Debate still rages over Darwin

reply to post by Afrosamurai


but as i stated its not strictly evolution that has us living longer and having more and richer diets to fuel earlier puberty

in the same way it not directly evolution that we no longer kill or abandone to die deformed or surplus children because we have increased capabilities to look after them as a society (i know it still happens in some places around the world this is generaliation)

it seems to me at least the argument is becasue of advancments in culture medicines and agriculture this proves human evolution and so if you dont agree you should be having sex at 12

but none of those are directly becasue of evolution, if you believe man was made as is out of dirt they would still have the capabilities to make those same advancments

not the best argument ive heard if im honet about it buddy, its akin to the funndies if you belive evolution your ungodly or evil or add any of the other usual, but your is, if you disbelieve evolution you should be a pedo (i know that not what your trying to say but its the way it read)

people living to 40 back then wernt like oap's today, with a good diet and a bit of luck to keep disease away they could live essentially the same as we do now in life span terms, us living longer is not a product of evolution between then and now its the product of our tool use and large complex brain figureing stuff out and making the tools to do the job

if you could build a time machine and pop back 2000 4000 8000 years ago and kidnap a baby from each and raise them now the main factor on shortning thier life from any child born now would be thier mothers diet while she was pregnant


[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Afrosamurai

 

not the best argument ive heard if im honet abut it buddy, its akin to the funndies if you belive evolution your ungodly or evil or add any of the other usual, but your is, if you disbelieve evolution you should be a pedo (i know that not what your trying to say but its the way it read)

Actually... that is kinda what I'm sayin. You say it isn't the best argument but with these, people, it is. They have spent decades decrying facts, logic, reality. You show them a fish with legs, a bird with teeth, a snake with legs, a half human half ape, and what do that do? Cry foul, satanism, we need both sides. SO obviously showing them evolution won't work. So we need to work on their mind, as weak as they might be. Try and make them realize that hey, if you don't believe in evolution you're ignorant of life. The reason in places like South America when we find some lost tribe... they're still built like we were thousands of years ago. They have 9 year old wives and husbands because they only live to be 16. But others have evolved and now 45 is middle age, 100 is not impossible. So, going off of that, if you believe in ID, have sex with little kids, after all we did 2000 years ago. Unless oh I don't know, maybe humans evolved to not need to breed at the age of 10?

Hello all,

Just going to respond to the "micro" and "macro" ...

With the limited research I have done in Quantum Theory it appears that QT does affect atoms on a micro scale, however, not on a macro scale.
The scientists believe that because it is used on a micro scale that it WOULD work on a macro scale because a macro scale is simply a hell of a lot of atoms (micro).

I know that this is not related to evolution but in regards to micro and macro if micro evolution exists then macro is simply the same thing on a larger scale ...

Originally posted by Afrosamurai

Actually... that is kinda what I'm sayin. You say it isn't the best argument but with these, people, it is. They have spent decades decrying facts, logic, reality. You show them a fish with legs, a bird with teeth, a snake with legs, a half human half ape, and what do that do? Cry foul, satanism, we need both sides. SO obviously showing them evolution won't work. So we need to work on their mind, as weak as they might be.

it wasnt so much using thier own shoddy tactics against then that i meant when i aid not the best argument, below is where youll find why i say its a bad argument

The reason in places like South America when we find some lost tribe... they're still built like we were thousands of years ago.

were still built like we were thouands of years ago as well, were built the ame as the amazonians they are all just homoapien sapiens like us

They have 9 year old wives and husbands because they only live to be 16. But others have evolved and now 45 is middle age,

thats not evolving, they alway have the potential to live as long as you and i becasue they essentially are you and i

give them clean water, good supplies, sanitation and first rate medical access and they will be living to a grand old age, no evolution required it cant quadrupal a breeding populations age in 1 generation but access to those facilities and basics would quadrupal life expectancy immediatley

its a measure of cultural medical and agricultural advancment that have us living beyond 20 nothing to do specifically and directly with evolution

which is why i say its a bad argument for human evolution as it doesnt really have anything to do with it, and the dust bunny men of the bible created as is would still have the capabilities to advance medicine and agriculture etc to the point of increasing life expectancy just as high

reply to post by noobfun


We are taller then before. We have thinner bones then before. Our hair colors have changed. Blonde hair and Blue eyes didn't exist until like 5,000 years ago. Well, your hair and eyes might be blonde and blue mine sure can't be. Anyways, the Lost Tribes hit puberty faster because they have to. If they waited until 15 or 16, they'd be dead before they could procreate. Much like it was 2000 years ago. They had to be mature by 11 or else humans wouldn't exist because they didn't live much longer. Now? Our bodies can wait, our minds can wait, because we won't be dead by 20.

Originally posted by george_gaz

I know that this is not related to evolution but in regards to micro and macro if micro evolution exists then macro is simply the same thing on a larger scale ...

it isnt even that, macro evolution is a study of the differeances generated by two diverging microevolutionary paths

or a study of the continuance of a microevolutionary path over large time periods

essentially macro evolution isnt a process its a time scale marking the point of speciation and where microevolutionary processes lead

Originally posted by Afrosamurai


We are taller then before. We have thinner bones then before. Our hair colors have changed. Blonde hair and Blue eyes didn't exist until like 5,000 years ago. Well, your hair and eyes might be blonde and blue mine sure can't be.

your bald and blind? (couldnt resist)

see this is human evolution above

Anyways, the Lost Tribes hit puberty faster because they have to. If they waited until 15 or 16, they'd be dead before they could procreate. Much like it was 2000 years ago. They had to be mature by 11 or else humans wouldn't exist because they didn't live much longer. Now? Our bodies can wait, our minds can wait, because we won't be dead by 20.

can wait but cant our physiology wont let us, we still hit puberty at the same time or slightly earlier becasue of the better living conditions, hormones fire off just the same, were sexually able to be active at the same times, whats stopping us (well not in all cases admittedly) acting on it isnt evolution its the society we have formed for our selves

we mentally mature slower becasue of our society and false enviroment we have constructed around our selves, we dont need to be able to track 14 different animals be able to hunt and kill all 14 of them and be a productive member of the community by the age of 10 becasue if we dont help out we(the village) may starve to death

thats why i say its not really an argument for human evolution as its an argument for human advancement in culture agriculture and medicine that have made the differance to our live in comparrison to the lost tribes, if they stopped bieng lost and we set them up in a city with all the food and amenaties they needed free of charge they would be breeding like bunnies becasue suddenly they are living to a good old age so it would take a change in culture for them to slow it down a little if they wanted to

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by yogi9969

 

yogi....as the OP....herein you just defeated yourself. YOU wrote it was the 150th anniversary of the birth of Darwin, when, in fact, it is the 200th anniversary of his birth.

OK....minor error, on your part....but, HOW CAN WE continue to take any of your following posts seriously, given this serious factual error at the outset???

Perhaps if you could consider that he probably meant Darwinian evolution and not the day he was born but beyond that, "Serious" ??

If we were to use your logic for making serious factual errors as reason to not take someone serious DARWIN would be that person

Originally posted by LLoyd45
If God made the World, then evolution must have been God's plan all along. I don't think Charles Darwin was trying to turn the theological World on it's ear with his theory, he was just proposing some addition food for thought.

Well that assuming that evolution is even established as fact. It has been shown to be downright farcical. Facts don't matter in the war against God and that is what evolution is really.

Actually the only debate in the scientific community about Darwin are concerning the details.

Only the religious funnymentalists and the lunatic fringe seem to think otherwise.

Originally posted by grover
Actually the only debate in the scientific community about Darwin are concerning the details.

Only the religious funnymentalists and the lunatic fringe seem to think otherwise.

Nothing is required to see what a farce evolution is but a sound mind. The Funkamintalist can fight evolution for Gods sake all they want but the but a solid basis in reality will work as well.

Originally posted by optimus primal



We must also remember weedwhacker that darwin's Origin of Species (in otherwords evolution through the mechanism of natural seletion) isn't supposed to explain how life arose, only how it has diversified into the many species that have called this planet home, no matter how much those who don't believe in it think otherwise.

The only PEOPLE bringing this up is the Darwinists! I keep seeing this as if you all are trying to head off a discussion before it even starts.

If I were a Darwinist I wouldn't want to go there either.

Natural Selection as the mechanism for macro evolution has never been proven. The best answer Dawkins gives is to say Jack Russel Terriers.

HA HA HA Yeah more micro to prove macro but because one is observable and a part of the DNA does not proof make for macro.

Natural selection can only work with variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human).

Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering?

Nope can't touch it vertical evolution will not be possible.



Years AND YEARS of fast mutating e-coli and what have we got

E-COLI!

Years and years of mutating fruit flys with radiation, and Chemicals you name it they got hit with it and all we have seen are some really messed up FRUIT FLYS!

Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering. The nature of mutations precludes such a possibility.

Mutations or accidental changes in the sequential structure in the DNA's code caused by a variety of random environmental forces like radiation or toxic chemicals.

variations happen because of new combinations of previously existing genes NOT because of mutations. Even IF they could be benign mutations the idea that cumulative beneficial mutations over time has been mathmatically disproven and is why Prof. Lennox Shut out Dawkins in a debate with his ignorant use of the "Me thinks it's a weasel" analogy.

Mutations produce new varieties of existing traits but you won't ever find human hair mutating into scales or feathers or anything other than hair

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith.

Afrosamurai, your arguments are so rife with condescending hatred and ridicule I have a hard time finding any logical argument in them.

Implying ID'ers should all be branded stupid with I.Q's of ten and below doesn't help your case one bit but it does prove my argument about the intellectual animosity and typical ad-hom zealotry of the fundamentalist Darwinian advocate. Just because the laws of science can explain some of how life and the universe work doesn't mean there is no Maker no more than us knowing how jet aircraft work would mean they came about by a natural cause.

undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

How long would I have to leave bacteria in an incubator on a pitri dish before it would be plausible to infer that oh say some kind os amphibian would have evolved from the bacteria?

A million years?

A billion years?

Perhaps a trillion years?


even lenski's e-coli turned out to be just more of the same E-COLI!

You want to talk vestigal ?
The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail.

Walking fish? so what we see them today also and as usual we see them fully intact the laws of entropy would have killed off all these so called evolving species just by having so many non functioning halfway to being whatever the aimless mechanism for natural selection drives them and just why is it that it always aims it to the right place.

The fact is, it doesn't and it wouldn't

I have seen so many flawed explanations given by noobfun from his youtube collection and all of them have been refuted but he keeps putting up the same tired arguments. Afro says gravity is a theory why don't we idiots all jump off a cliff?

TAKE a GOOD GUESS AFRO!

Since your staggering intellect and superiority can't seem to make the nexus with that one, Ill tell you why.

It is for the same reason we don't see scientists every other month making dramatic announcements about another item they have discovered falls to the ground when you drop it!

Or any Atheists giving yet more testimony to something they threw up into the air to demonstrate it comes back down again.

It is because THAT Theory is a LAW of Science and as impossible as it is for SOME people to believe in "invisible" forces, you use one YOU believe to mock us.

The day you can prove active macro evolution without the immaturity of your tone and sweeping generalizations is the day someone might and I do mean might bother to actually take you serious.










[edit on 9-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


i so wish you would unblock me aerm so i can rip this junk all to pieces again and display your lack of scientific knowledge for all to see yet again but it just isnt fun when you dont get all whiney and start saying i cant possably know anything becasue i dont spell check

the sad part is its the same old cut and paste

WOW lemski's ecoli are still e-coli? and? sorry what part of evolution says they shouldnt be? what has Lenmski' e-coli got to do with any of the points you raised? the experiment was nothing to do with any point you raised and howed quite spectacularily what it was designed to show, but you wouldnt know that becasue you read AIG who like you didnt actually read the paper so what they talk about has nothing at all to do with Lemski's experiment

but hey you already know this i already corrected you brought you a link to the paper its self and got 500 points from a mod for my effort so why the dishonesty?

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun


i so wish you would unblock me aerm so i can rip this junk all to pieces again and display your lack of scientific knowledge for all to see yet again but it just isnt fun when you dont get all whiney and start saying i cant possably know anything becasue i dont spell check

the sad part is its the same old cut and paste


[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]

WOW lemski's ecoli are still e-coli? and? sorry what part of evolution says they shouldnt be?

I don't care what evolution says I only care about what Science doesn't say and what it doesn't say is that e-coli will ALWAYS be e-coli PERIOD and will never be anything else. JUST LIKE EVERY SPECIES OF MAMMAL.

So Ill say it, just incase anyone gets the idea that lenski's experiment was any evidence for macro evolution in the process of becoming something else other than what it will always be.

That again?

E-coli

but hey you already know this i already corrected you brought you a link to the paper its self and got 500 points from a mod for my effort so why the dishonesty?

You already know why noob, it isn't dishonesty when I don't read your posts.





[edit on 9-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

I'll post this knowing full well I'll get hammered....but here goes. In my opinion the problem with a fundamentalist belief system is that one major, ingrained aspect of it is fundamental ignorance. The refusal the accept any new data that might impact that belief system. It's much easier and simpler to stay ignorant. There is absolutely no effort involved.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by LLoyd45
If God made the World, then evolution must have been God's plan all along. I don't think Charles Darwin was trying to turn the theological World on it's ear with his theory, he was just proposing some addition food for thought.

Well that assuming that evolution is even established as fact. It has been shown to be downright farcical. Facts don't matter in the war against God and that is what evolution is really.

You'll like this because I see noobfun act more like a theist everyday

There is a major distinction between the 'lawyer' and the 'philosopher.' The lawyer participates in an argument: takes a side and fights for it. A philosopher, however, should attempt to undermine the debate itself; to show where both sides are wrong. In other words, the philosopher must show that not only are there bad arguments in a debate, but sometimes the debate itself is a false one: it should not be a conversation we are having. Thus the philosophical take on a debate such as the theist versus atheism would be not only to show how there is actually no debate, but also to explain why these sides are even arguing in the first place.

We will begin with the modern "rational" atheist. The dominant ideology of the common atheist can be called one of "tolerant hedonism:" they believe one should live his or her life in accordance with a pursuit of happiness, free of irrational/religious beliefs and prohibitions. Her conscious disbelief in a higher authoritative power has allowed her to seemingly live her life free of arbitrary rules and fear of divine retribution.

However, things are not that simple as "God is dead." As Nietzsche goes on to explain, God is only dead because we've killed him, because we have seemingly lost belief in him. The question becomes, "Has our atheist gone beyond telling herself she doesn't believe?" Has her disbelief penetrated beyond her consciousness?" Has she really appropriated the Dostoyevsky maxim, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted?" We should heed Lacan's response to this thought when he comments, "Quite evidently, a naive notion, for we analysts know full well that if God doesn't exist, then nothing at all is permitted any longer. Neurotics prove that to us every day."

The fact is that many so-called modern intellectual atheists unconsciously believe more than anybody. Their superficial "atheism" is a reaction to a deeply unconscious neuroticism, an unconscious "belief." As Lacan elsewhere states," The true formula of atheism is not God is dead - even by basing the origin of the function of the father upon his murder, Freud protects the father - the true formula of atheism is God is unconscious."In a strange paradox, it is when we have nobody to blame for our oppression that we feel most oppressed. We have no excuses. This is why many atheists are almost militant in their atheism, for it is not God which provides meaning for them, but the lack of God. They are putting their faith not in His existence but in his non-existence.

If atheists were to fully appropriate what is being argued, the full weight of their oppression would befall them. In other words, on the surface, the freedom which is implied in the thought of the atheist may appear liberating, but ultimately acts as an oppressive ball and chain. This is why Kierkegaard defines anxiety as "the dizziness of freedom." The avoidance of this dizziness is the motivation for the argument: if they are telling others, they don't have to tell themselves.

Atheism, when argued against theism, becomes not merely a belief, but a cause. When atheism is thus a cause, it allows the atheist to retain the title without fully confronting the ramifications of her belief."Atheism" is too traumatic for the atheist to truly identify with, so instead he forces it upon the theist. In other words, when somebody says, "I am an atheist," he is not stating his belief but is giving himself a title (objectifying his belief) so he does not have to subjectively experience it (to feel it inside).

It is at this point where the theist and atheist are almost indistinguishable. To better comprehend this, let us consider how a true believer would act when confronted with an atheist's criticisms against religion. A true believer, somebody who experiences their faith not necessarily as belief, but as knowledge, would see the atheist as unfortunately misguided, regrettably incorrect. For example, I should not have to argue for the existence of a chair to somebody who is sitting in it. If the person cannot come to believe in the presence of a chair while he is occupying it, all I can do is shake my head and throw up my arms, for I know there is a chair.

The one who truly believes feels no urge to convince, for to convince others is again merely the avoidance of convincing yourself.

To enter a debate and pose an argument is never a neutral act. There is always motivation in putting your thought against another's. However, these motivations are rarely considered when analyzing debates. The reason we rarely view the debate of theism versus atheism in such a light is because they are actually almost indistinguishable.

The arguments should be viewed as not worth the time. Yet this is not the case, because either somebody is up there watching, or not, and both are quite unsettling.

Originally posted by griffinrl
I'll post this knowing full well I'll get hammered....but here goes. In my opinion the problem with a fundamentalist belief system is that one major, ingrained aspect of it is fundamental ignorance. The refusal the accept any new data that might impact that belief system. It's much easier and simpler to stay ignorant. There is absolutely no effort involved.

No what is so ignorant is when the only effort people make is to denigrate and ridicule "fundamentalists" using the logical fallacy of guilt by association, then expect that same audience to take an added interest in a damn thing more they have to say.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


My post wasn't to attack anyone personally. Just my own observation of what individuals on both sides will do to make sure their own system is the only "true" system. A closed mind always interprets contradicting comments and opinions as a personal affront.

The term ignorant isn't a personal reflection on a person or groups intelligence level. If I had used "stupid" or "idiot" then that would constitute an attack in my opinion.

I can't say whether evolution or Darwin is correct anymore than I can say they are both incorrect. I can't say that ID or a Creator is true anymore than I can say they are untrue. If conclusive and testable evidence appears to prove either side then that's the side I will believe in.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by griffinrl]

Originally posted by Aermacchi

I don't care what evolution says I only care about what Science doesn't say and what it doesn't say is that e-coli will ALWAYS be e-coli PERIOD and will never be anything else. JUST LIKE EVERY SPECIES OF MAMMAL.

So Ill say it, just in case anyone gets the idea that Lemski's experiment was any evidence for macro evolution in the process of becoming something else other than what it will always be.

That again?

E-coli

umm sorry who's saying that is what Lemski's experiment was about?

It had nothing to do with proving macro evolution that's old hat and long ago proven, bear with me I'm using the actual science definition not creationism's dream version of macro when I say that

So if Lemski's E-coli had nothing to do with proving macro evolution, and your the person that brought up lemski's research to say that it didn't prove macro evolution, something it didn't try to show then...whats Your point?

Its not like your cutting off an argument before it starts because anyone with enough sense has at least tried to grasp the basics of lemski's research and wouldn't be arguing that(besides Nylonase is much more impressive then modification to an existing cit+ system)

so if no one is raising it but you, and no ones making wild eyed claims about what it supposed to show ..except You, and what your claiming has nothing to do with the experiment its self

That leaves only the possibility of throwing a few names and information around trying to discredit them and hope no one has a clue what your talking about so no one will step forward and point out your talking nonsense and crumble that wafer thin screen of scientific knowledge your hiding behind pretending it more then just wafer thin

That's like claiming Jesus never existed because the bible doesn't talk about Skippy the bush kangaroo

Or Alexander Bell never designed a Ferrari F40 so there fore his phone didn't exist

you know those word games and deceptive misleading statements you oft accuse evolutionists of, if that were the case you must be an undercover agent destroying ID/creationism from the inside your so skilled at them

You already know why noob, it isn't dishonesty when I don't read your posts.

no its not dishonesty when you don't read my posts I find it amusing, but without you replying as I slowly tear apart your argument and back you into corners someone around here may mistake your illusory screen for real knowledge

It is however dishonest to again drag out the same tired and flogged to death and proven wrong arguments such as the Lemski E-coli when you have been told and shown the paper both of which confirmed that the experiment was nothing to do with what your claiming it was supposed to show

The dishonesty is in the misrepresentation of things you should know better about, at least your fish argument has advanced slightly from the flopping around trying to get a suntan ill even give you a star for that

p.s. Hey look while double checking the spelling of Nylonase I found this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

its you making the same Lemski argument and me correcting you again and providing several sources for what science is actually saying about it





[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
reply to post by noobfun

 

We are taller then before. We have thinner bones then before. Our hair colors have changed. Blonde hair and Blue eyes didn't exist until like 5,000 years ago. Well, your hair and eyes might be blonde and blue mine sure can't be. Anyways, the Lost Tribes hit puberty faster because they have to. If they waited until 15 or 16, they'd be dead before they could procreate. Much like it was 2000 years ago. They had to be mature by 11 or else humans wouldn't exist because they didn't live much longer. Now? Our bodies can wait, our minds can wait, because we won't be dead by 20.

We also drink milk well after we are weened chock full of bovine growth hormone and have become taller because of it. Bones Are BIGGER than before except for woman, we can also migrate using aircraft which means we can breed with many races and tribes.

The reach puberty faster 2000 years ago because why? ha ha ha

Men lived well past their thirties 2000 years ago and many girls today reach puberty as early as 8-9 nine years old. Are you saying people like Plato, socrates, aritotle, pontius pilot, ceasar or lets go back to say Ghengis Khan Marco Polo etc, they died at 15 years old meaning they wouold be in their prime around 9-12 years old?

Yeah and I got a bridge Ill sell ya