Poll: Evolution and the other side

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
dantoddd said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
what on earth are you talking about?
theology :/ yeah, i am driving of course too much, i think we should stop here. sorry i wasn't much help :(
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
kidd25 said:
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
That's a very weak argument. I could just as easily say a monkey built it from the ruins of a past universe and then use your explanation as "evidence".
true, i ain't going to lie that is one way of looking at it. i should study some more before talking on this subject again, and please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject >.<
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Thaliur said:
monfang said:
So recently the Archaeopteryx was removed as the missing link between birds an animals.

A DEITY couldn't have planned it better. Just two years after On The Origin of Species was published, a fossil found in Germany gave Charles Darwin's controversial ideas an almighty boost. Archaeopteryx sported a mouthful of teeth and armfuls of feathers - facts that Darwin's supporters immediately leapt on as evidence that birds descended from dinosaurs.

This week, Darwin's "strange bird" has finally lost its perch on the lowermost branch of the bird evolutionary tree (see "Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch as first bird"). New Scientist, 30 July 2011, ?It?s been fun, feathered friend?, page 3, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128233.000-we-shouldnt-mourn-the-demotion-of-archaeopteryx.html
You can read more here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v15i11n.htm

I am.
So archaeopteryx isn't the first bird anymore (or, to be precise, has been determined to never have been a bird).
You didn't read did you? Here's how they came up with that idea.

They wrote a computer program that compares selected physical characteristics to decide how closely related various species are and assigns them to various groups. The comparisons that the computer makes are all based on what the programmer tells it to compare, and how heavily to weight each feature. The validity of the conclusion depends entirely upon the subjective decisions made by the programmer.
When they take the new creature out of the program and run it, Archaeopteryx is placed as a bird. Put the new creature in, and Arch is no longer a bird. How does a new creature being found changes whether or not a different one is a bird or not?
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
monfang said:
So recently the Archaeopteryx was removed as the missing link between birds an animals.
Was wondering if this would come up. I'm going to assume that 'animals' is supposed to be 'dinosaurs'. As for it being 'knocked off it's perch', it isn't thought to be 'the missing link' (a phrase which, by the way, shows a lack of understanding of how this works) between birds and dinosaurs, but a relative of the ancestor to birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Phylogenetic_position).

So you're blowing this out of proportion, just as you blew Ardi's discovery out of proportion. Scientists revising their understanding of the phylogenetic tree is not the smoking gun against evolution that you seem to think it is.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
kidd25 said:
Monkey lord said:
what scientific evidence ?
can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?
creationism
well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.
just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.
God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm that website has outside sources talking about Jesus Christ, so either the Romans are lying about him or he actually lived. True most creationism do believe the bible on that of the creation of the world, but then do you believe the bible is one big myth or a bunch of little myths?
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Thaliur said:
BrassButtons said:
monfang said:
Most signs of this type of evolution come from broken, scattered bones from long gone animals.
Way to dismiss an entire field of science. "Oh, this is just supported by paleontology--there's no real evidence."
Of course it isn't. Real evidence can only be provided by people writing books about something, like the strictly scientific observations about Griffins no one ever found any remains of:

monfang said:
The point I am trying to make is that these creatures are the only ones to be so detailed. Their discriptions match our modern models for the creatures that we only formed though simulations using bones and advanced computers. They did it ether using their own imaginations or perhaps they truely saw it.

Read Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare, volume I, book III.XLVIII., 1921, p. 333.
As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.
No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.

That's all that I can find on the subject. You make your final point which I believe will go back to your prior point and I will wash my hand on the subject.
monfang said:
I watched it. And I'm not convinced. Fusion of the chromosomes is not proof of common ancestry. If anything, it just means that humans and apes are already even more different. It was already known that Apes and Humans share 98% of their DNA (That might change after finding Arti) so finding that this 'fused' chromosome is similar to two pairs of the ape's doesn't surprise me. It just means that humans are different from apes.
The joint of my cars rear-view mirror was broken. I glued the mirror directly on the socket. The bad news is the mirror can't be adjusted to other drivers anymore since the socket and the mirror carrier are now essentially one part. The good news is, I now have a completely different car...


But of course you are not convinced. I have a handy set of wikipedia articles which you might find interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_credential
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias

And last but not least, one that seems to be very widespread among creationists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade

I just can't decide which of these fit you best...

Now I will stop reading this thread for a while, because it's 2:39 according to my computer clock.

Maybe tomorrow monfang will finally realise that by rejecting science he lost the right to use any electronics.
i would just like to say thank you on looking these things up for people, and to know that this will be very helpful in my studies. hopefully others as well.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
I love how monfang just keeps jumping back and forth between arguments, and once one of his arguments gets thoroughly disproven, he doesn't even acknowledge it any more and moves on to a new argument, which gets disproven, etc.


I'm still waiting for him to comment on my mitochondria, chirality, and "amino acids make DNA" replies... I don't expect any will come.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
monfang said:
You didn't read did you? Here's how they came up with that idea.

They wrote a computer program that compares selected physical characteristics to decide how closely related various species are and assigns them to various groups. The comparisons that the computer makes are all based on what the programmer tells it to compare, and how heavily to weight each feature. The validity of the conclusion depends entirely upon the subjective decisions made by the programmer.
When they take the new creature out of the program and run it, Archaeopteryx is placed as a bird. Put the new creature in, and Arch is no longer a bird. How does a new creature being found changes whether or not a different one is a bird or not?
I did read it, and I added my remarks about exactly that passage to my original post by editing because I thought it didn't need a new post. In fact, the whole "article" is worth less than the memory required to store it.

I'm seriously starting to consider "free speech" a bad idea. There should at least be some exceptions. If advertisements are not allowed to blatantly lie anymore, why is it still OK if creationists do it? Can't we introduce technocracy in exchange for democracy?
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
Um... WHICH creation story?

There are as many different Creation stories as there are different religions.

So which one, why THAT one and why NOT any of the others?
 

David Devine

New member
May 11, 2011
2
0
0
Original poster, would you consider it a good usage of time for Geographers to spend two weeks studying the Theory of the Flat Earth? How about Physicists spending two weeks studying the Theory that (at close ranges) Gravity is a Pushing Force? Or how about Chemists spending two weeks studying the merits of transmuting Lead to Gold?

Furthermore, please spend two weeks learning how to use punctuation, spelling, and sentance structure.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
lotr rocks 0 said:
I love how monfang just keeps jumping back and forth between arguments, and once one of his arguments gets thoroughly disproven, he doesn't even acknowledge it any more and moves on to a new argument, which gets disproven, etc.
In that he is quite typical of creationists.

He also flagrantly abuses many logical fallacies, displays an unwillingness to accept evidence offered to him, and bases his belief in part on his own lack of understanding of evolution. 'bout the only thing he's done that most won't is admit to the latter.
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
monfang said:
I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?
The Panda actually has the digestive tract of a carnivore, along with with canines. It's lineage is also firmly routed in the carnivora order. And it's actually omnivorous not herbivorous.

Also your assertion that simply because two separate animals share a similar trait they must share a recent common ancestor is so far off base that it's mind boggling.

You literally have no freaking clue what you're going on about do you?

Look up 'convergant evolution'.

There are thousands of examples of two or more isolated lineages developing similar solutions to the same problems.
Examples such as the Human and the Octopus eye. Structurally they're very similar, or so I've heard.

But then again, The Flying Spaghetti Monster did make the Octopus in His Noodly Image, so I guess they'd have some similarities with Humans.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Here's another disproof of one of creationism's hypoetheses.

The young earth.

Alright, so ask a creationist how old the universe is and he will point out that it is some number of centuries old. Sometimes sixty, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Okay.

Then explain this:

Why is there light bombarding the earth from objects that are too far away for that light to have reached us if they were created such a short time ago?

Why are there geological phenomena that can be measured using multiple methods of radio isotopes, and determined to be older than every arbitrary date set by a young earth creationist?

Why are there fossilized trees, which can have their rings matched up with other fossilized trees, and so on, and so forth, until they match up with one tree that is over four thousand years old? Thus providing an unassailable timeline of tree rings going back over 10,000 years, well before any arbitrary YEC's date of creation?

The answer you will get is simple: God put them there to test our faith.

To which, I ask you this. You now have a god who is willing to deceive you to test your faith. In other words, God is fucking with you. But obviously you'v got a book or tablet or scripture or whatever, written by God, that shows the right way, correct?

Then you have a contradiction.

Your book must be taken literally, therefore God falsified aspects of the universe to test peoples' faith. But that means you have a God who lies to test faith, meaning that the word of God could be a lie, meant to test your faith. Meaning your book could be as much a falsified test of faith as the very fossils, radio-isotope dating, celestial objects, and all other phenomena that point to a very old earth.

BILL HICKS says it best. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo]
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
I imagine he'll just abandon this like every other point he's lost and move onto his next ill-conceived point.
Well of course--how else are we supposed to get Bingo [http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html]?
 

Knight Templar

Moved on
Dec 29, 2007
3,848
0
0
.ShadowsofHope said:
ShadowsofHope asserts that Monfang should take more Math classes, if he honestly believes meters do not exist.
ShadowsofHope finds this response to show futility in explaining evolutionary concepts to someone whom just seems to want to willfully not get it.
ShadowsofHope leaves the explaining of Evolutionary facts and logic in sake of debate to others now.
He won't listen, when I called him out on the dating and the whole griffions thing he just changed topic.
I do not think he is here in good faith.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
For the record.

Evolution is not a process that is restricted to life. So long as you have any process that has:

-reproduction of information
-mutation of that information
-means of selecting based directly or indirectly on that information

Over multiple generations, you will observe evolution towards suitability towards what is being selected for.

This concept is a core idea behind neural networks and AI study. This for example. [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html]
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
AlexNora said:
this is the reason I don't believe evolution i studied it enough to realize its very unstable at best but creation is no better
Wait a minute... You don't believe in evolution, but you also don't believe creation... How on earth does that work.

Secondly, the evidence supporting evolution is actually very compelling to everyone but those unable to be reasonable. And you can't research creationsim. There is no scientific way of researching that. All the "evidence" that creationists provide is really stale rhetoric like the blind watchmaker and intelligent design.

Based purely on the fact that evolution has at least some evidence, and that creationism has zero, I believe in evolution.