Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Originally posted by refuse_orders
Both points I made were in fact true, It was a wall of rage and you repeating the same few words over and over does not make you correct.

Why would I accuse your mother of wearing army boots? I do myself...

Both points show a very shallow mind.

It was not a wall of rage. It was insightful and thought provoking.

He only repeated the phrase at the end of each statement because his statements proved the phrase to be true.

That is not repeating oneself in an effort to make people believe him.
It's just a comment after the fact!!

Don't try to pee in the tall grass with the big dogs, lest you get peed on!
A shallow mind swimming in deep waters will surely drown.

Originally posted by Connector
And yes "they" the biological evolutionist are a smart bunch to brainwash billions of people( as you suggested).

Would you like me to find some biologists who disagree with evolution?

Let me know.

reply to post by John Matrix



Dude, your reply doesn't even make sense in context to my sentence. I was repeating YOUR comment about brain washing cults and juxtaposed religion for contrast.

But please, by all means find me some biologists who disagree. I'm sure you'll find plenty. Just like I could find priests that believe in evolution. Catch-22, eh?

Originally posted by Connector


And no, giving a link to a creationist website and a thread here at ATS is not going one better....it's going backwards.

Oh and hey Stylez....I gave you the answer to your question about whales and you don't even thank me....geez.

The whale evidence you posted proves what? that it had legs? ot that one about the tail? What does that suggest?

None of those passes the scientific method because they trip hard over the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

reply to post by Connector


If you are going to write off the mathematical evidence because of an evolutionists rebuttal to Hoyle, and thus write off all the successive evidence provided by the many mathematicians who succeeded him and came up with even higher odds based on their calculations, then I think you should go here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Connector

Dude, your reply doesn't even make sense in context to my sentence. I was repeating YOUR comment about brain washing cults and juxtaposed religion for contrast.

But please, by all means find me some biologists who disagree. I'm sure you'll find plenty. Just like I could find priests that believe in evolution. Catch-22, eh?

I don't understand what religion has to do with this and unless you can prove what religion a creator is affiliated with, I don't see how it is relevent other than to make a strawman. Their are people in Science that have other interests like religion or maybe they like weight lifting. Are you going to preface your arguments against such people bringing up the mistakes weightlifters make bout wight lifting or just those they are trying to back door into science because they don't make smart scientists which is the same logic behind bringing up religion in a tit for tat argument

Originally posted by Stylez
One of the more clever comebacks by Dawkins after hearing the argument from a mathematical probability is when he says "Yet here we are" as if that cinched it lol. He then goes on describing what we should consider as an infinite amount of chances at it as if evolution gets another shot at this happening again using an infinite amount of opportunities and infinite amount of times or chances. What he doesn't realize of course is that it having another shot at it doesn't matter, the probability is the same with each one and doesn't increase the odds an iota. In fact the odds become even less not greater as Dawkins seems to think probability has memory and it doesn't.

Let's go through the math. Let's say you want to play the loto where you have a 1 in a million chance of winning (or the evolutionary loto where something is so improbable to occur that the chances are only 1 in a million).

After one try, your chances of winning were 1 in a million.

For the next try, as you correctly state, your chances are still 1 in a million, on the 2nd trial.

However your odds for winning on either the 1st or 2nd trial, are roughly 1/1000000 plus 1/1000000 or about 2 in a million. I think that's the part of the math you are missing. After 3 trials your total chances of winning at least one of the three trials are about 3 in a million.

On the one millionth trial, your chances of willing that trial alone are still one in a million. But what are the odds that you would have won that trial or any of the 999,999 trials before it? Pretty good odds, aren't they?
Actual odds:
36.8% 0 wins
36.8% 1 win
18.4% 2 wins
06.1% 3 wins
01.9% 4 or more wins

So you have a better than 50% chance of winning with a 1 in a million chance in a million trials, and many of those odds are for 2 or more wins! So it's not as unlikely as you think.

Please take whatever position you like on the evolution issue, but please get the math right, it's not so subject to interpretation.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Connector


Oh and hey Stylez....I gave you the answer to your question about whales and you don't even thank me....geez.

One of the reason 17 countries medical doctors have given Darwin the boot. Stuff like kthis really pisses them off.

Discussion:

The birth of a baby with a tail is indeed a disturbing happening for the medical team as well as for parents.

Several 19th century medical reports and popular tales mentioned human tails. In was believed that the embryo, during its development passed through the form of inferior animals. In fact, most malformations were thought to be errors in the transition between inferior species and humans10. In particular, Darwin describes a case to support his theory related with human evolution in “The descent of Man”11.

There are many reports of this anomaly. Some report that tribes in Paraguay, Borneo and Philippines, have individuals with tails12.

Bartels et al. in 1884 reviewed cases reported to that date finding 116. Of the 68 cases in which the sex was mentioned, 52 were male and only 16 were female infants13. In a similar report, Lu et al. reviewed cases between 1960 and 1997 finding only 59. He reported an association with spina bifida was 20%9.

When we compare this “human tail” with the tail of other vertebrates, the difference is evident. This tails do not contain vertebral structures. In fact, there is only one case reported in medical literature in which the human tail had vertebral remnants14
www.thefetus.net...

Same can be said of the whales "legs". If you can support the fact those so called legs could have supported the weight of that whale, otherwise it is all speculation like all the evidence piled on the mountain, it is all science fiction

reply to post by Stylez



From the article:

These limbs are prima facie evidence of the dolphin's four-limbed ancestry, as predicted from the common ancestry of dolphins and other land-dwelling mammals.

Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them.

If animals were created "as is" by a creator, why would whales have the ability to grow legs and humans tails? What does this suggest to you?

Please read the whole article. There is much more info such as snakes with limbs, reptilian embryonic jaw bones, that in marsupials turn into ear bones....interesting stuff.


John Matrix:

If you are going to write off the mathematical evidence because of an evolutionists rebuttal to Hoyle, and thus write off all the successive evidence provided by the many mathematicians who succeeded him and came up with even higher odds based on their calculations, then I think you should go here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not writing off anything......I simply provided a link to show you the flaw in his reasoning. Nothing more, nothing less.


Stylez:

I don't understand what religion has to do with this and unless you can prove what religion a creator is affiliated with, I don't see how it is relevent other than to make a strawman. Their are people in Science that have other interests like religion or maybe they like weight lifting. Are you going to preface your arguments against such people bringing up the mistakes weightlifters make bout wight lifting or just those they are trying to back door into science because they don't make smart scientists which is the same logic behind bringing up religion in a tit for tat argument

If you don't uunderstand what religion( any religion) has to do with creationism, then I can not help you sir. And that post was to show how silly John Matrix's comment about evolutionists being a cult that has brained washed billions. You guys are really getting off track here......is this a routine? Who's on first?

reply to post by Stylez



Like I requested...read the article:

The existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails. Gish claims these structures are not true tails for several reasons: (1) they lack vertebrae, (2) they are not inherited, and (3) the resemblance to tails is "highly superficial" and simply an "anomalous malformation". Menton further claims that (4) all true tails have muscles and can move, whereas human tails cannot. Each of these arguments are factually false, as explained above and as well-documented in the medical literature. Vertebrae and cartilage have occasionally been found in human tails. However, contrary to the claims of Gish, Menton, and ReMine, vertebrae are not a requirement for tails. M. sylvanus is a prime example of a primate whose fleshy tail lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23). Several cases are known where human tails have been inherited. Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Inheritance of the tail structure per se is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans. The "resemblance" to non-human tails is far from superficial, since all true human tails are complex structures composed of symmetrical layers of voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs, and they can indeed move and contract. For the skeptical reader, probably the best evidence that these structures are true tails is visual inspection. Photographic images of a newborn's atavistic tail can be found at the Anatomy Atlases medical site, complete with the voluntary contractory movement of the tail documented. Text

Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

Gotta go make supper guys....it's been fun

~edit to add~

Stylez:

otherwise it is all speculation

And creationism isn't?



[edit on 20-9-2009 by Connector]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Let's go through the math. Let's say you want to play the loto where you have a 1 in a million chance of winning (or the evolutionary loto where something is so improbable to occur that the chances are only 1 in a million).

The math behind life from non living matter involves the right mixture in the primordial soup, then the right chain of events. It's like the odds of winning the lottery every week of your life until you are 80 years old.


[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you have a better than 50% chance of winning with a 1 in a million chance in a million trials, and many of those odds are for 2 or more wins! So it's not as unlikely as you think.

Please take whatever position you like on the evolution issue, but please get the math right, it's not so subject to interpretation.

The problem with your entire senario is that it is based on human intelligence making a decision to keep trying.

Random natural processes does not have the intelligence to make the decision to keep trying.

How would it know what to try for?

Humans can make that decision to keep trying, nature cannot.

In fact, the odds of life randomly forming from non living matter, even in a primordial soup with all the right chemicals, is like winning the lottery without having purchased a ticket!

Big Fat Zero.

See what I mean?


[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

You don't need to be at odds if you believe in evolution and creation. God could have created it in six days and made it look like evolution.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Please take whatever position you like on the evolution issue, but please get the math right, it's not so subject to interpretation.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Well then help me with the math,

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0ec907621d7.jpg[/atsimg]

This isn't a gamblers fallacy and like I said, to include other calcs to either increase the odds in favor of the event happening is moot it simply doesn't care what the other calcs are because they never happened in the first place

Originally posted by Jim Scott
You don't need to be at odds if you believe in evolution and creation. God could have created it in six days and made it look like evolution.

Oh please, don't encourage them, I hear them using the idea that God used fossils to trick us enough as it is, but more to the point Jim, with all due repsect, the fact is it simply doesn't look like evolution regarding the diversity of species.

reply to post by Stylez
I used the Binomial function in Excel to make those calculations:

homepages.wmich.edu...

P(x) = nCx • px • qn-x where x = 0, 1, 2,..., n

* P(S) = p.
* P(F) = q = 1-p.
* n indicates the fixed number of trials.
* x indicates the number of successes (any whole number [0,n]).
* p indicates the probability of success for any one trial.
* q indicates the probability of failure (not success) for any one trial.
* P(x) indicate the probability of getting exactly x successes in n trials.
www.andrews.edu...

Thats the right math for determining your chances for winning the loto. It's no stretch to apply the same math to evolution.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Random natural processes does not have the intelligence to make the decision to keep trying.

How would it know what to try for?

Humans can make that decision to keep trying, nature cannot.

Life doesn't know what to try for. I suspect that's why 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

In the case of whale evolution we might imagine the early mammalian ancestors of whales were having more success foraging for food in the water than on the land for various reasons (climate, competition, etc)
The most successful foragers in the water might have been like Micheal Phelps is to the human species, he has certain anatomical characteristics that allow him to be a better swimmer than the rest of us.If generation after generation, the best swimmers survive and the worst swimmers don't, the population can develop adaptations to help their swimming ability. But it's not an intelligent direction, it's simply a matter of those creatures best adapted surviving and passing on their genes, while the creatures least well adapted don't survive to pass on their genes.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
You don't need to be at odds if you believe in evolution and creation. God could have created it in six days and made it look like evolution.

That's really the most logical creationist argument there is, whether you think the 6th day was really just 24 hours, or whether you think the 6th "day" could mean the 6th "time period".

But whichever view one takes, many smart people agree that a belief in God and a belief in evolution don't need to be in conflict with each other.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Connector


And creationism isn't?

Of course it is and you won't find a creationist not willing to admit they believe it by what?

Yeah, uh huh.

The day you get a evolutionist to admit he believes his science by faith is the day Science may gain more credibiliy then the current comparisons to used car salesman.

Why should intelligent design be ruled out for evolution after the first living cell if it cannot be ruled out in explaining the origin of that first cell? As an atheistic naturalist, Dawkins cannot concede the need for intelligent design at any stage in the origin and evolution of life. The problem for Dawkins is that the simplest known living cell is extremely complex, perhaps surpassing the complexity of all modern technology combined, and "conventional" biological natural selection does not apply because reproduction does not begin until that cell exists. Modern science is not even close to explaining how the first living cell could have come to be by purely naturalistic mechanisms.

Dawkins is nevertheless undaunted. He spends much of Chapter 6 citing speculation about how natural selection at the chemical level might have gradually built up the staggering complexity of the simplest known living cell. Speculation is perfectly reasonable, of course -- even wild speculation, which is what Dawkins engages in here. He certainly has very little if any actual evidence to support his speculation, but lack of empirical evidence is no problem for Dawkins. By the end of the chapter, he confidently proclaims that, "This chapter has had the modest aim of explaining only the kind of way in which it must have happened." In other words, we have no plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, but Dawkins knows for fact that it "must have happened" without any intelligent guidance. And how does Dawkins know that? Because his faith in atheistic naturalism trumps the empirical evidence, of course.

Dawkins continues to say that, "The present lack of a definitely accepted account of the origin of life should certainly not be taken as a stumbling block for the whole Darwinian worldview, ..." And why shouldn't it? He is minimizing the problem because the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is an embarrassment to his atheistic worldview. The problem is not that we just "don't know yet" how the first living cell originated; the problem (for atheists) is that we virtually know that it couldn't have originated by purely a naturalist mechanism. Yet for some ideological reason we are required to believe that the development of life after the first living cell was purely naturalistic. And if you don't believe it, you will be ridiculed by Dawkins and his followers.

Many great scientists of the past, including Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Faraday, Henry, Kelvin, and Pasteur, were devout Christians who believed that the job of a scientist is to understand the natural laws and designs of the Creator. In Dawkins world, however, life itself is fundamentally nothing more than a complicated mechanism by which genes propagate themselves, as he explains in his book The Selfish Gene. In the end, Dawkins' radical atheism renders him incapable of objectively evaluating the Theory of Evolution. The fact that such a huckster is so revered today is a sad commentary on the state of modern science

No one has ever explained what dawkins was trying to say in that video I posted of him getting busted contradicting himself and , well looking like he doesn't have a clue as to what evolution is much less bothered to answer the original question.

The fact that such a huckster is so revered today is a sad commentary on the state of modern science.


I couldn't have said it any better myself




.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Life doesn't know what to try for. I suspect that's why 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Ha ha you are including their demise in with his argument when that had nothing to do with it. LIFE happening at all is one helluva a reach and that is the goal, how they became extinct can be explained a lot easier than how life ever started.

In the case of whale evolution 1.we might imagine the early mammalian ancestors of whales which were what ? were having more success foraging for food in the water than on the land for various reasons (climate, competition, etc)

The most successful foragers in the water 2might have been like Micheal Phelps is to the human species, he has certain anatomical characteristics that allow him to be a better swimmer than the rest of us.If generation after generation, the best swimmers survive and the worst swimmers don't, 3the population can develop adaptations to help their swimming ability . But it's not an intelligent direction, it's simply a matter of those creatures best adapted surviving and passing on their genes, while the creatures least well adapted don't survive to pass on their genes.

It's not only directed intelligently but quite imaginatively also.

I'm not trying to disparage your idea there but that such "just so" story has become all we see of this science.

Could it have happened that way?

Possible I guess but not very likely. Your post reminds me of why so many in the medical field and in science as a whole are finally starting to understand where they got lost.

Ruse justified his change of heart by tracing a succession of leading Darwinist thinkers, including T. H. and Julian Huxley, who had viewed evolution as "something akin to a secular religion." At the end of his talk, Ruse opened the meeting for questions. Greeted by a moment of stunned silence, he leaned toward the microphone and asked, "State of shock?"

So how much damage has been done to the teaching of evolution as undisputed scientific fact since Ruse's concession? Dr. Arthur Shapiro, a zoologist at the University of California at Davis and a fellow symposium participant, published an account of the meeting in the anti-creationist NCSE Reports titled "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?" Many Darwinists fear he did. But others believe Ruse should be commended for his courage, and given back his buttons.
www.origins.org...

Originally posted by Jim Scott
You don't need to be at odds if you believe in evolution and creation. God could have created it in six days and made it look like evolution.
That's really the most logical creationist argument there is, whether you think the 6th day was really just 24 hours, or whether you think the 6th "day" could mean the 6th "time period".

But whichever view one takes, many smart people agree that a belief in God and a belief in evolution don't need to be in conflict with each other.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Yeah, and as long as God is marginalized to never being mentioned in any school, science book or meetings. Yeah, Ill bet many Darwinist's are KoO with dat. Thing is, if you are suggesting the Christian God, using the bible as your stable datum, then their is a huge conflict trying to harmonize them. That isn't my problem however, Ill let the delusional theistic evolutionists have it




[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Connector

These limbs are prima facie evidence of the dolphin's four-limbed ancestry, as predicted from the common ancestry of dolphins and other land-dwelling mammals.

Ha ha I remember when dolphinman was discovered lol had us going till it was debunked

Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them.

Yes we are all made from DNA and DNA can make anything but only within the parameters of its DNA templated form.

If animals were created "as is" by a creator, why would whales have the ability to grow legs and humans tails? What does this suggest to you?

It suggests to me you have accepted evolution as true before the speculation is fact and it ain't.

If you don't uunderstand what religion( any religion) has to do with creationism, then I can not help you sir. And that post was to show how silly John Matrix's comment about evolutionists being a cult that has brained washed billions. You guys are really getting off track here......is this a routine? Who's on first?

No I can't understand what religion has to do with science or this topic about darwins theory. If you can't tell me you can't help me?

WTF are you talking about ?? Is that your answer ? You might as well have said "God did it" because they both avoid the question to a subject YOU raised. If you are not going to justify why you keep making comments about religion in a discussion about science then who the hell is really trying to put religion in science, cuz it sure isn't me,.

I can't answer for John Matrix but I suspect he said what he did because it's the truth and don't be sayin "Us guys are getting off track pal, we can start all over again if you like, or we can ask YOU to get back on track.

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In the case of whale evolution 1.we might imagine the early mammalian ancestors of whales which were what ? were having more success foraging for food in the water than on the land for various reasons (climate, competition, etc)

www.buzzle.com...

Scientists nowadays believe that early whales were very closely related to the hippopotamus, which also belonged to the Artiodactyla order.

The stage of evolution that came next made the early whales take the form of mammals living in water as well as land, and display more of an amphibian behavior. Scientists believed this mammal to be the Pakicetus. The Pakicetus roamed the earth prominently during the Eocene epoch that occurred about 53 million years ago. Fossils of these animals indicate that they were large dog-like creatures and had hooves. The shape of the skull and the ear of these animals had a strong resemblance to the modern whale. The teeth of these animals were also similar to modern whales. Fossils of a similar creature, by the name Indohyus, were found in Kashmir. The Indohyus fossil distinctly displays its adaptability to aquatic life. It existed about 48 million years ago and was smaller than the Pakicetus.

The fossils recently found in Pakistan belonged to a creature known as the Ambulocetus, which was believed to have evolved from the Indohyus and the Pakicetus. The Ambulocetus fossils show us that it was a long amphibious creature resembling a crocodile. This animal had better evolved feet for swimming as well as walking.

The two animals that evolved from the Ambulocetus, the Protocetus and the Rodhocetus, resembled modern whales with respect to the nasal openings and the development of the vertebral column. The next step in the evolution of whales was when the Basilosaurus and the Dorudontids appeared, which were both fully developed marine animals belonging to the cetacean family. The first whale-like cetacean appeared about 33 million years ago and was known as the Squalodon. It had a distinct forehead like the modern whale and was capable of emitting sound pulses to map objects while traveling. The last stage in the development of the whales was the Baleen Whale, which finally evolved into the modern whales we see today.

So I think the earliest whale ancestor that most scientists agree on is Pakicetus. There are earlier forms that are still debated so we probably need more fossils and analysis to properly identify ancestors of Pakicetus. The whale lineage since Pakicetus has been filling in dramatically in recent years, as the transitional forms that we previously had no evidence for have been discovered.