Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

45% of Americans are Morons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm not sure that's correct, but I'm not a biologist. My biologoy teacher said it was incorrect to say that humans were more advanced than modern single-celled organisms because they have evolved every bit as much as we have. On the other hand, we can say that modern organisms are more advanced than ancient ones, not because evolution has a goal, but because it has results. Compare ancient and modern cell structures, for example. Modern cells are far more complex, and complexity is generally a sign of advancement.
    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    Comment


    • Advancement is meaningless in biology, unless we mean complexity.
      urgh.NSFW

      Comment


      • I guess that has something to do with the term "evolution," which has other meanings in non-scientific usage.

        Just like terms such as "proof" and "theory."
        (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
        (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
        (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

        Comment


        • I'm not sure that's correct, but I'm not a biologist. My biologoy teacher said it was incorrect to say that humans were more advanced than modern single-celled organisms because they have evolved every bit as much as we have. On the other hand, we can say that modern organisms are more advanced than ancient ones, not because evolution has a goal, but because it has results. Compare ancient and modern cell structures, for example. Modern cells are far more complex, and complexity is generally a sign of advancement.
          Aye but the cell structures in the past were just as advanced in their environment at that past time, as cells now are just as advanced in the environment at this current time.



          Nice topic
          shawnmmcc thanks for the evolution 102 lesson

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kidicious


            The hard part is believing that an intelligent, spiritual species evolving from an plain animal.

            If intelligence is a tool or useful for surviving I fail to see why.

            It occurs to me that yet again you're bringing metaphysics into the realm of the biological and the physical.

            Instead of reading Darwin (from your posts it seems to me that you haven't, otherwise you'd know that Darwin was and remained a believer) you prefer to say something along the lines of

            "Look! Sistine Chapel! Look! Handel's Messiah!- and see- Guy the Gorilla flings his dung at tourists!"

            as if somehow there was meant to be any immediate linkage between the two.

            All that you are doing is ignoring the use of the scientific method to explore and explain physical phenomena and in lieu of attempting to understand aspects of geology or palaeobiology or botany or biochemistry or biology, you're interpolating the existence of a supernatural being into (or instead of) an evolutionary sequence and given that you brought up the notion of 'reasonable doubt' with regard to physical evidence or scientific methods, I have to say by what method, or with what evidence, have you established the existence of this supernatural creator beyond a reasonable doubt ?
            Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.

            ...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915

            Comment


            • Molly: Kid has decided not to use rationality in this matter. Your arguments, as they are grounded on rationality, won't meet the target.

              I don't think there can be a discourse that can change his mind. Because I don't see an evolutionary discourse that can match the emotional mindset he uses for this matter.
              "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
              "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
              "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kidicious

                My belief isn't based on scientific verification of the Adam and Eve explanation. It's based on a gut feeling and lack of proof for any other theory. Do you have a gut feeling on the issue

                I'm not even arguing about anything regarding the subject of the origin of man. I really don't care too. My purpose here is the discussion of how someone could not believe that man evolved from lower life.
                So if you're not interested in scientific proofs, or evidence, I fail to see why you're so het up about whether or not they can give 100% certainty when provable certainty doesn't seem to interest you as much as 'gut feeling' or airy notions.

                We're dealing with a spiritual matter.
                Right....

                ...evolution of man was a fact. That's not only spiritual, it's religious in nature,

                Only if you choose to make it a plank of your religious belief system. Many of Darwin's contemporaries did not say that his theory denied the existence of god, nor did scientists (who were also believers) in the 17th Century start disbelieving in God simply because they were scientists dealing with phenomena that contradicted what the Bible said- they could separate faith and science fairly easily, because they weren't relying on a literalist interpretation of religious texts.

                They understood that the Bible dealt in metaphor and poetics and myth, and wasn't the equivalent of a forensic accountant's investigation of a small business's receipts and billings.


                So you
                know evolution is a fact.
                just not that:

                man evolved from a lower life form.
                but you've already stated that :

                I'm not even arguing about anything regarding the subject of the origin of man. I really don't care too.
                and:

                My decision is based on a gut feeling in that absence of proof.
                but yet there's evidently proof enough for you of evolution ?


                I hope your posts haven't been some long wind-up.

                Because the tenor of some of your replies make your signature seem awfully ironic:

                The still mind of the sage is the mirror of heaven and earth, the glass of all things.
                Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.

                ...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915

                Comment


                • Originally posted by molly bloom

                  forensic accountant's investigation of a small business's receipts and billings.
                  hell hath no fury...
                  Originally posted by Serb:Please, remind me, how exactly and when exactly, Russia bullied its neighbors?
                  Originally posted by Ted Striker:Go Serb !
                  Originally posted by Pekka:If it was possible to capture the essentials of Sepultura in a dildo, I'd attach it to a bicycle and ride it up your azzes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Az
                    Advancement is meaningless in biology, unless we mean complexity.
                    Bingo, and complexity != better, necessarily. There are plenty of evolutionary examples of organisms becoming less complex over time. After all, the more "complex" a system, the more energy it requires, which isn't always a good thing.

                    Complexity is itself a loaded term that has dubious scientific merit. See Behe's attempts at showing "Irreducible Complexity," wherein his attempts to even define what constitutes biological complexity are hopelessly muddled.
                    Tutto nel mondo è burla

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by molly bloom
                      Instead of reading Darwin (from your posts it seems to me that you haven't, otherwise you'd know that Darwin was and remained a believer)
                      Meh, this isn't really true. Darwin settled into agnosticism as he got older.

                      Tutto nel mondo è burla

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                        We're not discussing fitness, my friend, but advancement. I'm more advanced than a dinosaur. In the Jurasic Era, however, I would be little more than someone's lunch.
                        Only in a chronological sense. It depends on how effective you are in the environment. Man can be defined as pretty successful because he can use technology. Hell, he can adapt the environment to his own needs which is pretty cool
                        Speaking of Erith:

                        "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                        Comment


                        • The Onion weighs in:



                          Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory


                          KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

                          "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

                          Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

                          Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

                          According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

                          The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

                          "We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

                          Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

                          "Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

                          Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

                          "Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

                          "Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

                          Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

                          "Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

                          "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                          "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                          Comment




                          • Onion strikes gold, once again.
                            urgh.NSFW

                            Comment


                            • Speaking of Erith:

                              "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                              Comment


                              • Evolution is about life adapting to surroundings, not about some sort of race to a destination. There is no destination, only a journey.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X