Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies by kaneman

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Actually there is more evidence for that than for creationism. I am not familiar with the mathmatics involved, but there is mathematical evidence for it. Just ask a theoretical physicist and they'll tell you all about it."

I can't remember the name of the book - it came out about 2yrs ago I think. It was written by a mathemetician.

In it he shows how simple rules, with repetition, generate complex, non-repeating, asymmetrical patterns that 'evolve'. And there are 'evolutionary' mathematical models that demonstrate survival and reproduction using simple random changes and 'fitness' rules.

Generation of complex creations and survival of the fittest are completely mathematically proven as inevitable outcomes of simple rules applied over time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, Stephen Wolfram. I skimmed thru his book when it came out... I think its a good point (kind of like how fractals create very recognizable "natural" forms).

www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-52?firstview=1

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:30 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, antimason. It's like me calling you a selfish right-wing Republican fundamentalist, or dismissing you as someone who can't even be bothered to read the book their entire religion revolves around. I think I'm correct when I say neither is true...

(/random comment)

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

Trouble-Maker in the House!

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

THANK YOU. It was driving me crazy* ! For the life of me I couldn't remember either the title or the author.

* Some might say it's a short trip.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:11 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigmanunki:

Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists.

Would "default(ing) to a greater authority when one exists" include the current Nobel Prize winner for physics, George Smoot (who, clearly doesn't believe that the universe evolved)?

Don't cherry pick your examples and expect someone not to point it out. So, with that in mind, I call bullshit on this so called example as he is just one voice against... well... couldn't count them all. Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.

Just b/c someone isn't a idiot in his own feild does NOT mean that they aren't an idiot in another.

Nice try, but again, bullshit.

Care to take another try?

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

if youll notice, i said "athiest" not evolutionist. i dont dispute that a degree of evolution does occur, i just dont think it is the sole mechanism of creation in the universe. an athiest does not subscribe to any omnipresent being.. that is what im talking about

Please re-read my post. You clearly haven't understood it.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Seriously. How many "believers" have come out of Berkeley?!?!?

Assloads! The problem with you, is that you equate "believer" with exactly what you believe.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Hi, Heb. No. I can understand you're saying this, and you are correct -- if indeed, Smoot was endorsing a book about "biology". He wasn't. Heeren's book ("Show Me God") is not about the origin of "life", but is about the origins of the cosmos, its make-up, and fine-tuning (something about which Mr. Smoot is eminently qualified to comment). (BTW, Heeren's second volume is going to be about the origin of life.)

Yay, well, how about giving us the title of that book. Or better yet the ISBN or a link to somewhere that we can actually look at it?

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Actually, from the wife (phd in theoretical physics) the many worlds theory is a well worked out mathematical theory. So...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Yeah, Stephen Wolfram. I skimmed thru his book when it came out... I think its a good point (kind of like how fractals create very recognizable "natural" forms).

There's actually significant problems with that book. The main one being that it was self-published. Wolfram himself isn't exactly the most stable person in the world either.

EDIT: It's not the fractal thing that I disagree w/. It's just that Wolfram has seemed to take the approach that everything comes from celluar autommata, which IMO is rather... um... yay.

Sorry about the spelling, it's a late night.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

You obviously failed to read my previous post. Heeren's book is about cosmology, and that is Smoot's field of expertise. Of course, I don't know how seriously I can take the comments of someone who claims to respect science, yet refuses to believe what Stephen Hawking says about Smoot (also mentioned above) -- not to mention the Nobel committee -- and recognize him as a "greater authority".

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Just b/c someone isn't a idiot in his own feild does NOT mean that they aren't an idiot in another.

Again, I refer to the comments made about Smoot by Stephen Hawking and his recent Nobel prize. What praise has Hawking brandished about anyone in this forum?

And again---Smoot was commenting about a book precisely within his field of expertise -- cosmology. Maybe large segments of my posts have become invisible, that I have to keep repeating myself.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Nice try, but again, bullshit.

Easily, a well-thought, scientific response. Clearly more superior to my inane ramblings. (And certain people wonder why I ignore things posted by them.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 1:41 PM

Quote:
(And certain people wonder why I ignore things posted by them.)

Because they prove you wrong and unlike in real life you can't tie them to a stake and set fire to them so you just ignore them. Wouldn't want to let your tiny brainless head get educmacated now would we, would probably cause some sort of faliure.

I think everyone should ignore you. You're a religious fanatic, an idiot and a sociopath.

Nothing you say is worth listening too, nothing you say has an ounce of truth, nothing you say has an ounce of intelligence.

You'd be a Troll but you're lower than that.

A loud fart is supirior to you're inane ramblings, fuck off back under the evil freedom hating hole you came from you evangelist terrorist.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There's actually significant problems with that book. The main one being that it was self-published. Wolfram himself isn't exactly the most stable person in the world either.

EDIT: It's not the fractal thing that I disagree w/. It's just that Wolfram has seemed to take the approach that everything comes from celluar autommata, which IMO is rather... um... yay.

That's why I skimmed thru the book. It was all in chapter one. The rest was.. "And here's ANOTHER example!... And look at THIS example!" Kind of like reading a guy obsessively mumbling the same to himself over and over....

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:15 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

You obviously failed to read my previous post. Heeren's book is about cosmology, and that is Smoot's field of expertise.

No, what you fail to understand is that biological and cosmological evolution are two completely different processes. Evolution of the cosmos goes along smooth, fairly predictable lines. It is relatively simple, because it is dealing with lifeless matter.

Biological evolution is very different because it deals with organisms. An asteroid cannot mutate or reproduce or breath or excrete waste or die, because it is essentially already dead. An organism can. So, while this guy has probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about cosmology, he's no more qualified to comment on evolution than some Joe Shmoe off the street.

Quote:
Of course, I don't know how seriously I can take the comments of someone who claims to respect science, yet refuses to believe what Stephen Hawking says about Smoot (also mentioned above) -- not to mention the Nobel committee -- and recognize him as a "greater authority".

Okay, first of all, Steven Hawking is a genius with MATH and PHYSICS, NOT BIOLOGY. Secondly, Hawking was admiring his work on cosmic ripples which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

What you need to figure out is that cosmic evolution and biological evolution are two radically different concepts. Just because they share a word in their titles doesn't mean they are the same thing.

While Im sure your physicist is very good at what he does, biology is not what he does. Take Einstein as an example. He was arguably one of the greatest physicists ever produced by mankind, but he was an utter failure in feilds like politics and fatherhood. Just because you're a good basketball player, you aren't automatically a good football player.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:19 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Kind of like reading a guy obsessively mumbling the same to himself over and over....

LOL, too true!

@Citizen:

Gotta agree w/ you there. Cartoon certainly is showing himself to be a... um... yah. Think I'm going to join that group of people that ignore this joker.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
No, what you fail to understand is that biological and cosmological evolution are two completely different processes.

Hi.

No, actually I do understand. But, perhaps I'm not explaining myself, or people are missing what I've written.

Heeren's book is on cosmological evolution, NOT biological evolution. Smoot endorses Heeren's book. Heeren is NOT (at least not in this volume) commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution. Likewise, Smoot is NOT commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution -- something for which he is immanently qualified.

Heeren's book states that cosmic evolution is a fallacy, and he goes to great lengths to illustrate that (go to the Smoot thread to read Heeren's acknowledgements, and Smoot's foreward, if you'd like)(I'd also highly recommend the book, itself -- which, I'm sure you can find at your library). Apparently, Smoot agrees, as he wrote the foreward and endorses the volume.

Heeren planned a second volume (on biological evoltuion), but it is not yet published. Naturally, Smoot would not be writing the foreward for that book, as (as you correctly stated) that's not his area of expertise.

So, to clarify once again, Heeren's book is not on biological evolution/the origin of life, etc.

I would surmise, however, that if Heeren (and Smoot) are correct, and that the cosmos were created (Heeren believes that God created them; Smoot, to my knowledge, has made no specific comment as to "who" created the cosmos, but seems to have no doubt that they did not come into existence by chance, but were intelligently designed by a designer), then the next step (life) would logically, also not have originated by chance, but by design.

However, as Heeren's first volume does not go into the origins of life, it would be presumptuous of me to assume what Smoot (or even Heeren) believes along those lines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 6:23 PM

DREAMTROVE

Cartoon,

'eminently' qualified

'imminently' relates to Kim Jong Il and nukes.

Fascinating subject though. Myself, I'm pretty well convinced some form of cosmological evolution took place, but I don't buy the big bang as it is. It reads too much like a theory based on facts which were bent continuously around a pre-conceived result that the scientists were trying to find. The data seems to me to lend itself to a universe of infinite size and age, and I studied it a fair amount. But I might take a look at the book.

My strongest suspicion is that creation is not an event, but an ongoing process, and matter, space, stars, galaxies, quarks and electrons are constantly being created, as are not only species, but also life, in its orignal form. Most of the so called scientific theories we get revolve around some sort of genesis event, just in scientific terms. I don't think the universe works that way, just based on what I've seen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Heeren's book is on cosmological evolution, NOT biological evolution. Smoot endorses Heeren's book. Heeren is NOT (at least not in this volume) commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution. Likewise, Smoot is NOT commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution -- something for which he is immanently qualified.

Heeren's book states that cosmic evolution is a fallacy, and he goes to great lengths to illustrate that (go to the Smoot thread to read Heeren's acknowledgements, and Smoot's foreward, if you'd like)(I'd also highly recommend the book, itself -- which, I'm sure you can find at your library). Apparently, Smoot agrees, as he wrote the foreward and endorses the volume.

Damage control on fanatic lies:

Smoot headed a project called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), in which capacity he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The COBE project has probably done more to cement the Big Bang Theory than any other.

Headed by a man this lunatic would have us believe doesn't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

Here's what Barkley's page on George Smoot has to say:

Quote:
Experimental Astrophysicist George Smoot is an active researcher in observational astrophysics and cosmology. Smoot’s group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley is observing our Galaxy and the cosmic background radiation that is remnant from the fiery beginning of our Universe. Projects include ground-based radio-telescope observations, balloon-borne instrumentation and satellite experiments. The most famous of these is COBE (the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer satellite) which has shown that the cosmic background radiation intensity has a wavelength dependence precisely that of a perfectly absorbing body indicating that it is the relic radiation from the Big Bang origin of the Universe.

Using NASA’s COBE DMR, Smoot and his colleagues have made a map of the early Universe discovering the seeds of present day galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These seeds show up as variations at the part in 100,000 level in density from place to place. They also reveal information on the Big Bang and the origin of the Universe.

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/Smoot.html
Smoots page at the University of South Dakota:

Quote:
In 1974, Smoot headed a project called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) whose purpose was to seek out and examine evidence of the universe's origin.
...
The data from COBE helped to reinforce the big bang theory and point out the appearance of overlaps in the universe. This evidence has been included in Smoot's book Wrinkles in Time.

http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys300/gallery/clark/smoot.html

And the most amusing part, while this joker is trying to tell us Smoot doesn't believe in the Big Bang and he has a Nobel Prize so he knows what he is talking about let's take a look at what the research he won the Nobel Prize for was about:

Quote:
Big-Bang Detective Work Wins Physics Nobel
The Nobel Prize in Physics will be awarded to two Americans whose findings lend support to the big-bang scenario of the universe's origins.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189865

Oh and just so we know how callous and low a liar Cartoon is lets place his comments together:

Quote:
However, as Heeren's first volume does not go into the origins of life, it would be presumptuous of me to assume what Smoot (or even Heeren) believes along those lines.

Doesn't really gel with:

Quote:
It's been many months since a post in here on evolution vs creationism, but I recall having cited many quotations from Fred Heeren's "Show Me God", where he scientifically explains how evolution could never have happened.

It is obvious which type of Evolution Cartoon is talking about. He now tries to back peddle when his lies are exposed.

Remember people that Fanatics only have power and a voice if we give it to them. They are exceedingly ineffective if we ignore them. True if we do that they'll go back to using violence, but that is less insidious and in a great many ways less harmful. Let people like Cartoon go back to donning Bed sheets and the like.

In fact his sudden reappearance linked with his tag teaming with Kaneman leads me to believe that in fact Cartoon really is a Troll.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.

Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Out of order? Not for him.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
This is what annoyed me about the article Kaneman cited:

He says the following:

"There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome."

No-one I know who calls themselve an evolutionist would say that they deal with those first 3. Evolutionists, in the normal sense of the word, study biologial evolution.

The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Actually, they are essential to terrestrial evolution. You have to decide what the composition of the early atmosphere was etc.. It all really is a bunch of junk science. Everything from the big bang(getting everything from nothing) to inorganic into living. Just think about it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Actually there is more evidence for that than for creationism. I am not familiar with the mathmatics involved, but there is mathematical evidence for it. Just ask a theoretical physicist and they'll tell you all about it.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:59 PM

HEB

Well the inorganic into organic thing isn't that difficult to understand because things like viruses are on the blurring line all the time.

Evolution could have happened even if the big bang didn't and vice-versa, they are separable.

Also what would you consider non-junk science if you don't trust biochemistry and things like results from the COBE satellite?

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 1:39 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Everything from the big bang(getting everything from nothing)

You mean the theory that has loads of experimental evidence to back it up?

Also, the big bang is NOT something from nothing. You should try to learn about something before you go spouting off about how it isn't true. As in the first

sentence here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
"""
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.
"""

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

Yay sure, we can't measure it.

You see, what we can do is look for objects that have an attraction to an unseen object. So, we can measure it even though it isn't seen. Since we have measured such objects we know that something like what we think is out there is actually out there.

And again, go look up many worlds. It's a very well worked out (mathematically) theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

It's people like you that have no clue how science actually works, nor what the claims actually say, nor what is actually claimed that are the problem. Please, stop spreading around your provably false fud.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Out of order? Not for him.

You're absolutly right, no matter how you speak to Cartoon it is never out of order.

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

Actually no one 'made up' dark matter. Certain observations were found to only be possible if the was greater mass than could be detected.

Fritz Zwicky estimated the total mass of galaxies in the Coma cluster using observational data to be 400 times that of the visible galaxies in 1933.

We've since seen the effects of Dark Matter through various means, you can tell of the existance of a large body by it's gravity, and as I'm sure you know gravity bends light. This is called Grvitic Lensing. If we notice the effect of Gravitic Lensing without any apparent visible mass to cause it, then we know we've found dark matter.

It can be measured, observed and proven to exist, thus it is very scientific.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:05 PM

SIMONWHO

Why do I get the feeling if we explained quantum theory to Kaneman, his head would explode?

No, wait, he'd just jump up and down and say "It's not true, it's not true, the universe is as limited as my imagination."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:11 AM

There's an old adage that offspring tend to exhibit the traits of their parents.

Given that, compare the behavior and civility of the posters in this thread between those who believe they were descended from monkeys, to those who believe they were created by an intelligent Designer.

The irony of that observation hasn't been lost on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:23 AM

In other words your intelligent designer is an idiot and a lier prepared to murder anyone who doesn't think and say exactly what Cartoon wants too hear?

Well I must say that's one nasty god you worship.

Oh and insulting someone with a smile on your face and in such away as to say "what me, insult, oh no I wouldn't do something like that" is cowardly, not better. In fact it's worse, because it shows you aren't insulting someone out of an emotional reaction, but in order to cause offence and anger, as a rhetorical technique one might say.

In other words the behaviour of one certain individual who believes they're descended from an intelligent designer (BTW you think God is your Father, how arrogant and delusional are you?) is worse and more cowardly than those who know they're species descended from Apes.

Like a bitchy twelve year old girl whispering to another "you're mums a slag" then batting her eyelids at teacher and saying "no I don't know why she got so upset, maybe she's insane". But hey you wish to act like a bitchy twelve year old girl, who am I to argue.

But I suppose what else would we expect from a Troll

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:50 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
There's an old adage that offspring tend to exhibit the traits of their parents.

Given that, compare the behavior and civility of the posters in this thread between those who believe they were descended from monkeys, to those who believe they were created by an intelligent Designer.

The irony of that observation hasn't been lost on me.

Don't make me start hurling poo!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 6:05 AM

STORYMARK

Citizen - I agree with all your points, and think Cartoon is just spinning the same creationist crap over and again. But you are the one acting like a troll in this particular case.

You keep saying ignore Cartoon, but you're the one that keeps replying.

Just take a deep breath, listen to your own advice, and move on. Hurtling insults in every post just weakens your position, and makes you look like the raving troll you're accusing others of being.

And if you are right about Cartoon, then you're just playing into his/her game anyway.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 6:38 AM

No, I'm just throwing a few truism at someone who desperatly deserves them.

Cartoon is a liar, he's demonstratably lied several times in this thread. He does hate freedom of speech, he pretty much said so back when he was last here. He is a Christian Fanatic, again something he freely admits too. He does believe it's his right and duty to force his religion on other people he said this last time he was here.

And yeah, Kaneman is a Troll, and Cartoon and Kaneman are tag teaming, that should tell people something. You can say I'm acting like a Troll if you like, but Cartoon is a troll, that's the difference.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 6:45 AM

STORYMARK

My point is, they make their points civilly, at least in this thread. I disagree with them on every point, but they aren't resorting to name calling and mud-slinging. You, on the other hand, seem to be on the verge of throwing a temper tantrum.

It doesn't matter who's right or wrong. You're not going to change their minds, thay're not going to change yours, or mine. Making constant personal attacks makes you out to be an ass, regardless of the points you are trying to make.

And again, you keep saying "ignore them", and then reply to every post they make. Why do you not take your own advice?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
My point is, they make their points civilly, at least in this thread. I disagree with them on every point, but they aren't resorting to name calling and mud-slinging. You, on the other hand, seem to be on the verge of throwing a temper tantrum.

No they throw mud and insults in every post, but they do it in a bitchy fashion.

Quote:
And again, you keep saying "ignore them", and then reply to every post they make. Why do you not take your own advice?

Because everytime Cartoon lies I point it out.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 6:59 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

No they throw mud and insults in every post, but they do it in a bitchy fashion.

Fine continue if you like. But you've made it fairly clear that it's a personal with you. And your raging undermines your otherwise well-thought-out responses to the point that even someone who agrees with you (like me), is starting to skip your posts.

Quote:
Because everytime Cartoon lies I point it out.

So, do as I say, not as I do?

You're just perpetuating the issue, and playing into their hands. Have fun with that.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Lies repeated over and over without refutation gain credibility. One HAS to refute them - otherwise they stand as truth.

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

PS There are posters I personally cannot treat with any level of civility. They lie, bait, and derail any substantive discussion with rhetorical tactics - and not as a sometime thing but as a universal approach to any discussion. I spent over a year uniformly responding civilly and at length - and finally I got tired of dealing with their crap. I refuse to hold myself to a standard that's far above theirs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 1:14 PM

Just saw the following program on TV: ( http://www.illustramedia.com/reviewpage.htm), then checked the web, where I found the script in PDF format here: http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.p
df

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 1:25 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Just some hard science for the Evolutionists (Philosophers) among us.

So...is being a philosopher identical to being an evolutionist? I'm pretty sure Alvin Plantinga, Willian Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland would take issue with that (and so would I).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 1:31 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".

Mmm...fallacy of false dilemma...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This is like getting your info on global warming from Shell and Arco. Oh, that's right. You do.

------------------

Michael Behe
Lehigh University biochemist
Fellow International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
intelligent design advocate

Dean Kenyon
Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University
author of a controversial textbook on intelligent design
"As time passed, Kenyon began to have doubts about the viability of his own theory. Kenyon himself and researchers in laboratories around the world for years (roughly 6) tried unsuccessfully to recreate the scenario described in his book."*

Paul Nelson
PhD in philosophy
Fellow International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
American young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate.

Phil Johnson
retired UC Berkeley American law professor
born-again Christian
intelligent design advocate

William A. Dembski
Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Executive Director International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

Stephen C. Meyer
Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science
Founder Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
which advocates intelligent design

* "As time passed, Kenyon began to have doubts about the viability of his own theory." How to interpret this: I'm a smart guy. My idea doesn't work. Therefore, the whole field is wrong.

------------------------

stellar references, just smashing

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 5:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So anyway, I read the thing. For guys who think they're smart, they're kinda dumb, terribly unimaginative and more than a little arrogant. Their (collective) rationale is: 'I'm really smart and since I can't imagine it let alone figure it out, it must be wrong'. They are using themselves as the measure of all things. And posit them just as small as they are.

For example, the script makes a huge deal about the 'irreducible complexity' of a bacterial flagellum. They just can't imagine intermediates. Strange, just sitting here I came up with more than one. For example, the flagellum could have started out as a dumb but useful anchor. Something that ties the bacteria to a particular (and good) environment. It could have (gradually) acquired movement capability, either to direct the bacteria to point in one direction, or to counter external forces. As that capability became more acute, the ability to detach and re-anchor could have proven useful. And before 'ya know it, in a few short million years, presto !, free-swimming bacteria with complex flagella. And that's only one scenario.

Here's another example - Dean Kenyon spent roughly 6 years trying to figure out how proteins could have accidentally constructed themselves. First of all, most PhD students in the 'hard sciences' spend more time than that getting their (fairly limited) research done. Six years is nothing. But he never considered clay-templates, and that he might possibly have had the wrong molecule. He was so convinced it just had to be a protein he never considered a simple sugar - kind of like DNA.

And so on. Every argument they bring up has a potential avenue for research that doesn't seem to have been explored. They go immediately from 'I just can't imagine ...' to 'the butler did it !'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 5:54 PM

TAKEMEFLYING

I really wish people would leave faith and science in their own boxes, because we're talking entirely different realms, here.

Science is the study of the world that can be observed, measured, or proven in some way - it has nothing to say about matters of belief - the questions it addresses are 'What is this?' 'How does it work?' and 'How does it affect and get affected by other things?'.

Faith is about things that cannot be observed or proven in any way, shape or form - that is its nature - the question it answers is 'Why does everything exist?' or 'What meaning is there in existence?'.

And if scientific inquiry should inequivocally disprove biological evolution, it will take us in another *scientific* direction, not an abdication of scientific search to the tenets of whatever given faith exists in the socio-cultural environment at the time.

Again, faith and science are in two entirely different areas that cannot be interchanged or mixed and matched to suit an agenda.

Whoa. Good myth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 2, 2006 6:24 AM

Hi. Firstly, I have to say that while you and I disagree on this (and likely some other things as well), that I respect your taking the time to read it. (You said you did, and you've given me no reason to doubt your word, so I accept that you did.)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, I read the thing. For guys who think they're smart, they're kinda dumb, terribly unimaginative and more than a little arrogant.

I do find it troubling that whenever someone (particularly someone highly educated and likely far more qualified than anyone else in this forum) finds evidence to contradict evolution, they are immediately dismissed as idiots.

When Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination (a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution) in 1969, they were highly acclaimed as visionaries by the evolutionary community. However, Kenyon examines the matter further, finding staggering evidence to the contrary, publically refutes his original theory, and he is suddenly "kinda dumb" (-- which, to your credit, is actually rather mild compared to what many other evolutionary advocates have called him since he turned on them in the past couple decades).

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
For example, the script makes a huge deal about the 'irreducible complexity' of a bacterial flagellum. They just can't imagine intermediates. Strange, just sitting here I came up with more than one. For example, the flagellum could have started out as a dumb but useful anchor. Something that ties the bacteria to a particular (and good) environment. It could have (gradually) acquired movement capability, either to direct the bacteria to point in one direction, or to counter external forces. As that capability became more acute, the ability to detach and re-anchor could have proven useful. And before 'ya know it, in a few short million years, presto !, free-swimming bacteria with complex flagella. And that's only one scenario.

Again, I think it's a much larger stretch to imagine your scenario than the conclusion that the complex machinery of the bacterial flagellum was actually, intentionally and purposely designed that way.

I take your word that you read the whole thing (which I applaud), but the last quarter of the program dealt with the "design inference", which explains how science infers design in every area of scientific study except evolution -- where it is automatically ruled out in favor of methological naturalism, because (as Steve Meyer explained) "...if you're going to be scientific, you must limit yourselves to explanations that invoke only natural causes. You can't invoke intelligence as a cause."

As he continued, "And yet, curiously, we make inferences to intelligence all the time. It's part of our ordinary reasoning... to recognize the effects of intelligence."

They then pointed to heirogylphics found on rocks, which no one assumes to have derived through methological naturalism. Likewise, writing in the sand at the beach, the heads on Mount Rushmore, etc. Even if no one else was around to see their origin, they'd never infer that these things happened naturally, apart from intelligence.

Yet, it baffles me (who admittedly isn't the brightest bulb in the socket) that the very same people who declare that heiroglyphics on the side of a rock did not occur naturally, would look at something like the infinitely more complex DNA molecule and reason that it did occur naturally.

I realize we aren't likely to change each other's minds, but I welcome the decency of your restrained, non-insulting reply.

I also realize that I have nothing to lose in this argument. If I'm wrong, when I breathe my last, it won't matter. If I was not a product of Divine Intelligence who was created for a purpose (to worship and honor that Creator), but rather a product of chance, then I won't know it, and not a single thing that I (nor anyone else who ever lived) has said will matter in the least. It will just be the end of one more "accident" of evolution.

However, can the same be said for those on the other side of this argument if they are the ones who are wrong?

Just something to ponder.

Thanks again for your civility in this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 2, 2006 7:39 AM

Proof positive that 'scientists' that support intelligent design aren't really scientists at all. At best they're like the scientists that refused to accept Einstien over Newton, despite it being plain that they were wrong.

Thanks Rue, undeniable evidence that intelligent design isn't science for anyone with any amount of cognitive intelligence whatsoever.

Of course being wrong has never stopped the violent hate filled Evangalists that want little more than too crush all freedom of thought and expression and revert to the good old days where they could murder and torture at will. They have no interest in truth or knowledge, neither the capacity for same, they try to sound reasonable, but in the end it's plain they merely want to kill you.

Such a pity, such a waste of human life

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 2, 2006 7:50 PM

Please citz, shut up...When there is any proof for evolution let us know, till then SSShush!
We are a monkey / alien hybrid....Think about it? ROFL

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 2, 2006 11:13 PM

There is plenty of proof, it requires a brain to understand it.

When there is proof you have one let me know, untill then shhh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:01 AM

ANTIMASON

[Quote}originally posted by Citizen-

Of course being wrong has never stopped the violent hate filled Evangalists that want little more than too crush all freedom of thought and expression and revert to the good old days where they could murder and torture at will.

it depends on whos really pulling the strings behind the world stage. i believe its the central banks, super rich families and elite transnationalists... but if christians are behind it, then why does the media and academia promote evolution? if christianity is fake altogether, then why do many of the world elite take part in occult ceremonies like skull and bones or bohemian grove? is it just a coincidence.. that some of the most prominant people in global finance and politics lend credibility to satanic masonic idealogies?

if you go back through history youll notice a fascinating succession of secret societies, which originated in europe like the knights templars, rosicrucians, the jesuits, the illuminati, the black nobility, and eventually the freemasons..and all these groups can be exposed as Luciferian, by anyone willing to scrutinize their idealogies and decipher their symbolism. to understand modern Israel, and the church history under the vatican.. you need to think seriously about a few things. when the Israelites were in Babylon, they were among a culture that still worshipped the fallen angels and the prince of demons Lucifer. during this time a lot of these concepts were adopted by the jews and became incorporated into what became the heretical Kabbala and Talmud of the pharisee sects. these descrepencies between yahweh and satan worship represent distinct opposing philosophies , so its important to emphasize that their is a difference between christianity and occultism; and its the kabbala that gave way to gnosticism and later to freemasonry, which conspired to create Americas central bank the Federal reserve(which is printing satanic symbolism on its money). to me.. this is where the real conspiracy lies, with those groups who hold as principle the denial of Jesus' deity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 12:31 AM

I never said Christians were behind anything. I said Evangalists are hatefilled often violent and would be terrorists if they lived in say the middle east. Cartoon here isn't interested in the truth, Cartoon is interested in destroying the truth and forcing his own beliefs down other peoples throats, and if they don't like, well Cartoon will have them murdered.

That's the perfect little world Cartoon wants.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:31 AM

TAKEMEFLYING

The fact of the matter is simply that throughout human history, people have used any number of social mechanisms to increase their own safety and survival - of themselves, their family, their property. Laws -religious or secular-, customs, norms: they are all social constructs that help separate individuals live and function together as a relatively orderly whole. One of the most easily manipulated dynamics are simply Us vs Them, and the most empowering validations of that distinction is "my God said so." It's also one of the most inflamatory and intractable, because, interpreted and written in stone by men and women just as worried and alnoe as any of us today, it requires everyone but those within "Us" to be wrong.
Spirituality, shared and private, can provide comfort, guidance, a sense of belonging, of right and wrong, a connectedness to something more than one's self. But when it solidifies into a rigid social construct that demands complete compliance from everything and everyone, it stops being anything more than a tool for the powerful and the unscrupulous. Anything one thinks, believes, loves can be turned to chains in the wrong hands, if you let them.
Believe anything you want, it is a human drive and priviledge to reach to the heavens for meaning and comfort, but water will freeze or turn to steam under consistent conditions, and that is science, and it isn't subject to faith.
Believe with all your heart, pray with every breath, see the world with the eyes of your faith - but accept that others have the same right, and there is a basic, physical reality to this world that does not require your faith or mine to exist.
Science & faith are *independent* of each other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I just thought this was interesting. It has to do with a retrovirus that added new - but viral - DNA into the human genome abut 5 million years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030183232.htm

"A team of scientists has reconstructed the DNA sequence of a 5-million-year-old retrovirus and shown that it is able to produce infectious particles. The retrovirus--named Phoenix--is the ancestor of a large family of mobile DNA elements, some of which may play a role in cancer. The study, which is the first to generate an infectious retrovirus from a mobile element in the human genome, is considered a breakthrough for the field of retrovirus research. The findings are reported in Genome Research.

"Phoenix became frozen in time after it integrated into the human genome about 5 million years ago," explains Dr. Thierry Heidmann, lead investigator on the project. "In our study, we've recovered this ancestral state and shown that it has the potential for infectivity."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 4, 2007 12:31 PM