientists have used Evolution as a basis upon which to examine Biology and so far the basic Theory of Evolution still stands because it is the only Theory born of Scientific Principles and the only Theory that has not yet been proven False. Experimentation

Creation

OTOH, the Creation "Theory"(and ID) are not born from Observation(major point), they are born from Tradition, Folklore, and Myth. From the position of "knowing" how it happened, Creationists go on a hunt for supporting "evidence". This is exactly opposite of what Science is all about. Scientists merely postulate a possibility, they do not Conclude an issue then make it sound Scientific.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

Sorry, I gave you a roundabout answer before.

It is also a story that was told long ago and handed down by word of mouth for many generations before it was ever printed. It's exact meaning may be lost if it was ever understood at all. It could have been a very exact telling of the creation of the world at one time but the listener lacked comprehension and told it as best he could. I think this happens a lot in the bible.

Pluck someone out of a primitive and isolated culture in todays world (say a South American rainforest tribe) and let him observe you at this very moment. Put him back into his society and let him explain what you are doing. Now let that explanation get passed down through hundreds of generations and then finally written out. What you might end up with is something along the lines of "He sat in front of a beast (living thing) with seven eyes (perfect vision, all knowing)." What you were really doing is looking some crap up on the internet.

First, let me apologize on behalf of everyone bashing you about this post. I find the zealot stuff particularly tasteless. It's easy for everyone to jump on others about something they don't agree with. Kinda like you did with your "gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please." statement. Also, you jumped my sh1t about the wrong thing and missed your mark.

What you have just pointed out doesn't really relate to what I was saying. You are discussing the events since written history began when man was quite well "evolved" or "created." What I was trying to point out was that creationism and evolution do not have to conflict. The world being created in six days as was described in the the book of Genisis clearly occured before written history. Adam and Eve did not come into this world knowing how to write things down. Much of the book of genesis occured well before anyone could write. The only way the story could have been remembered is by the telling of it from one generation to the next. Cain and Able's story was told by mouth so many times before it was recorded it could easily be backwards!

Furthermore the details of how God created the earth could not have been understood by those it was described to. Visions of the future in Revelations (which were recorded in writing) could only be described by the person seeing them. Although the writings may be accurate to the originals today the original writing could have been inaccurate simply because the observer lacked the understanding to describe what he sees. Ask an early Roman to write down his vision of a future war and then have the writings passed down through history. What you'll end up with is an exact copy of what he said yet it will make no sense. Wars fought with fire sticks (rifles) and rolling rocks (tanks) ?? You follow me now or are you going to jump my sh1t again?

i'm sorry, smiling, but that's exactly what you did. the majority of the post is dedicated to showing that the bible is folklore. as far as it's depiction of the creation of the earth, the book of genesis spends 1 chapter of a 50 chapter book on the creation of the earth and universe, so by that nature it's obviously not a dedication to the how, but the why. that's just one book of 66. so one chapter of 1 book in a 66 book compilation is hardly a dedicated medium for the explanation of the universe. on the other hand, it's a cut to the chase. a "blah blah blah" of the details to get to what concerns us at the moment. the why. why are we he? why all the suffering? it also (as you pointed out) discusses the future for mankind.... what was to be it's orginal purpose. you're right, though. only an idiot would believe the earth was created in 6000 years. consider man's purpose on this earth a plan. our state today is a detour, or a dirivitive of such. so, once everything gets straightened out on the whole "man won't worship god, nor would he need to if he were given the choice" debate, the plan will comense as planned. "fill the earth and subdue it." fvck money, fvck capitalism, fvck religious oppression, fvck pain, suffering, death, hate, and all the other perversions of human capabilities and cognitive reasoning. science and religion tell two parts of the same story. so instead of stealing each other's homework and ruining each other's projects, they should just cheat off each other's test and they'll see that between them, they have all the answers

as far as jumping your sh!t, i sincerely apologize. you're right, i was a lil harsh and i appreciate the mature manner in which you addressed the subject. good form.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

sorry for the double post, but you're also correct about gravity being just a theory. scientists are finding that gravity is being "lost" in unexplained manners. the 11th dimension. the string theory, the m theory, and parallel universes. all recent ideas brought about by the inconsistancies of gravity. god, i love discovery science. especially cosmic wonders. anyone else watch that channel? i swore myself to cartoons at a young age, but learning is so much fun!

 

[Smilin]

You're right about me spending most of my post describing the bible as folklore. I was kindof attempting to soften people up to the idea that earth being created in six days isn't necessarily incompatible with evolution. To me both can easily coexist. I just hope they don't try to teach my ideas in gradeschool as "the truth".

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

1) Galapagos Islands
2) Gravity is a measure of acceleration. Acceleration does not exist?
3) Why does light bend around these voids in space if they arn't real?

You are joking arn't you/ Now I see how people actually vote for Bush.

Man, your science education appears to have ended after 8th grade.

the·o·ry ( P ) (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

1.) The Galapagos islands are far from proving evolution. They provided the initial observation or facts that supported darwins hypothesis. Much more evidence has come from elsewhere. Evolution remains to this day a theory. It's a theory that I accept as well as most of the scientific community. However it is a theory. Period. You can use facts such as:
1. There is a species on island A that have teeth capable of cracking nuts.
2. There is a similar species on island B without such teeth.
3. On island A food is scarce except for nuts.
4. On island B food is plentiful.
To support a hypothesis that:
Offspring of species on island A with mutations survived if they had strong teeth whereas they died and did not procreate if they didn't. Through successive generations the species evolved to have strong teeth.
Once supported the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Do not confuse a theory with a fact such as "species on island A have strong teeth."

2.) You don't understand gravity beyond a basic newtonian view.
A FACT is:
When your mother dropped you, you accelerated downward headfirst.
A theory is:
The mass of your body(m1) was attracted to the mass of the earth(m2) based on your distance from each other(D) with a force equal to a gravitational constant times (m1*m2)/(D*D).
It just so happens this theory is supported by fact. It will never become a fact itself. Furthermore it is WRONG. It just happens to be close enough for any day to day application. If you try to use it to describe the orbit of Mercury around the sun it will fail. You will find the long axis of the eliptical orbit of Mercury shifts by 570 arc-seconds per century. Newtons theory of gravity also breaks down when objects are moving near the speed of light. So genius, how can a FACT be wrong.

3.) Go digest #1 and #2. If you can't even understand gravity it's absolutely hopeless that you'll comprehend the THEORY of black holes. You might have a slim grasp on what an event horizon is but the moment I start explaining thermodynamics and entropy you'll get lost. Without that You'll never understand how Hawking explained black hole radiation of particles and antiparticles.

This is my last attempt to explain this to you: A Theory is NOT the same as a fact and evolution is a theory, not a fact. I'm gonna flame you really really bad. I promise.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
science and religion tell two parts of the same story. so instead of stealing each other's homework and ruining each other's projects, they should just cheat off each other's test and they'll see that between them, they have all the answers

That quote rocks btw.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Science is based on observation and measurement. An orginazational chart of scientific achievement would look like an inverted pyramid with new achievements being built on the foundation of those before it.

Creationism would represent a standard pyramid, except that only the base layer (where all things are explained as a result of "The Creation") is currently represented, and a search for non-existant data to complete the structure is ongoing.

I consider it hardly reasonable to consider the two as being of equal value in understanding and manipulating the universe.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

Must... resist... strong... urge... to make ... this ... my sig.

Hilarious!

 

[dannybin1742]

Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

Evolution is not scientific at all. It is unproven theories based on major assumptions based on foundations which go against the very laws of biology. You need alot more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Creation is much more plausible and reasonable.

wow, the level of stupidity is incredible

wake up, evolution forms the foundation of all biological sciences, go get a college degree in biochem and then try repeating what you said while trying to hold a straight face at the same time.

quote #2, you want to enlighten me on you views with some PROOF, cause all i have to do is chuck a biology book at your head to knock some sense into you

and for all you people who don't beleive in evolution, please stop burdening the medicare system, cause all the drugs that have been made can be traced back to biology/biochem and since you don't beleive in that, well maybe you should stop taking your meds, that way you can lower our co-pay for those of us who like to look at things from a logical, proof oriented point of view

Scientists merely postulate a possibility, they do not Conclude an issue then make it sound Scientific.

but they can back up the possiblity with math, genomics, biochemical studies of related proteins from various organisms, etc...

what does creation have........ "well the good book said so"........ thats not proof, that blind faith


by far one of the best quotes i've seen and the most true

Only thinkers are capable of independant thought. Religion is not learned. It is taught. This is a MAJOR divide in my opinion. Evolution is learned!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

1) Galapagos Islands
2) Gravity is a measure of acceleration. Acceleration does not exist?
3) Why does light bend around these voids in space if they arn't real?

You are joking arn't you/ Now I see how people actually vote for Bush.

Man, your science education appears to have ended after 8th grade.

the·o·ry ( P ) (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

1.) The Galapagos islands are far from proving evolution. They provided the initial observation or facts that supported darwins hypothesis. Much more evidence has come from elsewhere. Evolution remains to this day a theory. It's a theory that I accept as well as most of the scientific community. However it is a theory. Period. You can use facts such as:
1. There is a species on island A that have teeth capable of cracking nuts.
2. There is a similar species on island B without such teeth.
3. On island A food is scarce except for nuts.
4. On island B food is plentiful.
To support a hypothesis that:
Offspring of species on island A with mutations survived if they had strong teeth whereas they died and did not procreate if they didn't. Through successive generations the species evolved to have strong teeth.
Once supported the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Do not confuse a theory with a fact such as "species on island A have strong teeth."

2.) You don't understand gravity beyond a basic newtonian view.
A FACT is:
When your mother dropped you, you accelerated downward headfirst.
A theory is:
The mass of your body(m1) was attracted to the mass of the earth(m2) based on your distance from each other(D) with a force equal to a gravitational constant times (m1*m2)/(D*D).
It just so happens this theory is supported by fact. It will never become a fact itself. Furthermore it is WRONG. It just happens to be close enough for any day to day application. If you try to use it to describe the orbit of Mercury around the sun it will fail. You will find the long axis of the eliptical orbit of Mercury shifts by 570 arc-seconds per century. Newtons theory of gravity also breaks down when objects are moving near the speed of light. So genius, how can a FACT be wrong.

3.) Go digest #1 and #2. If you can't even understand gravity it's absolutely hopeless that you'll comprehend the THEORY of black holes. You might have a slim grasp on what an event horizon is but the moment I start explaining thermodynamics and entropy you'll get lost. Without that You'll never understand how Hawking explained black hole radiation of particles and antiparticles.

This is my last attempt to explain this to you: A Theory is NOT the same as a fact and evolution is a theory, not a fact. I'm gonna flame you really really bad. I promise.

Promise to use the name of the person you address. They'll be much more likely to wet their pants.

By the way, evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. I am Dr. Science. I know more about science than you. You can climb down off your condescending horse and bow before me. You found everything wrong about what I said without the slightest idea of why I said it, or so it would appear. You seem to have missed the forest for the trees. You brought down a goose but we were shooting deer. Your problem is that you are too literal. You found inaccuracies of which I was perfectly aware. They were there for a purpose that was invisible to you. I was operating on a higher dimension that is invisible to you. I can do miracles you can't even begin to conceive and go places you wouldn't imagine. Try to realize that as smart as you think you are I am far far smarter. I am a master of a science about which you haven't even begun to dream. But flame away if you must. Perhaps you'll succeed in warming my feet.

On a more serious note I made some small effort to explain why I made claims that I know are technically and scientifically false even after your rude, presumptuous, and arrogant remarks about my education, scientific, and historical ability. You completely ignored them in your literal way. I know perfectly well that people jump at that chance because they feel inwardly so small. Self inflation at the expense of the other is such a common game. But it pays to try to be nice because it's good for the other person and it prevents exposing ones venal nature, not that there's lots of people who don't clime down till their whacked with a stick.

Anyway, I get exactly where you are coming from and am fully acquainted with your position. There are different ways of talking about reality. One of them is to say that gravity is a fact you can feel the truth of in your ass. You talk to people according to their understandings and needs our of what inner light you may have. You try your rigorous and ethereal scientific theories and I'll get down in the gutter and butt heads. We'll see who has the most effect on whom.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

Nope, not at all. Time for a science lesson.

In science words have very specific meanings.

Law means something that can be expressed mathematically, like Snell's Law (of refraction), most of inorganic chemistry (the laws of stoiciometry), and most of physics (the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, also known as the Inverse Square Law, or in terms of math F(G) = Gc * m1 * m2 / r2).

Parts of science that can't be expressed mathematically have no laws. For example the entire field of organic chemistry. We know what happens perfectly well when we mix things together but it is not governed by math.

Theory means a collection of observations, laws, and facts that give rise to a common explanation.

Take, for example, gravity. The Law of Gravity is the mathematical equation noted above. The Theory of Gravity explains why it works this way (that things with mass attract one another, for Newton, or that space-time is curved for Einstein). This incorporates Newton's Second Law (F = ma ; see the math), the Law of Gravity, the common experience of jumping and being attracted to the earth, etc.

The same for evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that things evolve and pick up or lose traits that help them survive and adapt to their environment. Within this theory we have laws (Hardy-Weinburg Equation of State that p + q = 1 with the polynomial expansion of that for steady state preservation of genotype), cladistics, comparative physiology, the fossil record, etc.

A theory, in science, is nothing more than a parsimonious explanation of related ideas, laws, observations, etc.

And the theory of evolution is a fact - just as much as the theory of gravity.

If you want to try and dispute it you'd better known your science because otherwise you look like another religious whack job hell bent on denying reality.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

Nope, not at all. Time for a science lesson.

In science words have very specific meanings.

Law means something that can be expressed mathematically, like Snell's Law (of refraction), most of inorganic chemistry (the laws of stoiciometry), and most of physics (the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, also known as the Inverse Square Law, or in terms of math F(G) = Gc * m1 * m2 / r2).

Parts of science that can't be expressed mathematically have no laws. For example the entire field of organic chemistry. We know what happens perfectly well when we mix things together but it is not governed by math.

Theory means a collection of observations, laws, and facts that give rise to a common explanation.

Take, for example, gravity. The Law of Gravity is the mathematical equation noted above. The Theory of Gravity explains why it works this way (that things with mass attract one another, for Newton, or that space-time is curved for Einstein). This incorporates Newton's Second Law (F = ma ; see the math), the Law of Gravity, the common experience of jumping and being attracted to the earth, etc.

The same for evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that things evolve and pick up or lose traits that help them survive and adapt to their environment. Within this theory we have laws (Hardy-Weinburg Equation of State that p + q = 1 with the polynomial expansion of that for steady state preservation of genotype), cladistics, comparative physiology, the fossil record, etc.

A theory, in science, is nothing more than a parsimonious explanation of related ideas, laws, observations, etc.

And the theory of evolution is a fact - just as much as the theory of gravity.

If you want to try and dispute it you'd better known your science because otherwise you look like another religious whack job hell bent on denying reality.

Besides all that, HoP's statement is wrong for another reason: The Fact that it's a Scientific Theory makes it Science!