PDA

View Full Version : Darwin too controversial for America



Strong
22-09-2009, 12:24 PM
The British film Creation has been deemed too controversial for America. But questioning evolution is like questioning gravity

On the heels of a February 2009 Gallup poll showing that only 39% of Americans believe the theory of evolution, a new British film about Darwin has had difficulty finding US distributors, apparently because the topic was deemed too controversial for American audiences.

It's a remarkably low degree of support, even in a nation that flirted with the idea of vice-president Sarah Palin. After all, America has often been seen as an innovator, at the forefront of technological and scientific change.

Perhaps America's distrust of a major scientific theory could be dismissed as part of the country's quirky charm, with no real consequences because the story of creation has little to do with our practical, day-to-day lives. As long as that 39% of disbelievers are making our microchips and producing swine flu vaccine, who cares?

But sadly, such mistrust of science is not limited to the story of creation, but extends to stem cell research, climate change and cloning. The Gallup poll did not capture a scientific debate. It captured another front in the same culture war that is blocking a cap on carbon emissions.


Article: Telegraph - Charles Darwin, too hot for the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/21/creation-film-us-science-evolution)

I find this quite disturbing. It means 60% of the population of the most technologically advanced nation on our planet does not believe in evolution. I know Americans are quite a religious lot, but I didn't think it was to that extent. Can anybody explain this figure to me? :sqconfused:

Ferre
22-09-2009, 12:36 PM
It's even worse bro, what to think about this poll?

Improbable Research Reality is a second choice, hypothetically (http://improbable.com/2009/08/25/reality-is-a-second-choice-hypothetically/)


When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll.

That's pretty wild isn't it? :shocked:

Strong
22-09-2009, 12:56 PM
The dichotomy between the religious zeal and the scientific prowess astounds me. What if those shackles did not exist? How far has technological progress been stifled by it I wonder?

Ferre
22-09-2009, 02:42 PM
Technological progress has been stiffled by about four(!) centuries according to the most modest assumptions, but that does not take into account the loss of already established science due to book burnings etc. Complete cultural and scientific heritage from many peoples have been vanished from the face of the earth that way. (think library of Alexandria to name only one incident of many)

Zap
22-09-2009, 05:41 PM
The dichotomy between the religious zeal and the scientific prowess astounds me. What if those shackles did not exist? How far has technological progress been stifled by it I wonder?

GWB put the brakes on stem cell research, putting it on hold for almost a decade. It will probably take them 2 or 3, just to catch up.

It's astonishing to me that 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution!
That can't be right. Jokesters taking the poll?

Ferre
23-09-2009, 08:03 AM
Read this article, it gives you some idea of what those abrahamic teachings do to society;

Social Psychology, Religiosity, Authoritarianism, Christianity and IQ (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/323Psychology.php)

Atom
23-09-2009, 11:56 AM
Article: Telegraph - Charles Darwin, too hot for the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/21/creation-film-us-science-evolution)

I find this quite disturbing. It means 60% of the population of the most technologically advanced nation on our planet does not believe in evolution. I know Americans are quite a religious lot, but I didn't think it was to that extent. Can anybody explain this figure to me? :sqconfused:Certainly. 60% is a little over half.

Muddy
23-09-2009, 12:11 PM
lol
&
!

Ferre
23-09-2009, 01:24 PM
the most technologically advanced nation on our planet

That's what they think (and often self-proclaim), but it is not as technologically advanced as some asian or european countries, I think Japan, Germany, etc. I think even South Korea is technologically more advanced than the USA. The USA even has to buy most of its high tech military equipment from other countries. (but they buy a LOT of it)

Strong
23-09-2009, 02:09 PM
Certainly. 60% is a little over half.

:sqbiggrin:

That little adds up to quite a lot. 450million people ish, 10% is 45million. That right there is over two thirds the population of the UK. My abacus says it is a significant amount.

Strong
23-09-2009, 02:12 PM
That's what they think (and often self-proclaim), but it is not as technologically advanced as some asian or european countries, I think Japan, Germany, etc. I think even South Korea is technologically more advanced than the USA. The USA even has to buy most of its high tech military equipment from other countries. (but they buy a LOT of it)

In space exploration and research, they are up there.

Atom
23-09-2009, 02:14 PM
:sqbiggrin:

That little adds up to quite a lot. 450million people ish, 10% is 45million. That right there is over two thirds the population of the UK. My abacus says it is a significant amount.Don't believe everything you read. I wouldn't even believe that figure if this was a question on the presidential election ballot, even less so, actually.

Strong
23-09-2009, 02:21 PM
So you reckon the poll was bogus? I'm not averse to thinking that btw. So as an American Atom, what figure would you put on it? A rough ball park figure.

Atom
23-09-2009, 02:31 PM
(...)So as an American Atom, what figure would you put on it? A rough ball park figure.Roughly 0%, as the theory does not involve faith (i.e. "believe in").


(...) It means 60% of the population of the most technologically advanced nation on our planet does not believe in evolution (...)

Atom
23-09-2009, 03:36 PM
The theory of evolution is not generalized in that it is something to either believe in or not, just as it is also a mistake to generalize the word "Americans" in this case.

Atom
23-09-2009, 03:54 PM
The theory of evolution contains facts that cannot be rejected as such, it is the interpretation of those facts to a generalization that can be rejected or accepted, neither of which requires faith. The question; Do you believe in God? .. is a much more coherent question than; Do you believe in the theory of evolution? ... IMO.

Atom
23-09-2009, 04:24 PM
Now, if you were to ask the question; Do you accept Darwin's theory of evolution as fact? ... well then my answer would of course be an emphatic no.

Atom
23-09-2009, 04:29 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the theory involves an explanation for the origin of all species, which I of course do not accept as fact due to the fact that the actual origin is unknown.

Atom
23-09-2009, 04:54 PM
Now, if you were to ask me if I accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, my answer would be yes.

Cryren8972
28-09-2009, 12:52 PM
"Darwinism" is based on faith. If you consider that first of all, it's a theory and NOT fact, then consider that it's asking you to accept that somehow a soup of DNA somehow linked together to form a living creature that THEN evolved into all living creatures, I'm guessing using parthenogenesis, then you have to understand that you ARE believing in a faith based theory. If this is all true...then why the need for males and females to be formed at all? Why, if DNA, or RNA as they say now, were capable of somehow coming to together and forming a complex, breathing, eating, pooping machine, would there be a need for a male AND female? Why the branching off of other creatures? And why is there absolutely no evidence of a living creature in the actual PROCESS of evolution? No half formed tails? Or why are there no animals that have tails born on some, and not on others?
Talk to an animal breeder...and I promise you they will tell you that they have been able to change size, eye color, hair color, etc...but NO breeder can get a chicken to even begin to turn into a deer. Why? Because there is nothing in a hair follicle that can, or ever could be, a feather shaft.

Ferre
28-09-2009, 01:07 PM
You sound much like the banana man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4) :sqlaugh:

Oh, and welcome to here.

Muddy
28-09-2009, 01:37 PM
You sound much like the banana man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4) :sqlaugh:

Oh, and welcome to here.

Is that guy for real??? LOL! Wow. I got a kick out of how his buddy started visibly squirming when he said "the banana is perfectly shaped to go into the human mouth". LOL!

Ferre
28-09-2009, 01:47 PM
Sadly enough that guy isn't only for real, he represents the "intelligent design" movement along with Ken Ham and such characters.

In fact, no matter how 'scientifically' those people make their arguments in favour of ID sound, the arguments itself never raise above the intellectual level displayed in that video.

:sqlaugh:

Strong
28-09-2009, 02:04 PM
You sound much like the banana man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4) :sqlaugh:

Oh, and welcome to here.

Maybe god made man to eat bananas instead of bananas for man to eat. :sqwink:

Atom
28-09-2009, 04:24 PM
"Darwinism" is based on faith. If you consider that first of all, it's a theory and NOT fact, then consider that it's asking you to accept that somehow a soup of DNA somehow linked together to form a living creature that THEN evolved into all living creatures, I'm guessing using parthenogenesis, then you have to understand that you ARE believing in a faith based theory. If this is all true...then why the need for males and females to be formed at all? Why, if DNA, or RNA as they say now, were capable of somehow coming to together and forming a complex, breathing, eating, pooping machine, would there be a need for a male AND female? Why the branching off of other creatures? And why is there absolutely no evidence of a living creature in the actual PROCESS of evolution? No half formed tails? Or why are there no animals that have tails born on some, and not on others?
Talk to an animal breeder...and I promise you they will tell you that they have been able to change size, eye color, hair color, etc...but NO breeder can get a chicken to even begin to turn into a deer. Why? Because there is nothing in a hair follicle that can, or ever could be, a feather shaft.I suppose you're right. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the word faith. It would also seem that theories must be either accepted or rejected.

Ferre
28-09-2009, 05:47 PM
Atom, the "theory of evolution" is FACT. as in 100% sure and is supported by literally thousands as not millions of pieces of evidence.

Read why it is a fallacy to believe that evolution is "just a theory" here;

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

or here;

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)

One does not need "faith" to "believe" in evolution, the evidence proves evolution and can become clear for anyone with a basic education and the will to do some reading.

What creationists don't understand and always mix up because of their poor knowledge of science is the simple fact that Darwin's theory of evolution DOES NOT address "the origins of the universe" or "the origins of life". dawkin's theory of evolution is biology and addresses "the origins of species" while the science which addresses creationists questions is called cosmology. (hehhe, little do they know).

Cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology)

Instead of attacking Darwin they'd better look into Christian Wolff (1679 - 1754) :lol::lol::lol:

Atom
28-09-2009, 06:11 PM
Then perhaps it is simply the origin of the mechanism of biological evolution that is in question, Ferre. It's quite obvious to me that the existence of biological evolution is a fact.

Ferre
28-09-2009, 07:21 PM
What about the origin of consciousness Atom? that's the question which fascinates me personally.

Atom
28-09-2009, 07:30 PM
What about the origin of consciousness Atom? that's the question which fascinates me personally.Now I have to go and look up the word consciousness, I am 100% sure that the word does exist.

Ferre
28-09-2009, 07:34 PM
Start here, it's fascinating material; Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/)

Atom
28-09-2009, 07:36 PM
Start here, it's fascinating material; Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/)Ok, thanks, I will check that out. It may take me a while but I will do it.

Ferre
28-09-2009, 07:41 PM
You'll love this one; Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/)

And check out this video; Dan Dennett on our consciousness | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html)

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 04:57 AM
I'm going to be kind and leave Creationism out of it: =) Go to newgeology.us presentation 32. html. Sorry I couldn't post a link just yet...
If you look at the facts...then you see that evolution is indeed a faith based theory. There is much that's left unproven. Open your minds...=)

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 06:54 AM
thanks for the welcome! =)
I actually tried to post a link earlier, but since I'm new here, it wouldn't let me. I then tried to post the website information so you could look it up yourself, but so far, that post hasn't been approved...I'll see what happens.
In the meantime, has anyone considered the third option? I'm not saying I believe this theory either, but it's something to add to the discussion to muck things up just a little more.
Einstein actually believed in combining science and God, even though he would profess from time to time not to believe in God as Christians understand Him, but he DID believe that there was a divine being involved in the beginning of life.
Here's my point:
I'm going to use a computer as a fill in for the beginning of life...
Now, a computer isn't nearly as complex as a person, but it's easier to break down this way. Take a computer completely apart, put it in a bag, and shake it. Now...you can shake these pieces for millions of years, and NEVER are you going to get a whole, complete working computer out of it. Much like the atom, soup mash theory, it's just not going to happen.
However, if you have someone sit and put the pieces together, suddenly, you have something to work with. So isn't it possible that the soup mash was there, and someone, someTHING had a hand in making sure those pieces went together just so?
As I said, this isn't necessarily my personal belief, but no matter how you turn the pieces of the puzzle, you're still working with having faith in something someone else is saying without actual proof.
There is no real proof of evolution. Just people trying to put the pieces together in a way that makes sense to them. When faced with facts, the theory crumbles. Anyone can find something online or in books that support evolution. That's because there are a lot of people working like mad to try and force puzzle pieces in places they don't belong in an effort to make a pretty picture.
One of the fundamental differences I've noticed in Creationists and evolutionists is that at least the Creation folks have heard the theory of evolution, looked at it, and a lot of them have made up their own minds based on facts. Evolutionists just believe the information thrust in front of them without questioning it's validity. I challenge you to actually take a peek at the "evidence" in support of evolution. Google "Evolution debunked" and check out the real scientists, when faced with the "facts" presented on evolution, have made up their minds that evolution as it stands in the creation aspect of things, just didn't happen that way. Period. Once you check that out, then try to search out what really happened. Strive for knowledge....and form your own opinions. Not the ones thrust on you by science and society.

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:38 AM
You'll love this one; Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/)

And check out this video; Dan Dennett on our consciousness | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html)Ok, thanks.

I've just completed reading and watching all the material and have come to the conclusion that conceptions of consciousness do not interest me. I am not exactly sure why not. Thanks for the links though. : )

Zap
29-09-2009, 08:07 AM
I'm going to be kind and leave Creationism out of it: =) Go to newgeology.us presentation 32. html. Sorry I couldn't post a link just yet...
If you look at the facts...then you see that evolution is indeed a faith based theory. There is much that's left unproven. Open your minds...=)

Welcome to BTW, Cryren.
Glad you could join us.

Muddy
29-09-2009, 08:14 AM
Yeah good to have you Cryren! Amidst the deluge of my constant juvenile drivel it's a refreshing pleasure to see an articulate poster join the ranks of other articulate posters.

See what I mean? lol!

Strong
29-09-2009, 08:17 AM
thanks for the welcome! =)
I actually tried to post a link earlier, but since I'm new here, it wouldn't let me. ...

Hi Cryren and welcome to BTWIMHO, I'm glad you could join us! :sqbiggrin:

The link thing is one of the anti-spam security measures we have here. Don't worry, keep posting and it will be enabled soon enough.

BTW have you started an introduction thread in the Introductions area yet?

Zap
29-09-2009, 08:25 AM
Here's my point:
I'm going to use a computer as a fill in for the beginning of life...
Now, a computer isn't nearly as complex as a person, but it's easier to break down this way. Take a computer completely apart, put it in a bag, and shake it. Now...you can shake these pieces for millions of years, and NEVER are you going to get a whole, complete working computer out of it. Much like the atom, soup mash theory, it's just not going to happen.
However, if you have someone sit and put the pieces together, suddenly, you have something to work with. So isn't it possible that the soup mash was there, and someone, someTHING had a hand in making sure those pieces went together just so?

I think this is comparing apples to oranges and I further think that if you remove damage to the computer components from the equation, that sooner or later, you just might shake that bag and get a computer. If the placement is random, it may take millions of years, but one day, a computer will be born.

And there are many reasons I say it's apples and oranges but we'll start with this... A computer can not work (as we know it) unless pieces are inserted into other pieces in just the right way and force must be exerted after contact in order for them to function. With DNA, it's more simple. In that case, it's enough that they just touch to form bonds between living things. Life with living things is much more resilient than computer parts in a bag. Computer parts in a bag don't "want" to create a computer but life does "want" to continue and create more life.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 09:39 AM
I think this is comparing apples to oranges and I further think that if you remove damage to the computer components from the equation, that sooner or later, you just might shake that bag and get a computer. If the placement is random, it may take millions of years, but one day, a computer will be born.

And there are many reasons I say it's apples and oranges but we'll start with this... A computer can not work (as we know it) unless pieces are inserted into other pieces in just the right way and force must be exerted after contact in order for them to function. With DNA, it's more simple. In that case, it's enough that they just touch to form bonds between living things. Life with living things is much more resilient than computer parts in a bag. Computer parts in a bag don't "want" to create a computer but life does "want" to continue and create more life.

Well now...that brings me to another question: What makes a one celled organism with no brain more inclined to "want" to be in existence than a mere computer? Also...there are parts of us that are way more complex than pieces that need to be snapped together. It would actually make more sense for a computer to spontaneously come together in complete form than a person, or any other creature for that matter...if you don't believe me, simply study how muscle is attached or how a hair grows. That can't just "happen".
I digress.
I will go formally introduce myself now. =)

Zap
29-09-2009, 09:44 AM
Well now...that brings me to another question: What makes a one celled organism with no brain more inclined to "want" to be in existence than a mere computer? Also...there are parts of us that are way more complex than pieces that need to be snapped together. It would actually make more sense for a computer to spontaneously come together in complete form than a person, or any other creature for that matter...if you don't believe me, simply study how muscle is attached or how a hair grows. That can't just "happen".
I digress.
I will go formally introduce myself now. =)

The difference is that a computer has no life and no desire to create it, sustain it.
And while the human body is extremely more complex than a computer, we also begin with just one single cell.
And it's amazingly easy to create a human. Most of the time, it happens by accident.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 09:57 AM
Sure, a fetus starts as a diploid cell, but do you know what goes into one of these amazing cells? It's not a simple cell at all, which is what they're saying life is created from...or a string of RNA, depends on what scientist you ask.
Here is the anatomy of a sperm, pulled straight from good ole Wikipedia:The sperm cell consists of a head, a midpiece and a tail. The head contains the nucleus with densely coiled chromatin fibres, surrounded anteriorly by an acrosome, which contains enzymes used for penetrating the female egg. The midpiece has a central filamentous core with many mitochondria spiralled around it, used for ATP production for the journey through the female cervix, uterus and uterine tubes. The tail or "flagellum" executes the lashing movements that propel the spermatocyte.
It contains 23 chromosomes. The ovum also contains 23 chromosomes...this isn't just a little cell growing in a murky soup waiting to find other cells to connect with.
It's very complex, and impossible for me to believe that it was a spontaneous happening in the beginning of time.
I will further break down a chromosome if you'd like...or you can check it out yourself...but the fact that a diploid cell contains 46 of these is amazing on it's own...

Zap
29-09-2009, 10:17 AM
It's very complex, and impossible for me to believe that it was a spontaneous happening in the beginning of time.
I will further break down a chromosome if you'd like...or you can check it out yourself...but the fact that a diploid cell contains 46 of these is amazing on it's own...

To go back to your shake and bake computer analogy...

A computer is complex. Us humans are even more complex. Agreed?

I believe that if you do the shake and bake thing, eventually you'll end up with a functioning computer, if it is completely random.
I also believe the same for human beings. Eventually, you'll end up with life when you get the chemicals and environment right.

Don't forget, the sperm and ova have had a long time to evolve.
But we still have plants to look to as well.
Plants have life and they "want" to go on living and creating more plants.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 10:36 AM
OK, so let's entertain for a minute that a computer, with screen, keyboard, computer boards with intricate components COULD in fact, come together at random. In order to PROVE to me that you have a working computer, you must first turn it on. Which is something science hasn't been able to do...
Turn ON those RNA links they say created life.
So....it is a faith based theory...one in which you exercise faith in believing.

Ferre
29-09-2009, 10:42 AM
It's very complex, and impossible for me to believe that it was a spontaneous happening in the beginning of time.

There's no reason whatsoever to believe this either because it didn't happen that way. It took millions of years for the first single cells (prokaryotes) to develop into more complex cells (eukaryotes) which then needed millions of years to develop into multicellular life, and that's when RNA and later DNA started to form which after another few million years of development grew into the first simple animals (think amoeba, not something with legs and a head and such).

It was far from a "spontaneous" happening, it was a millions of years process of happenings. The "beginning of life" took more than 3 billion years from the beginning of the earth untill the first simple lifeforms.

Not what any scientist would call a spontaneous happening.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 10:51 AM
Oh boy,....and here is another debate rearing it's ugly head. There is no proof the earth is that old. Just try to find the oldest fossil...you'll find contradictions all over the place. One claims 160000 years old being the oldest human, then you'll have some going all the way back 409 million years ago.
However...do some further research and you'll find that scientists will tell you with certainty that a fossil can lie.
So....once again...faith based.

Zap
29-09-2009, 10:52 AM
OK, so let's entertain for a minute that a computer, with screen, keyboard, computer boards with intricate components COULD in fact, come together at random. In order to PROVE to me that you have a working computer, you must first turn it on. Which is something science hasn't been able to do...
Turn ON those RNA links they say created life.
So....it is a faith based theory...one in which you exercise faith in believing.

I would say that most theories are faith based because most of us aren't going to run out and recreate the experiments ourselves, even on the simple thoeries we take for granted as fact. (Not that theories are separate from fact, as has already been pointed out)

And your point about scientists not being able to turn on RNA is, in my eyes, neither a point for or against evolution. It speaks more of our own limitations than proof in either camp.

Science hasn't gotten humans to Mars yet, either, but I think it's an inevitability.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 10:55 AM
And that was my point entirely...
that everything we believe as humans as far as creation is faith based. To discount anyone because of their faith is simply close minded. =)

Ferre
29-09-2009, 10:57 AM
OK, so let's entertain for a minute that a computer, with screen, keyboard, computer boards with intricate components COULD in fact, come together at random. In order to PROVE to me that you have a working computer, you must first turn it on. Which is something science hasn't been able to do...
Turn ON those RNA links they say created life.
So....it is a faith based theory...one in which you exercise faith in believing.

My friend, you need to take a very good look at this page; Logical Fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info)

After you've done that, bookmark this site; An Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) and every time you think of an argument to add to this discussion take a look at that page first and see if it is listed, or if a similar argument as you thought off has been listed. If it is, don't bother bringing it up here, most of us been there, done that and passed that station a long time ago.

Creationists argument #612; CA612: Evolution requiring faith (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html)

Zap
29-09-2009, 11:00 AM
And that was my point entirely...
that everything we believe as humans as far as creation is faith based. To discount anyone because of their faith is simply close minded. =)

Yes. However...

Some hold to the theory that the world is flat. Some think it's a sphere.
Some theories have more merit than others because they are supported by more facts.
Once you've accepted theory A over theory B, you've closed your mind to theory B.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 11:21 AM
Man, I wish I could post links! =)
Almost an unfair advantage you have there at this point.
I have many links to guide you to...as for reading pages and not bringing this up again, I wasn't trying to step on toes, but was actually loving being able to stretch my mental muscles and have a lively debate with people that didn't just stare at me blankly because I was talking over their heads.
Thanks! =)

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 11:26 AM
Unfortunately, the only link I was able to access from work is the one on logical fallacies. The others are apparently listed under Society and Lifestyles on the Websense firewall we have here. I won't dispute the validity based solely on that, but will wait until I actually read them. I'm hoping I won't be wasting my time. =)

Zap
29-09-2009, 11:38 AM
Man, I wish I could post links! =)
Almost an unfair advantage you have there at this point.
I have many links to guide you to...as for reading pages and not bringing this up again, I wasn't trying to step on toes, but was actually loving being able to stretch my mental muscles and have a lively debate with people that didn't just stare at me blankly because I was talking over their heads.
Thanks! =)

I look forward to your future posts.

On another note, the link handicap will take care of itself after some more posts. Sorry about that, but spammers force me to do a few things I'd rather not do. In the meantime, you can post them if you drop everything up to and including the www.

ie. yahoo.com/ultralongdirectorystructurehere.html

Zap
29-09-2009, 11:40 AM
Unfortunately, the only link I was able to access from work is the one on logical fallacies. The others are apparently listed under Society and Lifestyles on the Websense firewall we have here. I won't dispute the validity based solely on that, but will wait until I actually read them. I'm hoping I won't be wasting my time. =)

That linked page quoted below...


Claim CA612:
Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 4.
Response:
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.


The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.
References:
ICR. 2000. ICR tenets of creationism. Error (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_tenets)

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 11:46 AM
Funny you should quote that particular page, I was JUST reading it...
and in some ways it also supports what I've been trying to say. I asked that Creationism be taken out of the mix as an option...
If you take both out of the way...then maybe the truth will lend itself...
I personally believe there is a mix between the two, but because both sides are so unwilling to see the other, I wonder how many years of "evolutionary" thinking it will take for someone to actually have the gumption to actually link everything together in one big voila moment.

Muddy
29-09-2009, 11:49 AM
Man, I wish I could post links! =)
Almost an unfair advantage you have there at this point.
I have many links to guide you to...as for reading pages and not bringing this up again, I wasn't trying to step on toes, but was actually loving being able to stretch my mental muscles and have a lively debate with people that didn't just stare at me blankly because I was talking over their heads.
Thanks! =)

Please don't let a little "toe stepping" run you off or hinder your posting style! Anybody that winds up in here already has tough toes.

As you probably know or can imagine, these types of debates often reveal the passion in passionate people...just have to look past that and keep on chooglin'!

On Ferre's links, usually what he posts is of interest at least and most often has at least some value, so no worries there. Should be worth your reading time. He's Dutch so sometimes he'll start talking about free love and stuff right in the middle of things, but hey, who can complain about that! lol

Zap
29-09-2009, 11:52 AM
Can always count on Muddy to come along and clear things up. LOL!

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 11:52 AM
Beautiful! I hope this works...
This is just an off the cuff link (no pun intended) that verbalizes my position.
Now...to go and gather my other resources for tomorrow...I'm enjoying this! =)
http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Evolve.htm. What I'm mostly excited about in this particular piece, is it actually touches, however briefly on the possibility of BOTH sides being fact, however unprovable. Faith.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 11:55 AM
Please don't let a little "toe stepping" run you off or hinder your posting style! Anybody that winds up in here already has tough toes.

As you probably know or can imagine, these types of debates often reveal the passion in passionate people...just have to look past that and keep on chooglin'!

On Ferre's links, usually what he posts is of interest at least and most often has at least some value, so no worries there. Should be worth your reading time. He's Dutch so sometimes he'll start talking about free love and stuff right in the middle of things, but hey, who can complain about that! lol

I have callused toes...figuratively, not literally...just to clarify. :sqwink:

Muddy
29-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Whew! For a second there I had a rather hideous mental image! lol!

Ferre
29-09-2009, 11:59 AM
There is no proof the earth is that old.

My friend, again you are spreading misconceptions, for one, as I explained earlier, from the existence of this planet to the point that animals that can leave behind fossils developed took already around 3 billion years.

Furthermore I strongly suggest that you do some reading here; age of earth - Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+age+of+earth&btnG=Search)

You could have found his argument at that page I suggested you to read, I understand that you can not access it from work but it would make this conversation less boring if you did.

:sqwink:

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 12:06 PM
Boring? By that, do you mean, if I saw your point of view, you would be less bored?

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 12:14 PM
Once again, I tried to rebut with a link, without the www attached, and wasn't allowed. I tried linking what you sent, and it was a page of searches. I did manage to get on one website, and looking at the verbiage, which I wish everyone would do, there are a lot of "assumptions, speculations, and calculations" included in their "scientific evidence" I'm not trying to start a Cryren bashing war here, just stating facts as I see them.
There is plenty of "evidence" supporting both sides of the argument. I can assure you, I have read and researched both sides of this coin, and I'm just stating what I believe based on what data I've collected over the years in researching here and there. Nothing serious from a scientific standpoint, just a lot of reading and forming conclusions with the idea that I refuse to have anything shoved down my throat without looking at the facts and making up my own mind.
I think challenging yourself to do that keeps you from being biased, and makes you objective. I've never been one to follow conventional views just because someone said so.

Ferre
29-09-2009, 12:17 PM
I personally believe there is a mix between the two

Now here is where it becomes an interesting conversation. Which 'two' do you have in mind when you think about that possibility?

(I personally have been doing loads of reading on the Gaia hypothesis and find that an interesting field of exploration as well, I'm also a member of a weird spiritual sect which uses a lot of psychedelics so I'm not that closed minded.)

And as for this reply;


Boring? By that, do you mean, if I saw your point of view, you would be less bored?

By that I mean less boring for me to show another creationist over and over again what any first year student can tell them. I find it pretty boring to read the same old debunked arguments over and over and over and over again years after years on forums in debates about evolution.

There's always the creationist who keeps on adding one old debunked argument after another and it is getting boring to tell them the same thing over and over again, like I do now; get informed about the matter before you enter conversations about the matter. That way you might not bore people.

Cryren8972
29-09-2009, 12:32 PM
OK. I checked out briefly the Gaia hypothesis, and found it interesting as well...I will read into that further, just to have something different and fresh to look at myself. As for Creationists listing the same arguments that have been debunked, so are the Evolutionists resting on a lot of debunked information. Which is my point...I can argue both sides of this, but chose this particular side because it was the most interesting point of the debate for me.
Both sides have points of fact based research and information.
As for combining the two...Einstein suggested just that...check it out if you haven't already. By the "two" I mean Creation and Evolution...both which have provable points and loads of faith backing them up. Why the need to close your mind to one in order to believe the other? If you can swallow either, you can swallow both....

Zap
29-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Once again, I tried to rebut with a link, without the www attached, and wasn't allowed.

Caught by another anti-spam method but it's visible now and I fixed the link within it.

Atom
29-09-2009, 05:17 PM
(...)I believe that if you do the shake and bake thing, eventually you'll end up with a functioning computer, if it is completely random. (...)I don't quite understand why you would believe this as the odds of this happening are so close to impossible that it's not even worth the effort of an odds calculation. In fact one would need a computer to calculate the odds, which of course would be an incomprehensible number to a human.

Muddy
29-09-2009, 05:51 PM
In fact one would need a computer...

Rather a conundrum.

Atom
29-09-2009, 05:52 PM
The number of years that have supposedly elapsed since the theoretical big bang is easy to comprehend in comparison. We are talking about a number so large, i.e. 1 in (insert astronomically high number here), that the very idea is ludicrous, even if the computer parts were already manufactured and readily available for shaking.

Muddy
29-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Hey baby, lemme see ya shake that 'puter!

Zap
29-09-2009, 06:47 PM
I don't quite understand why you would believe this as the odds of this happening are so close to impossible that it's not even worth the effort of an odds calculation. In fact one would need a computer to calculate the odds, which of course would be an incomprehensible number to a human.

Why didn't you just say it's impossible? :sqwink:

I'm not saying it will happen with any regularity.

And, although not in the same league, the concept is the same...
Flip a coin often enough and it will land on it's edge.

It may take millions of years and quadrillions of shakes (much like evolution) but sooner or later, you'll get a computer that works.

Atom
29-09-2009, 06:58 PM
Why didn't you just say it's impossible? :sqwink:I was tempted, believe me. lol


I'm not saying it will happen with any regularity.

And, although not in the same league, the concept is the same...
Flip a coin often enough and it will land on it's edge.


It may take millions of years and quadrillions of shakes (much like evolution) but sooner or later, you'll get a computer that works.No, you won't, Zap. I'm afraid that intelligent beings are essential to the existence of even a simple electronic circuit.

Zap
29-09-2009, 07:09 PM
No, you won't, Zap. I'm afraid that intelligent beings are essential to the existence of even a simple electronic circuit.

But you're not quite prepared to say it's impossible, are ya?
That's all I'm saying but what you would call a possibility, I think is a probability, given enough shakes.

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:10 PM
Simple electrical circuits do exist in non-human nature, electronic circuits do not.

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:11 PM
But you're not quite prepared to say it's impossible, are ya?
That's all I'm saying but what you would call a possibility, I think is a probability, given enough shakes.That may be because you don't understand the complexity of electronics, which is perfectly understandable. Most people don't. You can have a massively extensive circuit, but if a single tiny factor is off, that lump of complexity won't work.

Zap
29-09-2009, 07:16 PM
I think we're arguing two different points here, Atom.

I'm not saying anything about the existence of a computer without humans to invent it.

The exercise proposed by Cryren was to simply suppose that the bag of computer parts exists. It doesn't matter if humans exist or not. If someone shakes that bag enough times, will the placement of the parts allow for a working computer (assuming electricity were in the right place at the right time).

Is that what you got?

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:19 PM
I think we're arguing two different points here, Atom.

I'm not saying anything about the existence of a computer without humans to invent it.

The exercise proposed by Cryren was to simply suppose that the bag of computer parts exists. It doesn't matter if humans exist or not. If someone shakes that bag enough times, will the placement of the parts allow for a working computer (assuming electricity were in the right place at the right time).

Is that what you got?Yes, and the answer is no, it will not work no matter how many shakes or 'chances' it's given.

Zap
29-09-2009, 07:26 PM
Yes, and the answer is no, it will not work no matter how many shakes or 'chances' it's given.

You're obviously prepared to speak with more finality on that than I am.
I certainly think it's possible.

You got a motherboard, RAM, CPU and a video card (which could be onboard).
That's enough for a working computer.

Sooner or later, that CPU and the RAM and the video card are going to land in just the right spot.

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:29 PM
BTW, beyond the basic voltage supplies, electricity is only in the right places if the parts are in the right places, and we already hopefully know that the parts can never be in the right places through chance, the orders required are much too complex.

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:30 PM
You're obviously prepared to speak with more finality on that than I am.
I certainly think it's possible.

You got a motherboard, RAM, CPU and a video card (which could be onboard).
That's enough for a working computer.

Sooner or later, that CPU and the RAM and the video card are going to land in just the right spot.Very funny. lol

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:37 PM
Look at it this way, it's easy to cause a shorted or open essential part, only one little thing needs to be wrong for this to occur, and once that happens, the entire machine will never work again without some kind of intervention by an intelligent being.

Zap
29-09-2009, 07:43 PM
Look at it this way, it's easy to cause a shorted or open essential part, only one little thing needs to be wrong for this to occur, and once that happens, the entire machine will never work again without some kind of intervention by an intelligent being.

Premature electrocution aside, a computer is nowhere near as complex as human DNA.

It'll work, Dude. :sqmad: :sqlaugh:

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:46 PM
LOL. You know, I'm actually starting to convince myself that our electronic creations are more complex than us. lol

Muddy
29-09-2009, 07:50 PM
Jeezum, look at some of Ed's Japanese robots! lol!

Atom
29-09-2009, 07:53 PM
Yeah, no way god is that clever. :sqlaugh:

Muddy
29-09-2009, 07:54 PM
^LOL!

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 04:33 AM
BTW, beyond the basic voltage supplies, electricity is only in the right places if the parts are in the right places, and we already hopefully know that the parts can never be in the right places through chance, the orders required are much too complex.

Exactly...and every living thing is way more complex than a computer. Which is why the theory of evolution, in my opinion, isn't the answer everyone thinks it is...

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 04:35 AM
Why didn't you just say it's impossible? :sqwink:

I'm not saying it will happen with any regularity.

And, although not in the same league, the concept is the same...
Flip a coin often enough and it will land on it's edge.

It may take millions of years and quadrillions of shakes (much like evolution) but sooner or later, you'll get a computer that works.

This is where my dual theory comes in...call me what you will...
but who's shaking the bag?

Ferre
30-09-2009, 04:46 AM
I would like you to open a new tread to discuss your dual theory in more depth, I find this an interesting subject and want to know first how you yourself formulate this hypothesis, a first post in a new topic would be an excellent start for this discussion.

What you say? :sqrofl:

Zap
30-09-2009, 05:07 AM
This is where my dual theory comes in...call me what you will...
but who's shaking the bag?

All right, "what you will". Odd name, but I'll call you that if you want. :sqcool:

I thought, for this exercise, the entity shaking the bag was irrelevant.
But for the sake of argument, we'll say that Betty Crocker is shaking the bag. :sqerr:

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 05:22 AM
I would like you to open a new tread to discuss your dual theory in more depth, I find this an interesting subject and want to know first how you yourself formulate this hypothesis, a first post in a new topic would be an excellent start for this discussion.

What you say? :sqrofl:

I'm heading for work...and will be happy to start a thread when I get there..although calling it a hypothesis may be stretching it...let's just say it's mho....OK? :sqbiggrin:

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 05:24 AM
All right, "what you will". Odd name, but I'll call you that if you want. :sqcool:

I thought, for this exercise, the entity shaking the bag was irrelevant.
But for the sake of argument, we'll say that Betty Crocker is shaking the bag. :sqerr:

You've speculated that a computer could come together figuratively in enough time if someone was shaking a bag of parts...would you then agree that the likelihood of those same pieces coming together while stretched out over a mile, allowing just the vibrations of the earth, storms and what not, is far less likely?

Ferre
30-09-2009, 06:22 AM
You've speculated that a computer could come together figuratively in enough time if someone was shaking a bag of parts...would you then agree that the likelihood of those same pieces coming together while stretched out over a mile, allowing just the vibrations of the earth, storms and what not, is far less likely?

Oh boy! :sqlaugh:

Ever heard of primordial soup? Just for your interest;

7pt0rIZ3ZNE

Phylogeny from function: evidence from the molecular fossil record that tRNA originated in replication, not translation (http://www.pnas.org/content/91/15/6729.abstract)

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated)

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 06:29 AM
Once again, this article is riddled with "possibly, could have been, and maybes"...they produced amino acid. Not a living cell. Furthermore, they kept adding chemicals they thought might be present on Earth billions of years ago to produce this amino acid.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 06:49 AM
Ferre,
Here's the new thread.
Evolution Debate - BTWIMHO Chat Forums (http://www.btwimho.com/showthread.php?t=464)

Ferre
30-09-2009, 06:51 AM
Once again, this article is riddled with "possibly, could have been, and maybes"...they produced amino acid. Not a living cell. Furthermore, they kept adding chemicals they thought might be present on Earth billions of years ago to produce this amino acid.

Wel, even though it has those maybe's and possibility's in it (and science knows pretty well what chemicals were present in the beginning btw) this still sounds a lot more plausible than any of the explanations found here; A large group of links to Creation Myths from a variety of cultures from around the world... (http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html)

As for the variety of deities to pick from as for the 'intelligence' behind creation, go here; Mythology Encyclopedia currently features over 2,850 deities (http://www.godchecker.com/)

If you were acquainted with the scientific method and scientific/academic language you could have known why the words 'possibilities', maybes' are used a lot, I recommend you to look into that as well, you might pick up something on the way.

:sqwink:

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 07:06 AM
Well, then one could pose the question why everyone is SO sure there IS a deity....

Ferre
30-09-2009, 07:15 AM
Well, then one could pose the question why everyone is SO sure there IS a deity....

They say they are sure but in fact they "believe", that's why is called a believe system. Science doesn't work with that concept.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 07:19 AM
Well, if you just take a peek at current scriptures in all countries, their similarities are astounding. Even the ancient Greek worshipped "Gods". Primitives have been known to make sacrifices to the Gods...
it's an idea that isn't new to human nature.
It's not something that started with Christianity.
And some people would be quick to call evolution a belief system...

Ferre
30-09-2009, 07:35 AM
Well, if you just take a peek at current scriptures in all countries, their similarities are astounding. Even the ancient Greek worshipped "Gods". Primitives have been known to make sacrifices to the Gods...
it's an idea that isn't new to human nature.
It's not something that started with Christianity.
And some people would be quick to call evolution a belief system...


Primitives invented gods because they were primitive, they had no other way to explain what they experienced when they encountered "certain plants" and ate them.
I told you before, do some research on entheogens, you will find the origins of religion while at it. entheogens - Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=entheogens&hl=en&btnG=Search)

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 08:09 AM
What I'm thinking at this point, is that neither of us will be swayed in our opinions...=)
However, I'm greatly enjoying the debate and being able to discuss things in an intelligent manner.
My whole point is that we don't really KNOW how we started. You can throw religion, science, theories and whatever else you want out there,....there's no real proof either way...or a better way to put it, is there's substantial proof backing up both theories. Which is why I think there should be a meshing of sorts between the two.
However...I don't see that happening in my life time. Both sides are too close minded to the other. Not you specifically, but as a general rule, both sides are out there scrambling to try and disprove the other instead of putting their heads together and trying to figure out why evidence is so strong on both sides.

Zap
30-09-2009, 08:44 AM
What I'm thinking at this point, is that neither of us will be swayed in our opinions...=)
However, I'm greatly enjoying the debate and being able to discuss things in an intelligent manner.
My whole point is that we don't really KNOW how we started. You can throw religion, science, theories and whatever else you want out there,....there's no real proof either way...or a better way to put it, is there's substantial proof backing up both theories. Which is why I think there should be a meshing of sorts between the two.
However...I don't see that happening in my life time. Both sides are too close minded to the other. Not you specifically, but as a general rule, both sides are out there scrambling to try and disprove the other instead of putting their heads together and trying to figure out why evidence is so strong on both sides.

Good point.

Evolution is still the only truth. :sqerr: :sqwink: :sqlaugh:

But a very good point you raise here.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 08:57 AM
Evolution hasn't been proven as truth however...
there are a lot of lies, propaganda, and gaps that can't be explained away.
And that's if you look at it from a strictly scientific standpoint.

Zap
30-09-2009, 09:00 AM
Evolution hasn't been proven as truth however...


That part was a joke. I hope you didn't think I was rubbing your nose in it or anything. I was totally kidding.

Atom
30-09-2009, 09:10 AM
Exactly...and every living thing is way more complex than a computer. Which is why the theory of evolution, in my opinion, isn't the answer everyone thinks it is...I think that your last sentence is particularly well put in that you are obviously not flat out discounting biological evolution in itself, but rather suggesting that it is not "the" answer.

Atom
30-09-2009, 09:16 AM
Wel, even though it has those maybe's and possibility's in it (and science knows pretty well what chemicals were present in the beginning btw) this still sounds a lot more plausible than any of the explanations found here; A large group of links to Creation Myths from a variety of cultures from around the world... (http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html)

As for the variety of deities to pick from as for the 'intelligence' behind creation, go here; Mythology Encyclopedia currently features over 2,850 deities (http://www.godchecker.com/)

If you were acquainted with the scientific method and scientific/academic language you could have known why the words 'possibilities', maybes' are used a lot, I recommend you to look into that as well, you might pick up something on the way.

:sqwink:With your above post it seems that you are trying to set up a forced opposition in that you introduce creation myths, yet no one else has attempted to inject creation into the discussion, and in fact Cryren even said that she wished not to earlier.

Cryren8972
30-09-2009, 09:18 AM
I guess I question too much, and always have. I've never been one to believe what I'm told just because someone said so. Here is an interesting hodge podge of quotes from scientists, including Darwin himself. If these guys, that are involved in the actual study question, then how can I not?
Scientists Speak About Evolution (http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Creation_vs_Evolution/scientists%20speak%20about%20evolution.htm)
Thank you Atom...it's true that I do believe the evidence that's been put out there that is actual fact. Which is why I believe there is a third side...the truth. =)

ewomack
30-09-2009, 10:27 PM
The link above comes from an organization whose overriding concern is "Biblical Salvation." I doubt they'll be very objective on this topic. Plus, the quotes are questionable at least and dated. Darwin had doubts about evolution, yes, but others after him filled in the gap. Einstein had doubts and troubles with relativity too. The fact that Darwin said some doubtful things about evolution proves nothing.

I don't, I really don't, understand how creationism survives. It really perplexes me. I don't get it.

Muddy
30-09-2009, 11:48 PM
I don't, I really don't, understand how creationism survives. It really perplexes me. I don't get it.



iSvHpvHFXU0

Strong
01-10-2009, 06:01 AM
God moves in mysterious ways! What does that mean? Crab like? :sqconfused:

Sorry! Excuse the interruption!

Strong
01-10-2009, 05:09 PM
I just noticed we have three Evolution threads running concurrently, so it was a little hard to say in which this post should go. I picked this one cos of the name Darwin in the title.

News just in.


An ancient human-like creature that may be a direct ancestor to our species has been described by researchers.

The assessment of the 4.4-million-year-old animal called Ardipithecus ramidus is reported in the journal Science.

Even if it is not on the direct line to us, it offers new insights into how we evolved from the common ancestor we share with chimps, the team says.

Fossils of A. ramidus were first found in Ethiopia in 1992, but it has taken 17 years to assess their significance.

The most important specimen is a partial skeleton of a female nicknamed "Ardi".

Article: BBC - Fossil finds extend human story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm)

This is how the theory of evolution is slowly being proven, inch by inch, fossil by fossil, verifiable facts upon verifiable facts. The only thing religion has to offer is a book for us to base our lives on. And faith, you have to have faith.

It is a hard ask.

Atom
01-10-2009, 07:04 PM
I just saw this on the news, she's a billion and a half years older than Lucy. She walked upright. Four feet tall and 120 lbs. They say the skeleton is pretty complete, it apparently has all the important bones.

Zap
01-10-2009, 09:52 PM
I just noticed we have three Evolution threads running concurrently, so it was a little hard to say in which this post should go. I picked this one cos of the name Darwin in the title.

News just in.



Article: BBC - Fossil finds extend human story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm)

This is how the theory of evolution is slowly being proven, inch by inch, fossil by fossil, verifiable facts upon verifiable facts. The only thing religion has to offer is a book for us to base our lives on. And faith, you have to have faith.

It is a hard ask.

Nice find, Strongy.

Atom
01-10-2009, 11:26 PM
I just saw this on the news, she's a billion and a half years older than Lucy. She walked upright. Four feet tall and 120 lbs. They say the skeleton is pretty complete, it apparently has all the important bones.Oops, I meant million, not billion. She's actually one million years older than Lucy.

Cryren8972
02-10-2009, 05:09 AM
Evolution News Views: My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/my_pilgrimage_to_lucys_holy_re.html)

Ferre
02-10-2009, 05:33 AM
Evolution News Views: My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/my_pilgrimage_to_lucys_holy_re.html)

You do realize that this is the Discovery institute you just pointed us at no? :sqlaugh:

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute)


Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[10] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

Please, stop this crap, it is getting pathetic. :sqwink:

Ferre
02-10-2009, 06:05 AM
Here more info on the discovery institute;

Discovery Institute - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute)

And here some info on the founder; Bruce Chapman - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bruce_Chapman)

Those guys spread pseudo-science and are very well known for it, they are a long time publicly exposed bunch of charlatans and liars.

Now, as for the substance of that article, all we need to do is wait until real scientists find it and review it on places like scienceblogs and such like mostly happens with discovery institute articles, this often gives us an interesting read and a laugh or two, like here; The Discovery Institute doesn't like it when you point out their fallacies : Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/the_discovery_institute_doesnt_1.php)

Or here; Quote Mine Project: The Discovery Institute Quote Mines Stephen Jay Gould (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/gould_daubert.html)

:sqlaugh:

Cryren8972
02-10-2009, 06:14 AM
Wait, was that an example of quote mining?
Say what you will, the Discovery Institute is a group of scientists, that know plenty about chemistry, microbiology, and science.
They question, and some of them DON'T believe in intelligent design, they just don't believe Darwinism either.
I don't understand why you assume that if someone doesn't believe what you believe they must be ignorant morons. You stated you were open minded, but so far, I don't see it.

Ferre
02-10-2009, 06:18 AM
Please, the Discovery institute have zero credibility whatsoever, they are a bunch of creationist lunatics.

If you want to debunk science, use facts, not lies by the discovery institute and other creationist organizations and misunderstandings of real science as you have been doing so far. No respectable scientist will want to be associated with the discovery institute and there is a pretty damn good reason for that.

Cryren8972
02-10-2009, 06:26 AM
Maybe National Geographic will carry more weight with you...
What Was ? Fast Facts on an Early Human Ancestor (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucy_2.html)
Clearly stating that a portion of the bones were found nearby.
And that "Lucy's baby" was much older than she was. Of course, I'm sure they used carbon dating.
The facts are there...really depends on how you look at em doesn't it?

Ferre
02-10-2009, 06:30 AM
My dear, I slowly begin to understand why most people don't even want to talk with creationists any more. Seriously, it always ends up with the creationists refusing to accept reality.

:sqlaugh:

Atom
04-10-2009, 09:41 AM
Hey I just realized something..

Darwin too controversial for America?

Bullshit.



Darwin too controversial for World.

Atom
04-10-2009, 09:43 AM
What's the big idea, Strongy?

You are almost as bad as the religious freaks.

Atom
04-10-2009, 09:52 AM
America is actually a nation with great tolerance to the Darwinian concept compared to the rest of the world.

Strong
04-10-2009, 11:55 AM
In the UK and indeed Europe, people are not religious to the point where it is difficult to release a film about Darwin. That was the point I was trying to make in starting this thread.

Atom
04-10-2009, 12:26 PM
In the UK and indeed Europe, people are not religious to the point where it is difficult to release a film about Darwin. That was the point I was trying to make in starting this thread.Since when do UK, European and indeed American "people" release films?

Atom
04-10-2009, 12:29 PM
You aren't insinuating politics by any chance, are you?

Atom
04-10-2009, 12:34 PM
Your quote in the OP says that it was deemed too controversial for American audiences, but by who? Film houses that choose not to distribute it?

Atom
04-10-2009, 12:54 PM
America isn't film houses, Strongy. Ok? So your topic title is bullshit. Agreed, or not?

Ferre
04-10-2009, 01:06 PM
Filmhouses make their money by distributing films, they do have an interset knowing what their audience will pay money to see and do have some sort of market research going on like all other industries.

When those filmhouses do not distribute a film they do that because they know damn well why that is, namely that it will not make any money.

"Controversial" sells, that's why they distributed films like Brokeback mountain and The Da Vinci Code and let's not forget The Last Temptation of Christ and what about Religulous? Those filmhouses distributed all of them because controversy brings money. The reason they didn't want to distribute this film is because they are afraid to loose money, all the rest is just an excuse if you ask me.

Atom
04-10-2009, 01:18 PM
GUBA - PBS Evolution - Darwins Dangerous Idea - Part 1 (http://www.guba.com/watch/3000128176/PBS-Evolution-Darwins-Dangerous-Idea-Part-1)

This looks interesting, I think I'll watch it later.

Atom
04-10-2009, 01:36 PM
Filmhouses make their money by distributing films, they do have an interset knowing what their audience will pay money to see and do have some sort of market research going on like all other industries.

When those filmhouses do not distribute a film they do that because they know damn well why that is, namely that it will not make any money.

"Controversial" sells, that's why they distributed films like Brokeback mountain and The Da Vinci Code and let's not forget The Last Temptation of Christ and what about Religulous? Those filmhouses distributed all of them because controversy brings money. The reason they didn't want to distribute this film is because they are afraid to loose money, all the rest is just an excuse if you ask me.Well then, in that case shouldn't it be; Darwin Not Controversial Enough For American Film Distributors?

Ferre
04-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Yes, that would be more honest I think. :sqlaugh:

Ferre
04-10-2009, 01:58 PM
I think filmhouses have criteria like this...

Special effects sell - there's no special effects in that film
Drama sells - No drama
Sex sells - no sex either
Controversy sells - not enough controversy

In other words, that film is boring and won't be a big seller. :sqlaugh:

Atom
04-10-2009, 11:32 PM
GUBA - PBS Evolution - Darwins Dangerous Idea - Part 1 (http://www.guba.com/watch/3000128176/PBS-Evolution-Darwins-Dangerous-Idea-Part-1)

This looks interesting, I think I'll watch it later.This is a crap link, here's a better one, choose the "play all" link below the player.

YouTube - Evolution Ep1: Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1/11) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=910dz5sCb1I&feature=video_response)

Atom
05-10-2009, 02:04 PM
Huh, well I see that the play all link isn't helping much, I ended up having to start each one by hand anyway. I fell asleep in the middle of 7/11 last night so I'll have to continue on tonight, it's really quite a good video and I've learned some things.

Atom
07-10-2009, 08:52 AM
Darwin's Darkest Hour premiered on PBS last night but I couldn't watch it because my neighbor came over and wanted me to repair his cigarette rolling machine. I'll have to catch the repeat. I find it's more enjoyable to see on my 27" TV, but I'm glad it's available on the net, I've already seen a lot of the video, I still haven't had a chance to finish it though. In recollection of what I've already seen of it I could have sworn that Darwin married his cousin, I'm sure I must be wrong about that, I'd better watch that part again lol.

Zap
07-10-2009, 08:58 AM
I could have sworn that Darwin married his cousin, I'm sure I must be wrong about that, I'd better watch that part again lol.

He did. And check this...

10 Famous People Who Married Their Cousins - Listverse (http://listverse.com/2008/07/20/10-famous-people-who-married-their-cousins/)

It seems that there are a disproportionately large number of American politicians on that list. Hmmmmm.......

Atom
07-10-2009, 09:12 AM
He did. And check this...

10 Famous People Who Married Their Cousins - Listverse (http://listverse.com/2008/07/20/10-famous-people-who-married-their-cousins/)

It seems that there are a disproportionately large number of American politicians on that list. Hmmmmm.......Three out of the ten. Looking at Giuliani, I'd say that it's quite possible that he is from a long line of inbreeding.

LOL

Strong
07-10-2009, 12:14 PM
I looked up what all this first, second cousin relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin) is all about. I wish I hadn't. I've got a headache now. :sqfrown:

Cryren8972
07-10-2009, 12:20 PM
I looked up what all this first, second cousin relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin) is all about. I wish I hadn't. I've got a headache now. :sqfrown:

I had to read it too...I've always wondered why no one was able to explain it. Now I know.
Not sure that I can explain it.
Maybe,....
but it's not a certainty

Strong
07-10-2009, 12:46 PM
You'd need a pretty extensive family tree to explain it all.

Atom
07-10-2009, 04:41 PM
I guess the bottom line is that we are all related.

Atom
07-10-2009, 04:48 PM
The creator is a pervert.

Strong
08-10-2009, 04:04 AM
From a Darwinian evolutionary perspective I guess we are all related in the animal Kingdom.

Look what inbreeding has done for us :sqconfused:

Atom
08-10-2009, 08:54 AM
From a Darwinian evolutionary perspective, all life is related, not just the animal kingdom.

The documentary was interesting, I finished it last night.

Atom
08-10-2009, 08:58 AM
So if someone calls you a bean head, don't take it too hard.

Strong
08-10-2009, 10:56 AM
:sqconfused:

Score one for sanity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/oct/07/charles-darwin-pbs-show)


Lo and behold, looky what was aired on American public television last night: an actual show about Charles Darwin. And it didn't make him out to be the enemy of heaven.


All is not lost over here, my British friends. I'm going to try to find out if it aired on PBS stations down south. Readers, anyone know?

It seems you Americans aren't a bunch of freaks after all :sqwink:

Muddy
08-10-2009, 10:59 AM
Yes. Yes we are.

Atom
08-10-2009, 11:04 AM
(...)It seems you Americans aren't a bunch of freaks after all :sqwink:That is correct, sir.

http://3t9.com/Atom/A1Atom_weird.jpg

Muddy
08-10-2009, 11:05 AM
And if you're French, that's "Little Cabbage Head".

Atom
08-10-2009, 09:47 PM
http://3t9.com/Atom/conditionedthinker2.jpg

Cryren8972
08-10-2009, 09:48 PM
http://3t9.com/Atom/conditionedthinker2.jpg

OK, I could look at that picture a hundred times and see something new. :sqrolleyes:

Atom
08-10-2009, 09:50 PM
Looks like a cityscape on the tail.

Muddy
08-10-2009, 09:54 PM
If they'd stop with the tit Kung Fu and quit fuckin' with that clock, maybe they could get the damn grass mowed.

Atom
08-10-2009, 09:58 PM
Is that a quintuple chin?

ewomack
10-10-2009, 09:26 AM
Was that Dali on a very bad day?!?

Atom
10-10-2009, 10:15 AM
Nah, Dali wasn't that brave.

Muddy
10-10-2009, 11:54 AM
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/amc0685l.jpg

Atom
10-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Is that a pepperoni on his shirt?

Muddy
10-10-2009, 12:04 PM
lol

ewomack
10-10-2009, 02:21 PM
Are we back to lol? I thought we switched to LOL?

Atom
10-10-2009, 02:44 PM
That is generally judged by the number of hours elapsed past cocktail hour.

Muddy
10-10-2009, 02:49 PM
I just think it's great we no longer need ^ and !.

Atom
10-10-2009, 02:56 PM
Me too. I think we can thank Mr. Darwin for that. Do not ask me why, it's just a hunch based on hunching.

fastreplies
07-11-2009, 03:23 PM
I know Americans are quite a religious lot, but I didn't think it was to that extent.

What can you expect from the nation that considers an alphabet in bowl of soup controversial subject never mind Darwin

:sqrolleyes:

fastreplies

Cryren8972
08-11-2009, 06:48 AM
What can you expect from the nation that considers an alphabet in bowl of soup controversial subject never mind Darwin

:sqrolleyes:

fastreplies

That's what happens when you allow everyone to have an opinion. :sqlaugh:

fastreplies
08-11-2009, 09:29 PM
That's what happens when you allow everyone to have an opinion. :sqlaugh:

Are you saying that religion is based on opinions and not believes?
Well, you maybe right

:sqfrown:

fastreplies

Cryren8972
09-11-2009, 07:10 AM
Are you saying that religion is based on opinions and not believes?
Well, you maybe right

:sqfrown:

fastreplies

I thought we were talking about soup. :sqlaugh:

Atom
09-11-2009, 10:06 AM
Note: Part 2 of the PBS special Becoming Human is airing tonight at 7:00pm CST

fastreplies
09-11-2009, 03:25 PM
I thought we were talking about soup. :sqlaugh:

Well, religion is a soup... an alphabet soup

:hail:

fastreplies

Atom
09-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Note: Part 2 of the PBS special Becoming Human is airing tonight at 7:00pm CSToops, I mean tomorrow night, not tonight, sorry. Tuesday at 7:00pm CST.

fastreplies
10-11-2009, 12:13 PM
Hey Atom, we're waiting for your report.

Please don't make us wait for long time and give it to us starting with bad news first

;)

fastreplies

Atom
10-11-2009, 12:18 PM
lol

Will report in approximately 9 hours. I don't know if you guys get PBS or not where you're at.

Atom
10-11-2009, 12:22 PM
I don't see where free videos of the series are available, I'm thinking they probably will be in the not too distant future, probably after they've sold some DVD's, I suspect.

fastreplies
10-11-2009, 12:25 PM
I don't know if you guys get PBS or not where you're at.

We do but, your report will do it better.... I hope

;)

fastreplies

Atom
10-11-2009, 12:29 PM
We do but, your report will do it better.... I hope

;)

fastreplieslol. Well I try to remain absolutely as unbiased as I can when considering whether to accept key hypotheses on this subject, I'll do my best. lol

fastreplies
10-11-2009, 12:32 PM
I'll do my best. lol

I know you will or I wouldn't ask you

;)

fastreplies

Atom
10-11-2009, 09:09 PM
Evolution: what the hell is it all about! - Page 5 - BTWIMHO Chat Forums (http://www.btwimho.com/showthread.php?p=23519#post23519)

Atom
10-11-2009, 09:40 PM
The current scientific thinking on human evolution of course employs a concept that is contrary to the Darwinian concept, that's why I posted my assessment in the above link to a more appropriate thread.

Atom
10-11-2009, 10:55 PM
"The chief weakness of Darwinian evolution lay in gaps in its explanations of the mechanism of evolution and of the origin of species. The Darwinian concept of natural selection is that inheritable variations among the individuals of given types of organisms continually arise in nature and that some variations prove advantageous under prevailing conditions in that they enable the organism to leave relatively more surviving offspring. But how these variations initially arise or are transmitted to offspring, and hence to subsequent generations, was not understood by Darwin. The science of genetics originating at the beginning of the 20th cent. with the recognition of the importance of the earlier work of Mendel, provided a satisfactory explanation for the origin and transmission of variation. In 1901, de Vries presented his theory that mutation, or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. The gene is the carrier of heredity and determines the attributes of the individual; thus changes in the genes can be transmitted to the offspring and produce new or altered attributes in the new individual."

Darwin's theory of evolution definition of Darwin's theory of evolution in the Free Online Encyclopedia. (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Darwin%27s+theory+of+evolution)

fastreplies
10-11-2009, 11:44 PM
But how these variations initially arise or are transmitted to offspring, and hence to subsequent generations, was not understood by Darwin.

Lets not forget that in his time most people couldn't understand where the Sun has been hiding every night.

Just image what Darwin would do these days using DNS as his basic tool

:)

fastreplies

ewomack
11-11-2009, 02:14 PM
A book recommendation:

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Daniel Prothero (http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257966767&sr=8-1).

It responds to creationism almost line by line. It completely derails creationism as a science (which it never was or could be), but accepts that people can believe in it nonetheless...