|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2005 12:39:30 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I myself am still waiting to see proof of evolution. |
It's been out since 1859; what are you waiting for? The Origin of Species
And for updated information, this Wikipedia page has enough text and related links to keep you busy for a long time. |
The US National Academy of Sciences has a useful page summarising the modern position.
//www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
The wikipedia page on ID also explains in more detail than is repeatable here the argument, and the strength of criticism.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
I believe that the risk governmental support for the teaching of faith in school science classes is one of the most obvious examples of the danger of the mixing of state and religion. GWB has advocated support for exactly that.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:40:47 PM · #552 |
| While on the subject of Bush...anyone know what Bush'es position is on Roe vs. Wade? |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:48:49 PM · #553 |
Microevolution is "proveable"; we see examples of it all the time. Critics of Darwin's theory assert that he may have proven microevolution, but that there is no proff of evolution on a "macro" scale. Evolutionists basically believe that all life on earth "evolved" from the primoridal soup from primitive, unicellular organisms. The argument is that this has not been proven, and there are many supposed "holes" in this theory.
I'm not taking a position by making this statement, just pointing out that that the proveability of microevolution does not, in itself, prove macroevolution.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 04:48:55 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
While on the subject of Bush...anyone know what Bush'es position is on Roe vs. Wade? |
He has no position he doesn't care what people use to get out of New Orleans.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 05:25:00 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Microevolution is "proveable"; we see examples of it all the time. Critics of Darwin's theory assert that he may have proven microevolution, but that there is no proff of evolution on a "macro" scale. Evolutionists basically believe that all life on earth "evolved" from the primoridal soup from primitive, unicellular organisms. The argument is that this has not been proven, and there are many supposed "holes" in this theory.
I'm not taking a position by making this statement, just pointing out that that the proveability of microevolution does not, in itself, prove macroevolution.
Robt. |
Technically, nothing is ever âprovenâ in science. Theories are always tentative and should always be open to revision pending the discovery of new information. The Newtonian Theory of Gravity was revised with the arrival of Einsteinâs Theory of Special Relativity because there were observable facts that did not fit into the Theory of Gravity as it was then known. Not only did special relativity explain Isaac Newtonâs Theory of Gravity, but also explained the facts that didnât fit into Newtonâs theory. Newton wasnât necessarily wrong, but his theory was understandably incomplete due, in part, to the observational and technical limitations of his day.
The same goes for Darwinâs Theory of Evolution. Darwin had predicted a method of heredity that would assist in keeping some biological traits while weeding out others, but it wasnât until the 1930s, in what is called the Modern Synthesis, that Mendelain genetics was incorporated into Darwinâs theory and the Theory of Evolution was revised to incorporate this new information. Remember, Mendelâs work was largely unknown before the turn of the last century and originally purported by some to be the death knell for evolutionary theory.
The facts that leads to the conclusion of macroevolution consists of a series of different lines of evidence. These lines of evidences, consistent the Theory of Evolution, are comprised of such things as the existence of pseudogenes, retroviruses, vestigial organs, the fossil record, biogeography, and genetics and these lines themselves are supported by such fields as biology, genetics, zoology, microbiology, paleontology, and geology. There are more than likely a number of lines of evidence and scientific fields which Iâm forgetting, but Iâm admittedly less well informed on these matters than those who actually do work in these fields.
One indicator of the viability of a theory is its ability to make predictions about new facts that should be found if the theory is correct. For instance, it was predicted, before the event, that, if Einsteinâs Theory of Special Relativity were correct, Mercury would be visible in the incorrect position of itâs orbit during a solar eclipse due to the gravitational effects of the Sun on the light rays reflected off Mercury reaching Earth just over eight minutes later.
Likewise, the existence of extra telomeres and an extra centromere were predicted to be in human chromosome number 2 based upon reasoning of common descent which is central to the Theory of Evolution before the investigation was begun. Humans turned out to have extra telomeres and an extra centomere in chromosome number 2, in case you were wondering. Darwin also predicted the existence of transitional fossils between species groups in his 1859 Origin of Species. In the 1860s the fossilized specimen Archaeopteryx lithographica, a feathered and toothed âbirdâ with a âreptilianâ skeletal structure, was discovered in Germany. Samples of other predicted and discovered transitional fossils include Osteolepis and Eusthenopteron (bony fish to amphibians during the Devonian period), Protergyrinus and Hylonomus (amphibian to reptile during the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian periods), Clepsydrops and Varanops (reptile to mammal during the Pennsylvanian and Permian). I particularly like the âwalking whalesâ - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus natans (both from the Eocene). (Note for those reading: I only knew a few of these names before researching this post. There are many more.)
So, as you can see, bear_music, macroevolution in the Theory of Evolution is far from being unsupported by the evidence. For an easily accessible web-based archive of information regarding evolution and the non-scientifically supported controversy that surrounds it, I would suggest reading through the files of TalkOrigins. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 07:00:06 PM · #556 |
| Where's the "proof" man was the result of some unknowable supernatural force performing CPR on a ball of mud? |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 08:28:07 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
While on the subject of Bush...anyone know what Bush'es position is on Roe vs. Wade? |
He has no position he doesn't care what people use to get out of New Orleans. |
ROFLMAO!!!! |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 09:48:30 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
So, as you can see, bear_music, macroevolution in the Theory of Evolution is far from being unsupported by the evidence. For an easily accessible web-based archive of information regarding evolution and the non-scientifically supported controversy that surrounds it, I would suggest reading through the files of TalkOrigins. |
I never said macroevolution is "unsupported by the evidence". I was relating a simplified version of the position taken by those who believe macroevolution is not "proven". I took pains to point out in my paragraph that this was not MY position. The reason I posted it is that some people apparently believe that since there is quite tangible evidence of microevolution this constitutes proof of macroevolution as well, and these are different issues. Therefore, it's perfectly possible for a believer in "intelligent design" to accept as proven that species DO evolve new traits and characteristics while still believing that the ultimate source of life was from a creator, not from blind chance.
I'm well aware that scientific "proofs" are subject to revision and even discarding as new evidence/facts become available. For the record, I believe macroevolution is a fact. I have no problem with it whatsoever. I just like to stick an oar into debates and be sure everyone's working from the same page. Microevolution and macroevolution are two different things IMO.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 09:52:32 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Where's the "proof" man was the result of some unknowable supernatural force performing CPR on a ball of mud? |
Well, there isn't any of course. But, for the sake of argument, it's not required that one have a solution before one criticizes the status quo. No more is it required that one be able to "prove" one's own beliefs in order to logically reject someone else's opposing belief. There are plenty of apparently educated, intelligent people who think the theory of macroevolution is full of gaping holes. I don't agree with them, but some of the arguments are very interesting.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:04:27 PM · #560 |
Evolution is quite difficult to prove simply because it proceeds so relatively slowly with respect to the human lifespan, that nobody lives long enough to observe it.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:55:07 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I never said macroevolution is "unsupported by the evidence". I was relating a simplified version of the position taken by those who believe macroevolution is not "proven". I took pains to point out in my paragraph that this was not MY position. The reason I posted it is that some people apparently believe that since there is quite tangible evidence of microevolution this constitutes proof of macroevolution as well, and these are different issues. |
I do apologize. I overstated your point and then critiqued the overstatement. I get nervous when I see the word âproofâ rather than âevidenceâ when speaking of scientific theories. I get the same way when I heard people using the word âtheoryâ when they actually are speaking of a âhypothesisâ in everyday speech. In my mind, the incorrect interchange of words causes confusion and has poorly served scientific debate.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:05:34 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Where's the "proof" man was the result of some unknowable supernatural force performing CPR on a ball of mud? |
Well, there isn't any of course. But, for the sake of argument, it's not required that one have a solution before one criticizes the status quo. No more is it required that one be able to "prove" one's own beliefs in order to logically reject someone else's opposing belief. There are plenty of apparently educated, intelligent people who think the theory of macroevolution is full of gaping holes. I don't agree with them, but some of the arguments are very interesting.
Robt. |
But for a working hypothesis of "reality" I prefer the one with at least some physical evidence, rather than one which says such evidence can never be collected. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 04:48:46 PM · #563 |
Physical evidence wouldn't change the minds of the unbelievers, and would only detract from the faith of those who do believe.
Luke 16 Verses 19-31:
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Those who DO not believe, WILL not believe - and wouldn't believe even if there WAS physical evidence, they would always find some reason or other to discount it. Those who DO believe do so without physical evidence - that's why it's called faith. If there WERE physical evidence, there would be no need for faith.
Why would God provide physical evidence when it wouldn't convince those who do NOT believe, but would hurt those DO?
1 Corinthians 1, Verses 18-21:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 05:21:00 PM · #564 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Why would God provide physical evidence when it wouldn't convince those who do NOT believe, but would hurt those DO?
|
Blah blah blah....... why would it hurt those that do?...anytime we have one of these so called miracles like statues with bleeding eyes etc the faithful flock in thousands to pay homage, they want to see proof, we all want to see proof because then it justifies your whole way of life.
Your argument falls flat when church people say JC did the odd miracle, you know walk on water, fishes and loaves. You see if God didn't want to show physical evidence he would have grabbed is son and have a word in his ear to the effect of " Hey JC no miracles when your down on earth or your grounded"
As a non-believer I can tell your right now if I saw some dude walkin on water, I'm on his side I'm going to follow him around because I would then believe. I would be thinking hey maybe there is something to all this religion bullshit blah blah blah blah
just the ranting of a poor lost soul.......blah blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 05:50:31 PM · #565 |
I think this thread should just be locked.
Now, it has nothing to do with the original post...and its pretty ugly now.
I hate to see that. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 06:13:08 PM · #566 |
This went way off topic days ago and involved a SC so I doubt it should be locked.
Maybe branched off in a new thread would be good.
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 18:13:21. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 06:20:37 PM · #567 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
I think this thread should just be locked.
Now, it has nothing to do with the original post...and its pretty ugly now.
I hate to see that. |
I don't think locking should be necessary and, please, not on account of anything I wrote. Not counting two recent posts, for my part I think theSaj and I had a very fruitful discussion and I enjoyed it. I had recently been thinking about the subject he and I were discussing and I was glad to have the opportunity to put my thoughts into words and have the ability to take a look at the arguments from another perspective. It's helpful to have an opposing view to clarify the strengths of my arguments and the portions that need further contemplation and/or refinement.
He may have called one of my arguments "idiotic", but I pointed out that he misunderstood my argument. I would have agreed that my argument was ... well, maybe not idiotic, but wrongheaded, if my argument were what he thought it was.
I had been looking forward to furthering the conversation, but ... alas.
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 18:21:40. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 07:12:24 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Evolution is quite difficult to prove simply because it proceeds so relatively slowly with respect to the human lifespan, that nobody lives long enough to observe it. |
I have a freind who runs a lab at U.C.Berkeley. He raises yeast. Does stuff to them, messes with their DNA, exposes them to pathogens, ect. The reason they work with yeast is it has a very fast life cycle, generations pass in a single day, they can be freeze dried and sent to other professors around the world to study new varients and results. This is where basic genetic reaserch is being done, and while they are very simple life forms, they are evolving quickly based on what they are exposed to. It is pretty obvious that evolution exerts it's influence on simple life forms and domesticated animals, we just have a harder time beliving that it works to shape universes, or lofty godlike creatures such as ourselves.
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 19:36:27. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:00:54 PM · #569 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Those who DO not believe, WILL not believe - and wouldn't believe even if there WAS physical evidence, they would always find some reason or other to discount it. |
So, are you claiming all agnostics are liars? Or are you a mind-reader who can reliably predict the actions of people you've never met? Please give me some evidence to support this remarkable behavioristic conclusion.
This is the kind of disinformation I've come to expect any time this discussion arises -- since you can't present any credible evidence to support your own view, the only alternative lies in assassinating the character and credibility of the opposition. I expected hoped for better.
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 20:01:35. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:25:03 PM · #570 |
Exerpted from this article:
The Can-do Bush Administration Does...
and the Presidency Shines (for twenty-six minutes)
By Tom Engelhardt
Don't say they can't. They can -- and they did. Despite every calumny, it turns out that the Bush administration can put together an effective, well-coordinated rescue team and get crucial supplies to militarily occupied, devastated New Orleans on demand, in time, and just where they are most needed. Last Thursday, in a spectacular rescue operation, the administration team delivered just such supplies without a hitch to one of the city's neediest visitors, who had been trapped in hell-hole surroundings for almost three weeks by Hurricane Katrina. I'm speaking, of course, of George W. Bush.
That night, he gave his 26-minute "FDR" speech in a blue work shirt (meant assumedly to catch something of the White House work ethic) in floodlit Jackson Square, whose brilliantly lit cathedral had the look of Versailles amid a son-et-lumière spectacle. It was -- however briefly -- a triumph of the White House rescue team, headed, naturally, by Karl Rove, and seconded by the evangelical Christian, first-term speechwriter, Michael Gerson (once upon a pre-steroidal time known in the press as "the Mark McGwire of speechwriting"). He was brought back from White House domestic advisor-hood to shove a passel of religious imagery and Iraq-War-style catch phrases into the gaping hole Katrina had punched in the administration's political levees. Add to those two the White House's chief lighting designer, former NBC cameraman Bob DeServi, and the man long in charge of "visuals," former ABC producer Scott Sforza. The key designer of the quarter-million dollar stage set that, during the invasion of Iraq, passed for the United States Central Command forward headquarters in Doha, Qatar, Sforza had with DeServi helped produce the infamous Top-Gun-style, color-coordinated Presidential landing on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln ("Mission Accomplished!") on May 1, 2003. Both men went to Jackson Square, according to New York Times White House correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (in a pre-speech press-pool report from New Orleans) to handle "last minute details of the stagecraft," including the "warm tungsten lighting" that was to give the President his empathetic -- or, depending on how you look at the man, his sci-fi -- glow in that utterly deserted setting.
As for those crucial supplies: Without a single mishap, the rescue team delivered to central New Orleans its own generators, lights (not just the warm-glow ones for the President but the HMI movie lights to set the cathedral in the background ablaze), the camouflage netting that was needed to hide from viewers any sign of the surrounding devastation, and even its own communications equipment. And then there was the matter of crowd control -- okay, maybe not exactly crowds in depopulated New Orleans, but soldiers from the 82nd Airborne were effectively deployed, just in case, "to keep regular citizens several blocks back."
Even more impressively, as NBC news anchor Bryan Williams reported at his blog, they managed to get the lights turned on along the President's route into Jackson Square "no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through," so that looted mini-malls and abandoned gas pumps leapt into sight. Of course, an hour after he was done and gone -- rescues of this sort being limited affairs -- the area was "plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans." (As Williams concluded, "It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.")
It may be true that, for a week or more, this administration couldn't get a bottle of water to a diabetic grandmother, but when something was actually at stake -- what reporters far and wide referred to as the "rebuilding" not of New Orleans but of a presidency, or simply of the presidential "image" -- efficiency, coordination, and togetherness were the by-words of the day.
As for the speech, there were some genuine can-do steps forward in it as well. Though many in the media focused on the major financial commitments the President seemed to make to the New Orleans area and Katrina evacuees, more striking was his progress in accepting "responsibility" for administration error. When he first stunned reporters on September 13th by speaking such words while standing side by side with the Iraqi president at a White House welcoming ceremony ("...to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."), he seemed a good deal less than comfortable. In fact, despite that wonderful little "to-the-extent" loophole phrase, he looked, as a Western pal of mine commented, like he had just swallowed a grasshopper and was feeling the legs go down. In New Orleans, similar words slipped down more like a smooth shot of single-malt scotch as did that toll-free number for those needing help (which has evidently hardly worked ever since), not to speak of all sorts of hardly noticed charmers right out of the Bush administration's non-Katrina wish-book.
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 20:26:14. |
|
|
|
09/19/2005 07:58:13 AM · #571 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Those who DO not believe, WILL not believe - and wouldn't believe even if there WAS physical evidence, they would always find some reason or other to discount it. |
So, are you claiming all agnostics are liars? Or are you a mind-reader who can reliably predict the actions of people you've never met? Please give me some evidence to support this remarkable behavioristic conclusion.
This is the kind of disinformation I've come to expect any time this discussion arises -- since you can't present any credible evidence to support your own view, the only alternative lies in assassinating the character and credibility of the opposition. I expected hoped for better. |
You are right, Paul. I misspoke. Eventually, EVERYONE will believe. Scripture says that someday every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. And while there are SOME who will EVENTUALLY exercise faith before the judgement, there are others who will REFUSE to exercise faith. And it is not for ME to say which category an individual who does not show faith at present will fall into.
As for "believing" if one only saw evidence ( miracles ), I agree that MANY will suddenly "believe", but it will be belief in a false Christ:
Matthew 24, verses 23-26 says:
At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. |
|
|
|
09/19/2005 08:53:38 AM · #572 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Physical evidence wouldn't change the minds of the unbelievers, and would only detract from the faith of those who do believe.
...
Those who DO not believe, WILL not believe - and wouldn't believe even if there WAS physical evidence, they would always find some reason or other to discount it. Those who DO believe do so without physical evidence - that's why it's called faith. If there WERE physical evidence, there would be no need for faith. |
Hi RonB.
Your point is a good one: it would take an awful lot of evidence for me to believe, and it would have to be well substantiated. I suppose that the corollary to, but reversal of, your argument is that there is a huge amount of well substantiated evidence in science for propositions such as evolution and the big bang. But many people still choose to believe their various religious texts and creation stories, rather than draw conclusions from directly observable phenomena.
Many even go to great effort to deny the accuracy of experiments that peer review generally considers sound. The hypocrisy, as has been mentioned before in this thread, is that the denial is often done using technologies that are developed on the basis of the science that is being disputed... (eg every CD player uses a laser that depended for its inception upon quantum theory, which is also central to the analysis of the big bang theory and rejection of persistent state theory).
Personally, I believe that it is much healthier for religious texts to be interpreted within the context of the directly observable phenomena (often the texts can be interpreted by implication of metaphors).
|
|
|
|
09/19/2005 10:34:40 PM · #573 |
By RonB
<<< Eventually, EVERYONE will believe. Scripture says that someday every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. >>>
I can guarantee you that will not happen during my lifetime. How is this statement any different from the rantings of bin laden and company? |
|
|
|
09/19/2005 11:27:04 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
By RonB
<<< Eventually, EVERYONE will believe. Scripture says that someday every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. >>>
I can guarantee you that will not happen during my lifetime. How is this statement any different from the rantings of bin laden and company? |
You're absolutely right. It will not happen during your LIFETIME. It will happen, according to scripture, on the day of judgement. FYI, the judgement only takes place AFTER one dies, physically. |
|
|
|
09/19/2005 11:59:24 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
By RonB
<<< Eventually, EVERYONE will believe. Scripture says that someday every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. >>>
I can guarantee you that will not happen during my lifetime. How is this statement any different from the rantings of bin laden and company? |
Same religious fanatics that cause wars all over the world throughout history. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:34:49 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:34:49 AM EDT.
|
