spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 05:35 pm
Oh yeah.

Counter jumpers mate.
0 Replies
 
Jpsy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 05:11 am
@gungasnake,
Gungsnake, have you ever sat down and actually read a book by a respected evolutionary biologist describing how evolution works and detailing the vast amounts of evidence we have to support it? Or do you only read books by creationists, who don't even publish in peer reviewed scientific journals? Do you realize by not publishing in scientific journals, they can basically just make up whatever they want, & are spared the embarrassment of actually having their ideas subjected to careful scientific scrutiny.
Also, can you explain to me your understanding of the difference between a theory and a scientific theory?
I find most creationists have no problem with the scientific method, except when it contradicts the Bible? You do realize the scientific method is the most reliable method we have of discovering what's real. The internet, the computer, airplanes, automobiles, refrigerators, light bulbs (all of the things you take for granted) were invented because of an accumulation of knowledge discovered by following the scientific method and the scientific process. Though somehow, when scientific theories conflict with Christian mythology they are automatically "stupid" and wrong, & somehow the scientific method has failed (in only those specific instances).
Why don't you have problems with the Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Plate Tectonics? If the Bible contradicted the Theory of Relativity would be spending your time trying to debunk that "stupid" theory?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 06:19 am
@Jpsy,
With all due respect Jpsy, if that post were to be subjected to the scientific method the only possible conclusion would be that it is sophistry. You have invented your own "creationist" and then quietly segued into Christian mythology. What your creationist has to say can be anything you wish it to be but Christian mythology has been refined by a very great deal of peer-reviewing in various Church councils over 2000 years and is in constant review by the best men money can buy employing considerable resources.

Christian mythology's only subject is human behaviour whereas the scientific method deals with "dirt".

The obvious fact that the scientific method is an outgrowth of no other cultural entity other than the one under the supervision of the Church ought to be taken into account. If you could see a process by which the internet, the computer, airplanes, automobiles, refrigerators, light bulbs etc could have developed from the Amerindian cultures, the Pagans or the Buddhist ones I would be quite interested to read it.

You cannot invent a creationist having the characteristics which support your view and then use that to say anything at all about Christian mythology. Your creationist probably wears trousers but him being a dingbat, a necessary condition in your argument, would not justify us sensible people dispensing with them. We would get Mr Obarmy in purple robes I should think.

Christian mythology, with all the wrappings removed, is an anti-Malthus operation. That is, fearful of the natural checks on population growth which the Rev. claimed could easily produce a doubling every 25 years "with the brakes off": a tasty euphemism but quite daring in its time.

How can the Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Plate Tectonics, be applied to put the brakes on? Without becoming ironic I mean. Or even silly. As a serious proposition I mean bearing in mind the natural checks and there being numerous tight corners to negotiate on the ride. Such as a strong tendency to have the brakes off.



farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 06:27 am
@Jpsy,
you'll find that our gungasnake is quite immune to reason, or evidence. Let us remember what Huxley said about the Rev Wilberforce upon learning that the good reverend had dies when being thrown from a horse.
"For once his (Wilberforce's) brain and reality had come into contact , and the result was fatal"

Gunga isn't a full Biblical Creationist although he does believe in things like a universal flood, a relatively young earth, and a few other science inconsistencies. Hes more a believer in some sort of galctic pangenesis.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2013 04:25 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
. Hes more a believer in some sort of galctic pangenesis.


Do you mean like emanations from the moon?
0 Replies
 
Jpsy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 01:13 am
@spendius,
I apologize, I should have been more specific when I said creationist. However, I did not make up a fictitious creationist. I was referring to the intellectuals who are spearheading the Intelligent Design movement. The author of this post quoted a member of the Discovery Institute. That is the leading intelligent design/creationism think tank that influences a majority of fundamentalist creationists' viewpoints. They are the "experts" who manufacture (the most popular & widely cited) fallacious arguments with the goal of debunking evolution. Their goal is to make people doubt evolution and science with the hopes that they will see intelligent design as the better alternative. They are not interested in objective reality, they are interested in spreading intelligent design (of course they believe the designer is the Christian God, although they reluctantly & deceptively don't say that in their literature because they have lost several court cases due to the 1st amendment ) by whatever means possible. They publish books, they run public relations campaigns, they are very well financed by the faithful, but what they don't do is actual science. They avoid the peer-reviewed process of established science, because they know their arguments are unfounded. I conjecture that a majority of the arguments used by intelligent design proponents in America come directly from the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Science. Most of the intellectuals that work at the Discovery institute aren't even evolutionary biologists. In fact, a large number of them are lawyers. They are behind the "teach the controversy" movement, when to a majority of scientists there is no controversy at all. They get paid very well to sit around all day and think up ways to discredit evolution, but what they don't do is provide any evidence for Intelligent design, because there is none. I apologize if I was quick to categorize gungsnake, but when I saw that the whole basis of his argument relied on a quote from a Discovery Institute member, and observed the contempt he has for the "stupid" Scientific Theory of Evolution, I assumed he was pretty similar to many of the Creationists I have encountered in the past. It may sound like I was making things up, but I have been following the evolution vs. ID controversy for a long time.

Krauss sums up my argument very well in this 10 minute debate with Discovery Institute member Dr. Behe

YouTube Lawrence Krauss and Michael Behe Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFQLpUfwx7M

I will get to the remainder of my argument later, but I do stand behind what I said. I think I can defend the whole argument and I was not trying to use sophistry. The scientific Theory of Evolution and the creation myth in Genesis are definitely in conflict. That is why most (Christian) Intelligent Design proponents dislike Evolution. I sincerely believe if the Bible had passages supporting evolution, they would have no problem with evolution. In fact, they would just accept and ignore it like they do most other scientific laws and theories.

Anyway, I apologize if I come across as abrasive and condescending at times. I've really got to work at that. I am in fact very impressed with how intelligent the members of this forum are and will work at being more respectful.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 06:08 am
@Jpsy,
Thanks Jpsy.

There is a thread "Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion. It has been going ten years or so. My position is given on there. Or a watered down version taking into account the genteel nature of A2K.

I think the ID movement is a business proposition. A heresy. I think it is based upon attempting to find a way of providing for sexual freedom whilst remaining Christian. Science automatically grants sexual freedom. The Marquis de Sade and Freud make that clear enough and there are others. Wilhelm Reich for example.

I see the debate between Krauss and Behe as a red herring.

The most observant writers I have read consider the Catholic Church as a non-starter in the USA. They give various reasons. Thus it is possible that the DI is positioning itself to become the religious centre when the Church is no longer relevant in the US. US Presidents are more likely to be influenced by popular preachers such as Billy Graham and even spiritualist mediums of one sort or another rather than the Vatican. The defeated candidate at the last election was a Mormon and there is no telling what Mr Obarmy believes beyond his own divinity. Mr Kennedy's Catholicism was seen at the time as a considerable hindrance.

Geoffrey Gorer predicted a reversion to the Totem pole with variants such as the Burning Man and other West Coast crazes essentially deriving from boredom.

I see the whole matter sociologically. Neither Krauss nor Behe even thought of dipping into such deep waters. The Dover trial avoided them as well.

How can it not be popular to reject the Church's discipline in sexual matters? My guess is that you do. The rest is sophistry.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 07:33 am
@Jpsy,
Quote:
The rest is sophistry.

As one who has spent the last several years being entertained by spendis nonsensical statements, you've just gotten to the zenith of praise from him. Hes unable to argue with anything approaching logic or evidence, so he starts (or ends) with lame insults.
When he starts making claims about your beliefs , then you've tapped him out. SO
After spendi revealed his true nature almost 9 years ago, Ive never bothered being polite with him, he isn't relly listening to you, Hes merely waiting for an opportunity to "recite"
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 07:46 am
@farmerman,
I think Jpsy is too intelligent and open minded to take any notice of that tripe fm. You should continue to concentrate your efforts on the intellectually challenged.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 07:56 am
@spendius,
Quote:
You should continue to concentrate your efforts on the intellectually challenged.


That's why I concentrate on you
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 12:29 pm
@farmerman,
There is no sign of intellectual activity in a single one of your 42,699 posts.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 12:39 pm
@spendius,
Illet others judge that. You've always shared your disdain for me whenever anyone asks, so Im certainly not looking for any encomia from you.

You haven't even made any sense when you finally got around to coming up with some douche bag question from D&M. Instead you posted some stupid comment about Greta van Sustern..
Real science in that old boy. WHy don't you go back to the pub and finish out the weekend with a buzz.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 02:57 pm
@farmerman,
Sorry--42,700.

Have you read Marriage and Malthusian Respectability yet?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 03:00 pm
@spendius,
Watching the EAgles alomost lose.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 03:19 pm
@farmerman,
Eagles won. The Cardinals screwed up in their last play. They shoulda punted away. They let the Eagles take over at 1.42 and then did an "unsportsmanlike move" for an automatic 1st down at 58 seconds. Eagles then ran out the clock.
Sorry, What was spndis point?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 04:09 pm
@farmerman,
Isn't the idea of punting away to let the other side take over?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 05:58 pm
@spendius,
I have seen the last two minutes of that game now.

What were you on about? Was it trying to pretend you know something about NFL to impress the girls like you do with science?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2013 08:50 pm
@Jpsy,
Quote:
Gungsnake, have you ever sat down and actually read a book by a respected evolutionary biologist....


I don't enjoy being depressed and I find that, (reading about a talented person wasting his life in pursuit of a false science like evolution) depressing. I DO understand evolution and the way the theory is supposed to work.
Jpsy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2013 01:37 am
@gungasnake,
Ok, what book, written by a respectable evolutionary biologist, have you read. You seem to care deeply about this topic, surely you do not only read one sign of the argument. Instead of only reading intelligent design websites about what the evo. biologists are getting wrong, why don't you read a book by an evo. biologist and decide for yourself.

Jpsy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2013 02:29 am
@gungasnake,
alright, since you like picking random arguments from the Discovery Institute (who I pointed out don't actually do any real science, which you conveniently ignored) I will pick out some evidence I find particularly strong for evolution, and see how you explain that it isn't actually evidence for evolution. Then I want you to go a step further and say how this is actually evidence for ID.

How do you explain homologous structures like whale fins

"Examples of Homologous Structures

Many mammals have similar limb structures. The flipper of a whale, the wing of a bat, and the leg of a cat are all very similar to the human arm. All of the mentioned species have a large upper arm bone (the humerus on the human) and the lower part of the limb is made up of two bones - a larger bone on one side (the radius in humans) and a smaller bone on the other side (the ulna in humans). All of the species also have a collection of smaller bones in the "wrist" area (these are called carpal bones in humans) that lead into the long "fingers" or phalanges.

Even though the bone structure in these limbs of the mammals are very similar, the function of the limb itself is very different. The homologous limbs can be used for flying, swimming, walking, or everything humans do with their arms. These functions evolved through natural selection as the common ancient ancestor underwent speciation to make all of the diversity we have on Earth today."

Whales have an arm and a hand inside their fin that they can't even use. They can't use that hand to grip something. They are mammals. They have lungs and breathe air, yet they live in the ocean. They have to frequently go to the surface for air because they do not have gills. What kind of intelligent design is this?

"What is a Homologous Structure?

Homologous structures are parts of the body that are similar in structure to other species' comparative parts. These similarities are evidence that life on Earth has a common ancient ancestor that the diverse species have evolved from over time. The common ancestry of the species can be seen in the structure and development of these homologous structures, even if their function is different.

The more closely the organisms are related, the more similar the homologous structures between organisms. Most examples of homologous structures revolve around the limbs of the species being compared. The bone structure within those limbs are similar between closely related species."

Here's an article on the evolution of the whale.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

I went to answersingenesis (where you'll probably go) and there was a lot of rhetoric, like listening to a politician, but none of it could provide me with a satisfying answer as to why an intelligent creator would put an entire arm inside a fin. A fin that just flaps back and forth. Why would that creator not let the whale extract oxygen from the water with gills instead of having to come up for air frequently?
The fact that whales evolved from a land-dwelling mammal makes the most sense to me.

Baby wales or calves drink milk from their mothers and whales are warm blooded unlike most other aquatic species (but like land-dwelling mammals).

"Socialization
Whales are known to teach, learn, cooperate, scheme, and even grieve.[20] The neocortex of many species of whale is home to elongated spindle neurons that, prior to 2007, were known only in hominids.[21] In humans these cells are involved in social conduct, emotions, judgment, and theory of mind.[22] Whale spindle neurons are found in areas of the brain that are homologous to where they are found in humans, suggesting that they perform a similar function.[23]"

This just screams evolution!! Does it not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution 101
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 11:56:06