|
|
|
|
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 8/31/2005 11:28:45 AM | Well first, I do not see why you say,
Good bye theory.......
Nothing shown, yet.
surprising difference in the way the male-making chromosomes from the two species cope with the inexorable pressures of evolution........provide insight into the evolution and variation of primate genomes.
Does not disprove anything
And second this is about the validity of creation. Which none have yet to offer. You all just keep trying to poke holes in evolution and I agree it is not complete. It is like Politicans who just go on about how bad the other guy is, as if that makes them better.
So can we get back on topic please.
Why should Creation be treated/taught as a science when there is No proof what so ever? | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 5:20:17 PM | Why should Creation be treated/taught as a science when there is No proof what so ever?
There is no prove of evolution either. So why is it taught? Although neither one(creation or evolution)has been dis-proven either. So if neither one has been proven then why teach either one?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 6:28:10 PM | One is a scientific theory. The other is a farce.
The amount of evidence in support of one is monumental. Within the evidence there is much we still don't understand, but the fact that our understanding of the process is primitive doesn't disprove the theory.
The other is an invention of a primitive culture in times long past. The object of it was to make men feel more secure in their place in the cosmos. This map of natural history and time did not come about by thoroughly investigating natural phenomena, but by creating an entertaining story and deciding it was the truth. It was the best thing we had at the time and it served its purpose.
The problem is that people who subscribe to it naturally take it upon themselves to battle anyone who is trying to honestly investigate natural phenomena. People who use science to further our understanding should not be hindered or oppressed, they should be treated like heroes. It is not healthy for the human race nor ethical to force belief on others or to destroy science.
Religion should be able to evolve beyond including such farcical notions. Intelligent design is a far more rational way to include direction and purpose in the processes of nature. And, for the most part, it doesn't contradict the scientific method or logic itself. It does not invalidate belief in the Lord and shows that through the investigation of nature we are only lead to appreciate the splendor of the Lord's creations more thoroughly.
Personally, I don't subcribe to intelligent design, but I can easily tolerate it as the basis for another person's beliefs. It won't automatically prompt them to burn me at the stake for suggesting that the stars are not holes in a giant blanket surrounding the Earth. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 254 | |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 7:00:00 PM | Many here need to read the thread, a few things:
"Theory":
...... has different meanings, it means one thing in the context of "science" and another in the context of rhetoric = read the thread
Chimps/Humans:
Neither "came" from the other, ..evolution is divergent, not understanding evolution does not equate to disproving it = read the thread
"Evolution hasn't been proved"
= read the thread.
...See where I'm going with this? | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 255 | |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 7:22:37 PM | Evolution is a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth, it can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit. | |
|
| |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 9:14:15 PM | I've never seen any proof from either side for the initial phase of their arguments.
Fossils, carbon-dating, genes. This is just a very small part of what has been used to substantiate the premise of the theory.
The other essentially uses ancient scriptural rhetoric and argument by fiat to validate its position, which is to say it doesn't. But don't say that to them twice or they might hang you. Just kidding. We all know religious people have never persecuted or murdered anyone simply because they didn't accept their dogma... | |
|
| |
| |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 10:15:36 PM | | Actually carbon dating is system of measurement. Its basis is always true. In some cases it is not reliable because of limitations in instrumentation and the degree of natural decay, as well as the effects of radiation. | |
|
| |
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 262 | |
| |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 10:44:50 PM | http://arnica.csustan.edu/Biol1010/origins/origins.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20031024/02
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Science.html
I'm fed up with the stench of ignorance in the air. I've read your bible and now you should read mine. | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 10:53:18 PM | Carbon dating is only accurate to 12 - 14 thousands years, and even then what scientist are basing their beliefs upon are an assumption that the worlds geological and atmospheric climate have been the same for millions of years.
This is called Uniformitarianism, which simply states that weather patterns have been the same, as in the same amount of hurricanes, tornados, etc. The same amount of earth quakes, volcanos. (based on a mean) This is a very naive assumption, yet science is itself a religion and also subject to dogmatic beliefs and political agenda's. Fossils, yes, but what do these prove. Evolution, yes, but science still can only assume the beginning of these organisms, they are only hypotheses, not laws. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 265 | |
| |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/9/2005 11:22:45 PM | Read the Thread, Read the Thread, all right all ready bob s.
In response to dryad and the Miller expmt. I've vaguely recall hearing about this. This could fall under the realm of the observer. You create what you expect to see (schrodinger's cat). Or you find what you're looking for. This subsequently could lead to where we create our own reality (that was a bit of a leap) which will rock creationists and evolutionists worlds and isn't quite in line with this thread at least not yet. ;-> | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/10/2005 1:02:54 AM | From my post:
Actually carbon dating is system of measurement. Its basis is always true. In some cases it is not reliable because of limitations in instrumentation and the degree of natural decay, as well as the effects of radiation.
From your post:
Carbon dating is only accurate to 12 - 14 thousands years, and even then what scientist are basing their beliefs upon are an assumption that the worlds geological and atmospheric climate have been the same for millions of years.
Carbon dating can be accurate as far back as 30 to 100 thousand years and reputable scientists have made no such assumption that atmospheric climate has been static.
...yet science is itself a religion and also subject to dogmatic beliefs and political agenda's.
Largely it isn't. Its an admittedly fallible human process of investigating natural phenomena. If you don't like it you really ought not be using computers, as you never know when the devils that make them work will steal your soul from you. (I kid, we all know its elves that make computers work, not devils).
Science is not a religion. I don't know whether to laugh or vomit when I hear that argument.
| |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/10/2005 8:57:20 AM | Science is NOT dogmatic. Science changes as new proofs come to light. Science is not Stagnate. Such as, Science was changed when it was proved the world was not flat and at the center of the Universe. Science has changed their view of races being from different genetic backgrounds. Science goes through a series of peer review, questions and tests that constantly leads it to change.
And besides as Late put it, Read the thread!
What we need are answers to post #4. Got any? | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/10/2005 11:54:58 AM |
Carbon dating is only accurate to 12 - 14 thousands years, and even then what scientist are basing their beliefs upon are an assumption that the worlds geological and atmospheric climate have been the same for millions of years.
Not true at all. Scientists use independent means to calibrate carbon dating because they know that atmosphere has changed over millions of years (though we need not worry about that scale of things for carbon dating). That helps make it possible to use carbon dating to date things to 100,000 years old. Of course we have other dating methods for timespans longer than that. Some of these methods are even self-correcting so that we can factor in leaching/deposition of radioactive material. | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:19:24 PM | Actually Maj Liz ya need to check your sources. Argon dating is all the rave, though not as effective with fossilized remains. Carbon dating measures isotopes in the sample and the assumption, again, is that the same amount of ultraviolet radiation has been entering the earths atmosphere for the last 200 millions years. This is not the case. I'll look for a carbon dating page to show ya.
Science is a religion, when people base their existance upon assumed beliefs, ie; science, you have a religion. Science is now exploring the quantum realm, which will open many new doors and change the dogmatic beliefs of the past.
Now before those of you get on your thumper bashing wagon. check my posts, You're preaching to the choir. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 271 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/10/2005 2:52:41 PM |
Who says that they are exclusive one to the other?
Read the thread, your answer is there.
Science is a religion
religion
n : Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
science
n 1: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 272 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/10/2005 3:20:45 PM | Sure, ......now we recreate, please.
Share with us the scientific experiment that supports your contention, ...for independant verification. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/10/2005 3:27:16 PM | I love this. If you're going to quote from a dictionary then use all of the definitions.
Religion: what late wrote.
also; - details of belief as taught or discussed
- a particular system of faith and worship
- a pursuit or intrest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
-The New Oxford American Dictionary, copywrite 2005 - - whatever.
Religion is all of the above.
Science falls into these catagories. Now, is it the best thing going? I believe yes. But, for you scientific fanatics, the problem with science is that science is run by scientist, which are people, And the problem with people, is that people are arrogant and pigheaded in their beliefs, and they resist change.
"Change is Good" Rafiki(sp) The Lion King. Disney productions 1990's something. LOL | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/10/2005 3:32:26 PM | I might add this also.
The problem with religion is that religion is run by clergy, which are people, and the problem with people - - yada, yada, yada. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 275 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/10/2005 4:49:46 PM | In response to dryad and the Miller expmt. I've vaguely recall hearing about this. This could fall under the realm of the observer. You create what you expect to see (schrodinger's cat). Or you find what you're looking for. This subsequently could lead to where we create our own reality (that was a bit of a leap)
Eeep… it’s a good thing I’ve had a number of philosophy courses, or that ‘bit of a leap’ would be insurmountable.
The illustration of Schorodinger’s cat tries to point out the conflict in our perceptions of matter when viewed at the macroscopic compared to the atomic level. The cat isn’t both dead AND alive simultaneously, we cannot know because our observation frequency is low. Admitting we cannot know, (i.e. admitting the limitations of the observation technique and frequency) is useful in quantum theory; it moved the entire theory to a basis on probability. What is modeled by quantum mechanics is how probabilities change over time. It says nothing at all about whether the cat is actually alive or dead, it merely gives the likelihood the cat has died (this is a huge difference).
In quantum theory, the coarse resolution of the observations compared to what’s being measured means that inductive reasoning can’t make the same assumptions that are justifiably made at larger scales (i.e. photons bouncing off an elephant, don’t change the elephant’s position significantly the same way they impact an electron’s position).
For example: In macro-scale let’s say you drive from town A to town B which is 100km away and you check the clock when you arrive and find you took 1hour to travel. On average, your speed is 100km/hour… but there’s an assumption in that -- that you took no detours adding to the distance traveled (i.e. that 2 observation points at the beginning and end of the journey are sufficient to make an average). At very small scales, that assumption isn’t made for obvious reasons. Inductive reasoning about what happens between observations makes assumptions as you point out. The frequency of observations compared to what’s being observed speaks to whether those assumptions are reasonable.
Schorodinger’s cat doesn’t illustrate that we create our own reality or find what we’re looking for. It indicates that the observation technique and frequency is important, particularly at very small scales.
The ‘principle of uncertainty’ indicates that in certain cases measurement of certain parameters can significantly influence other parameters. The famous example is trying to determine the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously… we can’t do it because the technique we use while finding one, impacts the other. Hence the ‘apparent’ conundrum. The Copenhagen Interpretation, that we create the events we observe, is basically an over-generalization of Bohr’s idea about the principle of uncertainty. Somehow what is really a specific measurement issue was unduly generalized into a sweeping metaphysical assertion by some philosophers.
In terms of doing a chemical analysis, I’m failing to see how what the experimenter believes impacts what tars, amino acids, other chemicals turn up in the analysis. The analysis can be sent off to other labs to run, they will agree on the chemistry. Samples are routinely replicated to quality check the analysis for issues such as contamination or calibration problems. That is a ‘bit of a leap’ you’ll have to fill in for me. | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
