Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#8757 08/16/06 08:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
S
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
In the end of the evolution article it mentions that the science community is not giving people enough instruction which is why so many don't believe in evolution. That sounds a bit like brainwashing to me. Sounds like the science community wants to force people in to their beliefs of evolution.

I have done research in that field as well as Global Warming... I don't believe in either. I would, of course, not be so brash to think that I could instruct others to believe my points or ideas. That could be why the science community faces such criticism... deserved, or most likely, not.

.
#8758 08/16/06 10:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
In my years of experience discussing and debating this subject, the biggest factor affecting whether a person believes in evolution is whether they understand it.

Invariably when I find people who fail to believe it, even though they claim that they have done "substantial research" into the subject, I discover that their vast and careful studies have left them utterly devoid of the slightest understanding of the subject: they "know" lots of things that are not true.

#8759 08/16/06 10:43 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
ShablammaLamma wrote:
"Sounds like the science community wants to force people in to their beliefs of evolution."

No I really don't care what you believe. You can believe in the invisible purple rhinoceros if you choose. I only object when you brainwash children. Or commit acts of violence against non-believers.

Shalalaboombiyah wrote:
"I have done research in that field as well as Global Warming"

Of course you have.
At what university or college?
In what year?
Who was your advisor?
What name can I find you under in the citation index?


DA Morgan
#8760 08/21/06 07:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
S
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Ahhh, yes. I forgot that when I post anything that I MUST give my resume. I MUST give all of the details of my research so all of you can pick it apart and say that I am wrong.

It is pretty convenient to say that because I don't believe the same way, I MUST not have done enough research in to the subject. That was more-or-less my point.

It IS possible for anyone to do research in a field and NOT agree with it.

#8761 08/21/06 08:03 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I have no problem with Intelligent Design advocates or other creationists rejecting evolution - none at all.

My problem is when expect others to reject evolution on scientific grounds based on the authority of their careful research into the subject. IF they actually had some good information, it would be great, even it it caused me to rethink some basic assumptions.

However, invariably I discover that when these creationists explain their position, they belie an almost utter lack of understanding of the material - and it seems like they are all reading from the same cue cards, because most of them are wrong in fairly predictable ways.

Often times this takes the form of a challenge:
Evolution says X, but we "know" X to be false, therefore, evolution must be false.

Usually when they say this, evolution doesn't say anything of the sort, and often we don't know X to be false.

#8762 08/21/06 08:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
sorry sha, but some people around here say that if you don't accept the political correct scaremongers tales, you have to be wrong. I have to disagree with you on evolution, but then again, I've not done that much research on it, only what I've read in school more than two decades ago. Since i don't believe in the bible, i don't really have anything to argue against what they taught in school. do you have anything other than the bible to use as an alternative?

global warming on the other hand, i am definitely in agreement with you. Ive been doing research on it lately, and I've seen way to much evidence against it to believe it is anything but a political statement.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8763 08/21/06 11:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"sorry sha, but some people around here say that if you don't accept the political correct scaremongers tales, you have to be wrong."

No they don't. They say put up or shut up. You've yet to put up ... anything that supports what you say.

When you do you will be respected ... even if it respectful disagreement.


DA Morgan
#8764 08/22/06 06:10 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
and that has to do with evolution.... how?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8765 08/22/06 02:09 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 52
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 52
Quote:
I don't believe in either. I would, of course, not be so brash to think that I could instruct others to believe my points or ideas.
Instructing others or defending your belief is the ultimate test of it. Others will put your argument under greater scrutiny than you may have. Don't be embarrassed to have a disagreement. You don't need to have a good resume, just a good argument.

#8766 08/22/06 05:31 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Make that a good argument founded upon verifiable facts.

Any idiot can argue and most of them do.


DA Morgan
#8767 08/28/06 09:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Tim,

Do you have anything about science to contribute to this forum?

#8768 08/28/06 10:13 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
this is not the place for preaching.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8769 08/28/06 11:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
ShablammaLamma, you know that is a mouthfull here.

You have a good point. Those that are deeply into evolution theory want to offer it to the rest of us as if it was not a working tool with some merit but rather as established fact. Darwin's idea is incomplete. There is so much to learn that we will never learn until we stop thinking we know it all. Think about it, what tools did Darwin have at his disposal? His eyes, his pen and paper, and his interpretations. Basic stuff.
Mutation is at the heart of evolution here.
Just one guys thought.
jjw

#8770 08/29/06 12:56 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
There are some facts that are known and proven about evolution. then there are the theories that connect them. that is why its called the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. Theories are constantly adapting to new data. they dont simply ignore any new data.

beliefs such as those held by the christians that believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old are not capable of handling real data.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8771 08/29/06 01:32 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Evolution is an established fact AND it is incomplete. No theory is 'complete' in the sense that it answers everything. Germ theory of disease doesn't explain genetic diseases. The fact that planes can fly isn't explained by gravity.

#8772 08/29/06 07:15 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
An entirely different issue and subject TFF but while we know flight is in opposition to gravity I am very impressed that a little vacumn on top of a wing causing a little extra pressure on the bottom of the wing will lift 500,000 lbs of cargo when designed into the Russian monster plane!
Most likely the Wright Bros did not anticipate that end result.
jjw

#8773 08/29/06 11:31 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw wrote:
"Darwin's idea is incomplete."

Darwin's idea was not just incomplete it was wrong. Darwin knew nothing of chromosomes, genes, mutations, or any of the other things from which modern evolution theory is made.

Darwin was perhaps one of the first people with the courage to point in the right direction. But calling evolution Darwinism is as meaningful as calling gravity "Newtonism" or calling astronomy "Gallileoism."


DA Morgan
#8774 08/30/06 12:18 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Darwinism is not the exact same as evolution, mainly because evolution has more data than Darwin had. That does not mean that either of them is completely wrong.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8775 08/30/06 04:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
And neither was Newton which is why I used him as an example. Newtonian gravity is good for almost everything in our daily experience (excluding GPS readings and such).


DA Morgan
#8776 08/30/06 03:48 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Darwinian evolution was found to be unscientific, going against the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Have you ever read, "On the Origin of Species"? The guy doesn't have a clue about what science is.

#8777 08/30/06 04:25 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Darwinian evolution was found to be unscientific, going against the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology."

It has been found unscientific by 1) preachers and other non-scientists, 2) lay people too lazy to do any homework on the subject, and 3) tenth-tier nobodies who have, collectively, made very little contribution to science - and almost none in the areas they use to "refute" evolution.

On the other hand, Nobel laureates in science and medicine agree that evolution is great science and creationism is not science at all: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

They also reject "intelligent design."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/?breaking


"Have you ever read, "On the Origin of Species"?"
Yes.

"The guy doesn't have a clue about what science is."
It's brilliant. I recommend that you read it - carefully.

However, the best way to learn exactly what evolutionary theory is about is to read a book by Ernst Mayr called "What Evolution Is." Its purpose is not to prove evolution, though it does offer substantial evidence. Its purpose is not to refute creationism, though it does contain some of that as well. Its purpose is exactly what the title says: to explain exactly what evolution is.

If you read it very carefully - and think about it very carefully - you can come to a clear understanding of what evolution means.

I know this goes against the creationist paradigm, but IDEALLY, you would try to understand what evolution theory actually says and THEN you would think about it carefully before finally coming to a conclusion. It's much easier though to come to conclusions before one understands a subject.

#8778 08/30/06 04:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The reasons why people reject evolution:

1) What they "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip,

2) What they "know" about science is a comic-book caricature of science.

#8779 08/30/06 04:41 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
In addition to all those nobel laureates in science, the national academies of science and many other professional organizations researching this area have issued statements supporting evolution and refuting creationism and its doppelganger, Intelligent Design:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=NEWS_statement_president_
02142001_BA_science_education
(National Academy of Sciences statement)

http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/evolutandcosmo.cfm
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/980602_aibs_endorsed_st.html
http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm
http://www.vertpaleo.org/policy/policy_statement_evolution.html
http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/Teaching%20Evolution.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/hssexec/hss_evolnstate.html

Reasonable conclusion:
Evolution is great science.
Creationism is not science.
Intelligent Design is not science.

The lay people who believe this stuff are rejecting the good science of evolution, because they are largely grossly ignorant of actual science.

#8780 08/30/06 05:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Darwinism is good in that it started other scientist to thinking along that line. according to some, the scientist that originally got into evolution did so to refute Darwin. Once they got to looking at it, they changed the understanding of it a bit.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8781 08/30/06 08:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Tim wrote:
"Darwinian evolution was found to be unscientific, going against the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Have you ever read, "On the Origin of Species"? The guy doesn't have a clue about what science is."

No it wasn't Tim. No such finding has ever taken place. You are absolutely totally and flawlessly DEAD WRONG.

Who is feeding this nonsense to you?

It is absolutely not true.

You are, in my opinion, being brainwashed.


DA Morgan
#8782 08/31/06 03:38 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Do any of you know why Darwin studied Natural selection and the theory of evolution? It was because one of his family members had died (his niece, I think)after he got back from his trip to the Galapagos. He lost his faith in God (he was studying to a priest before that) on the account that God wasn't fair or just. So he concoted a theory that would take a god out of the picture. He said, ?I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae (parasite) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.? What he saw was the fallen creation; the suffering, death, famine, and assumed that it was God's doing that all this had entered the world. So he concoted a theory that would take out the possiblity of Adam being the first human that caused sin to enter the world; the theory that the world was billions of years old and the first human was just an exalted monkey, not a fallen human. I find this true with other evolutionists; their denial of a Creator is not on scientific evidence but on theological.

#8783 08/31/06 04:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
would someone please show me an example of a creature who has evolved.

perhaps there is evidence of a dinosaur that evolved over the millions of years they were on the earth...

or

perhaps there is evidence of something that has evolved somewhere.

I am not speaking of environmental adaptation however such as the different races of humans here on earth.

just show me two creatures whos bones reflect evolution.

for instance
a tyranasaurus rex.
a chicken.
a dog.
a cat.

a shark.
a horseshoe crab.
a roach.


also:
dont bother showing me the bones of two seperate species , and claim that they are related directly , because many species that were here are gone.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8784 08/31/06 05:17 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
No they don't. They say put up or shut up. You've yet to put up ... anything that supports what you say.
Heres a "put up" from one who belives what GOD can do.

will the science community "put up"
or "shut up"?

or just say that we are right based on what we have taught ourselves...and you are wrong.

why didnt he evolve?
why cant he stop swimming?


why didnt he evolve?
perhaps he could use the ability to change colors?



why didnt he evolve?
maybe some feet or a pair of hands?




etc...etc...etc...

now where are the pictures you have of creatures that evolved?

I've looked around a while and find nothing but conjecture , presumption , nothing.

hmmmm Tyranasaurus Rex ?
did he evolve?


NOPE
Quote:


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8785 08/31/06 05:39 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Paul,

Your post shows a profound lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't predict that cockroaches will evolve hands.

You have "looked around," but you haven't tried to understand what evolution actually is and what it means.

#8786 08/31/06 05:45 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Do any of you know why Darwin studied Natural selection and the theory of evolution? "

Tim, your ensuing explantion is a concoction by creationist liars. Darwin made extensive observations and took meticulous notes. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that evolution grew out of anything but his data.

Regardless, it is irrelevant. Current theories of evolution are not predicated on Darwin's observations. Creationist liars want to try to run down Darwin in hopes of demolishing his theory. Intellectually lazy people repeat their lies. None of them is interested in discovering the truth. Instead they want to define it.


"I find this true with other evolutionists; their denial of a Creator is not on scientific evidence but on theological."

Evolution doesn't say anything about a creator.
What you have "found," is what your handlers told you to expect you'ld find.

#8787 08/31/06 06:09 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
____________________________________________________________

Your post shows a profound lack of understanding of evolution.
____________________________________________________________

My understanding normaly comes from things I see.

why dont you help me to visualize the theory of evoloution by showing me an example of evolution?

I have shown you an example of creatures that have not evolved.

that was a very simple task for me to perform.

since you believe so much in evolution then perhaps you could show me a evolved creature.

ie...
____________________________________

Put up a evolved creature or shut up
____________________________________

it should be simple for you to do this.
you have all of that evidence to use.
put it to use... thats all Im asking.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8788 08/31/06 06:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You have not showed examples of creatures that have not evolved. You haven't written a single sentence that shows you understand anything at all about evolution. You disbelief a theory you don't even understand. You don't know what it is - but gosh darn, you know it's wrong!

There is a book called "What Evolution Is," by Ernst Mayr. That's the place to start, if you can pry your mind open, and your head from your backside.

If you want to see a creature that has evolved, look in the mirror. You are not looking for evidence. You're looking for confirmation.

Instead of looking for confirmation, check out the book. Read it carefully. Try to understand what evolution actually is. Then you can examine the evidence.

#8789 08/31/06 06:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
let me help you...
here are some available on Google ...

an evolved creature
evolved creature
images of evolved creatures
any type of an evolved creature

please find one and "PUT UP" its picture...

I could not find something that isnt there...

I can understand now what evolution is , it is a word used to describe something that has no evidence to back it up.

therefore evolution is not scientific.
because science is the gathering of data.
science is using that data to determine a fact.

evolution is theory , conjecture , presumption , many words have been written but no "PROOF" has been found...


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8790 08/31/06 06:22 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
All creatures alive today have evolved from anscestral creatures. Understand the theory first.

What you demand is not what science demands. What you demand is nonsensical and not related to evolutionary theory.

Learn what evolution is. You express intense antipathy for science and for evolutionists, but nothing you say betrays a remote understanding of the subject or people you berate.

#8791 08/31/06 06:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I dont have any understanding?

so what you want me to do is read about a theory?
and from what I read about the theory I will understand the theory of evolution?

WHY?

theres nothing on this earth that even sudgest that evolution ever happened...except what someone has written.

I could write that I am on jupiter right now and typing on my keyboard these words to you.

now are you to believe that simply because you read it?

belief usualy comes from examples or from seeing something , suppose I read about evolution , what evidence would be introduced to me while I read that would cause me to believe in it?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8792 08/31/06 06:46 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"I dont have any understanding?"

You don't have any understanding on the subject of evolution - or of logic or science in general for that matter.

I don't care whether you believe in evolution. I'm suggesting that you could at least try to understand the theory before you make stupid statements about it.

The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they "know" about it amounts to barbership gossip - that and the fact they have a comic-book understanding of science.

#8793 08/31/06 06:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
All creatures alive today have evolved from anscestral creatures.
show me.

show me two sets of bones that are evidence of evolution.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8794 08/31/06 06:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
Tyranasaurus Rex ?
did he evolve?


NOPE
Quote:
actually he did.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/09/MNGH6H58GM1.DTL

evolution has to have some time to causes changes. an abrupt change in the envirement can wipe out many species that cant adapt. that is what happen with the T Rex.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8795 08/31/06 06:59 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
look what I shotcaught yesterday with my rifelpole


heres the weapon I took it down with its a 50 cal barret and when the bullet struck the thing it blew up into a thousand pieces..

the drawing is a reconstruction made by several evolutionist in the area trying to deliver some type of proof of their theory.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8796 08/31/06 07:02 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
You don't have any understanding on the subject of evolution - or of logic or science in general for that matter.
then enlighten me ... PLEASE.
or do you choose to just harp about things.
never delivering any sort of evidence.

Quote:
The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they "know" about it amounts to barbership gossip - that and the fact they have a comic-book understanding of science.
The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they do "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip.

Quote:
that and the fact they have a comic-book understanding of science.
well if science has a negative balance of proof of evolution in reguards to the positive balance of proof of creation , then if peoples comic book attitudes about science continues to be mainstream then it is sciences inability to produce that causes this , its not the reasoning of the people.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8797 08/31/06 07:16 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"then enlighten me ... PLEASE.
or do you choose to just harp about things.
never delivering any sort of evidence."

You want the 2 second version. Actual science, as opposed to the comic-book version you ascribe to, takes effort to understand. I told you what to read. Don't be an intellectual coward. Go read the book. It's short. It's to the point.

'The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they do "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip.'

Notice my use of the quotes, clearly indicating that what they "know" about it is actually false.

There is no proof of creation. There is no scientific evidence of creation. There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. Pull your head out and read an actual science book.

#8798 08/31/06 07:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Notice my use of the quotes, clearly indicating that what they "know" about it is actually false.
then show them some truth.

Quote:

There is no proof of creation. There is no scientific evidence of creation. There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. Pull your head out and read an actual science book.
where is the plenty of scientific evidence you speak of for evolution?

maybe you should pull your head out of the sand
just because your head is in the darkness does not mean that you are safe.
you just wont be able to see the lion when he comes for supper.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8799 08/31/06 07:33 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Paul,

It is clear to anyone with an interest in biology that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you KNOW you don't know anything about?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#8800 08/31/06 07:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It is clear to anyone with an interest in biology that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you KNOW you don't know anything about?
I do understand it.
it states primarily that creatures change over time.

I only ask for a simple picture of a changed creature.

If that is asking too much from the entire scientific community then that tells me that there is none.

I suppose you KNOW something about this.

so why dont you show me one.
surely you have seen at least 1 picture of a evolution changed creature.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8801 08/31/06 07:43 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Any creature you can name is a creature whose form was changed by evolution from ancestral forms.

Populations evolve, individuals do not.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#8802 08/31/06 08:03 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Any creature you can name is a creature whose form was changed by evolution from ancestral forms.

Populations evolve, individuals do not.
hey how many skelletons of ancient creatures are there in museums today as we speak.

so you should have absolutely no problem in finding a set of bones that show an evolutionary change.

CORRECT?

DONT TELL ME HOW STUPID I AM SHOW ME HOW SMART YOU ARE


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8803 08/31/06 08:10 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
Quote:
It is clear to anyone with an interest in biology that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Why do you insist on arguing about a subject that you KNOW you don't know anything about?
I do understand it.
it states primarily that creatures change over time.

I only ask for a simple picture of a changed creature.

If that is asking too much from the entire scientific community then that tells me that there is none.

I suppose you KNOW something about this.

so why dont you show me one.
surely you have seen at least 1 picture of a evolution changed creature.
sorry but this is proof that you dont understand anything about evolution. it takes thousands of generations to make a distinguisable change. in order to prove that change to the acceptance of some one like you. they would have to have every single skeleton from one to the next. that is not ever going to happen.

So if this is the only proof that you will accept, then take your selfproven delusions of winning and find someone else to argue with.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8804 08/31/06 09:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"I do understand it. it states primarily that creatures change over time."

No it doesn't. It says that populations change over time. MOREOVER, it gives mechanisms by which this change could occur.


"I only ask for a simple picture of a changed creature."
What you ask for is stupid. The question is ambiguous.


"If that is asking too much from the entire scientific community then that tells me that there is none."
You have been given information. You refuse to do your homework, because it is easier for you to remain an ignoramous than it is to do an honest day's homework on the subject.

"I suppose you KNOW something about this."
I have studied evolution for some time. My very first post on the internet, about 26 or 27 years ago now, was on the subject. I have read many books, articles, and debates. I have discussed my ideas with practicing biologists. I have some knowledge, although I am not an expert.

"so why dont you show me one."
I did one better. I told you how you could show one to yourself - look in the mirror.

"surely you have seen at least 1 picture of a evolution changed creature."
You don't have to see pictures. You can see the real thing. Look out your window - every plant and animal, all the people you see are products of evolution. Moreover, they are all related. As a friend of mine said to me once, they all share the fact that they had some common ancestor - far into the distant past.

I know that logic is mystery to you, as is evidence. That's why this is not sufficient for you. You are poorly educated. You have a comic-book understanding of science.

If you want to understand what you're talking about you have to do some real homework on the subject. Or you can continue to flaunt your abject ignorance.

#8805 08/31/06 09:55 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You want pretty pictures rather than a bunch of confusing words. If you don't know how to use logic or think critically, pictures won't help you, but here's a few.

Pictures of fossils showing horse evolution:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm

Interesting information on fossils including a sea cow and hominid skulls:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

There are also fossils showing the lineage from fish to land creatures, from reptiles to mammals, from reptiles to birds, from land mammals to cetaceans. You can find those yourself. Of course, you could have found these yourself, as well. But you are not sincere in your quest. You already know The Holy Truth. You don't need to think when you have your bible and your assiduous avoidance of logic to guide you.

You can view these carefully and read the text - carefully. But you really need to read Mayr's book, if you want to understand the subject. What you're doing is analogous to a spoilt 16 year old throwing a tantrum on the stupidity of higher math while steadfastly refusing to learn his times tables, or any of those silly old axioms.

#8806 08/31/06 10:07 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"the drawing is a reconstruction made by several evolutionist in the area trying to deliver some type of proof of their theory."

That is false.

#8807 08/31/06 10:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TheFallibleFiend :

thank you very much. I especially like the page
interesting skulls
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls

I think I will check the different ice ages to see if any changes might have been a result of environmental adaptations.

as present day men who live in the northern states have developed larger chest.

the men to whom these skulls belonged to in these pictures may also have been subject to environmental surroundings that may have resulted in changes to their bone structure.


the skull (j) is in particular interest to me.
and (i) is also interesting.

I will get back to you on this.

and once again thanks.

I will say this I thought it interesting that the skull (n) is not tilted as the rest of the skulls in the image.

I will tilt the skull in a composit picture and upload it somewhere so that I may discuss the angle at which the skull was possitioned.
if the skulls were all in the same angle then their dental positions would not appear so different.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8808 08/31/06 11:02 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You asked for pictures.

I'm guessing that the difference in tilt is apparent. The skulls seem to be positions in a way that the eyes are looking straight forward.

I don't think they're particularly good evidence myself, at least not without a lot of explanation.

This sort of evidence can best be evaluated by experts in things like hominid teeth and brain capacity that are not immediately obvious to a non-expert viewer.

#8809 09/01/06 12:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I noticed a remarkable similarity to the skull (j)
to modern day man skull (n)
this skull (j) dates back to 70,000 years.

I have found evidence that this man was doomed him and most of all life on earth.

the yellowstone caldera ( national park ) erupted or should I say expolded apx 70,000 years ago.

following such an event there would be little food,
little heat , lots and lots of darkness and cold extreme cold.

because the dust from such an event would cause something similar to a nuclear winter only this explosion was an apx 28 by 47 mile caldera.
the dust would have thrown the earth into an ice age...
the skull (k) reflects this. 60,000 years ago
the skull (l) reflects this. 45,000 years ago
the skull (m) reflects signs of a warmer climate.
as in the skull (i) before Yellowstone.
YELLOWSTONE CALDERA

TFF: this is interesting and I appreciate the links to the skulls.

I will keep looking.
for now it seems that there was environmental adaptation involved.

Thanks again
-----------------------
10 - 14,000 years ago -- exxon drilling evidence of ice ages and rapid warming
-----------------------
Quote:
It would have been a long, cold trip to the beach some 18,000 to 21,000 years ago. The sea was 120 meters below its present level, partially due to the artificially high shore. This shoreline would have been near the edge of the continental shelf, around 120 miles farther out than it is today. Since then, the sea has been returning to pre-ice-age levels, all due to the melting of this most recent sheet. "That's what happens when you melt all that ice," says the Rutgers geologist. "It wasn't a linear melting. Rick Fairbanks [of Lamont] has shown it occurred in two major meltwater pulses, which resulted in large and rapid changes in sea level on the order of 30-40 meters in a thousand years [around 10 and 14,000 years ago]. There's melting of ice sheets still going on today."
around 10 - 14,000 years ago there was a large methane release that warmed the earth this rapid warming is reflected in the changes from
skull (m) to skull (n).

the skull becomes larger.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8810 09/01/06 01:18 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
heres a little more data about sea surface temps.
the chart does not go back to the 70,000 yr range
but does reflect the rise in temp apx 15,000 yrs ago
CHART

I will try to find a better chart tomorrow.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8811 09/01/06 02:27 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
the yellowstone caldera ( national park ) erupted or should I say expolded apx 70,000 years ago.
actually yellowstone has not erupted in 630000 years. you have the wrong super volcano. that one is in the south pacific. the temperature dropped about 3 degrees world wide, with the worse of it in the south pacific areas. the temperature warmed up over the following 5 years, then began a gradual increase.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8812 09/01/06 12:25 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I Suppose you know more than these people do.


TRY READING THIS TIME IT MAY HELP. ONLY DONT READ OUT OF CONTEXT
Quote:
Latest Eruptions: 70,000 years ago
Yellowstone Caldera
Location: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho
Latitude: 44.43 N
Longitude: 110.67 W
Height: 2,805 Meters
Type: Calderas
Number of eruptions in past 200 years: 0
-->>>((((( Latest Eruptions: 70,000 years ago ))))<<<---
Present thermal activity: Numerous hydrothermal activity
Remarks: Numerous hydrothermal explosions, geysers, geothermal activity; currently restless, shown by seismicity and ground deformation
_____________________________________________

dehammer:
I am begining to think that if I read something that you write , IT HAS NO VALUE.
_____________________________________________
At the heart of Yellowstone's past, present, and future lies volcanism. Catastrophic eruptions occurred here about 2 million years ago, then 1.2 million years ago, and then 600,000 years a go. The latest eruption spewed out nearly 240 cubic miles of debris.

An area the size of 240 miles by 1 mile by 1 mile thick was ejected when it exploded.
ABOUT MOUNT SAINT HELLENS VOLCANIC EJECTA
Quote:
The May 18 eruption ejected about 0.3 cubic mile of uncompacted ash, not counting an unknown but probably much smaller amount that was deposited in the, atmosphere or too diffuse to form measurable, deposits. This volume of ash is less than those of several earlier eruptions of Mount St. Helens and considerably less than the ejecta volumes of some historic eruptions elsewhere. The 1815 eruption of Tambora (Sumbawa, Indonesia) ejected about 30 to 80 times more ash than did Mount St. Helens in 1980. The 1815 Tambora eruption ranks as the largest known explosive eruption in historic times. But even the Tambora eruption pales by comparison with the gigantic pyroclastic eruptions from volcanic systems-such as Long Valley Caldera (California), Valles Caldera (New Mexico), and Yellowstone Caldera (Wyoming)- which, within about the last million years, produced ejecta volumes as much as 100 times greater.
Think of 100 Mount St Hellens erupting at the same time and same place


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8813 09/01/06 12:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the one 70000 years ago was not an eruption it was a lava flow. there is a big difference between a lava flow and a super volcano eruption.

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Eruptions%20that%20occurred%20at%20Yellowstone.htm

the discription you gave was of a super valcano eruption. And the timing of it was the one on lake toba 75000 years ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba

a normal eruption would not have caused a nuclear type winter. a super volcano eruption would. The last time yellowstone had that kind of an eruption was 630000 years ago. Toba was larger and did cause a nuclear winter type situation. when it erupted, there were only 1000 human female survivors world wide. The eruption of yellowstone during that time period was not of that calaper.

i might have been misstating that, not counting the lava flow since you were very obviously not talking about lava flows.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#8814 09/01/06 02:49 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
thank you dehammer:
I did not state the type of eruption that had occured at Yellow Stone only that it had occured and had ejected 240 cubic miles of debri.

the Toba eruption actually fits the bill better.
because it ejected apx 670 cubic miles of debri.

once again thank you.
and I retract some of my critisim.
LOL...

Quote:
The Toba eruption (the Toba event [1]) occurred at what is now Lake Toba about 71,500 ? 4000 years ago. It had an estimated Volcanic Explosivity Index of 8, making it the most recent supervolcano eruption and probably the largest volcanic eruption within the last two million years. Bill Rose and Craig Chesner of Michigan Technological University deduced that the total amount of erupted material was about 2800 cubic km (670 cubic miles) ? around 2000 km? of ignimbrite that flowed over the ground and around 800 km? that fell as ash, with the wind blowing most of it to the west. By contrast, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens ejected around 1 cubic km of material, whilst the largest volcanic eruption in historic times, at Mount Tambora in 1815, emitted the equivalent of around 100 cubic kilometres of dense rock and created the "Year Without a Summer" as far away as North America.
here is a temperature fluctuation chart that shows evidence 70,000 yr ago of a sudden temperature drop.


the chart reflects the temperature drop at apx 70-75,000 years ago, which is about the time of the death of the person depicted in skull (j)

the chart also reflect the much colder temperature apx 60,000 years ago , which is about the time of the death of the person depicted in skull (k)

the skull (k) exibits a extreme change , it shows that the skull is lumpy and deformed , not smooth surfaced as in (i) and (m) and (n).
this lumpyness is most likely due the brain shrinking over time because of the colder temperatures it is exposed to.
the skull that houses the brain follows suit.

the skull (l) shows an extreme shrinkage and some smoothness as the skull has adatped to its colder environment.
this colder environment is reflected in the chart
at 45,000 years ago , and the earth is begining to warm again.

the skull (m) shows a smoothening of the surface and an enlargement of the brain cavity.
this is due to the warmer temperatures on the earth at apx 30,000 years ago.
this warmer time is reflected in the chart.

the skull (n) reflects a period of warming climate where the brain cavity increased in size
due to the warmer temperatures depicted on the chart.

skull (n) has not only recovered its appearance from 70,000 years ago but has grown a significantly larger brain cavity and its smoothness is greater than any previous skulls depicted.
this change is very evident on the temperature chart.

I presume that we are now in the warmest age ever recorded judgeing from this record of skulls in the range from skull (i) to skull (n).

I will look this up now to find out if I may be correct about this.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8815 09/01/06 03:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Greenland temperatures over the last 100,000 years

THE WEB PAGE



the chart depicts GREENLANDS temperatures.
and I was right we are in the warmest era in the last 100,000 years.

the same findings in my previous post is depicted in this chart.

It is in my opinion that the changes to mens skulls were due to the colder climate.
they may have even experienced an limited ability to perform some mental task due to the shrinking of the brain.
the brain would keep the most necessary parts active and it would shut down or incapicitate un-necessary mental functions other than those needed for survival.

in much the same way as a persons body functions are shut down while he is freezing or undergoing hypothermia.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8816 09/01/06 03:50 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I don't know what you are attempting to demonstrate with your analysis. Temperature variation is well-recognized as a factor in selection.

There are many factors besides texture or even exterior size that go into determining taxonomy.

Things like ratio of sizes of different bones is important:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/OH62.html

Things like brain size are important:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html

There are also genetic factors that need to be considered:
http://www.haverford.edu/KINSC/06Journal/nature04789.pdf#search=%22genetic%20evidence%20for%20complex%20speciation%20of%20humans%20and%20chimpanzees%22

Classification issues are compounded by the fact that the concept of species was developed prior to the concept of natural selection.

Linnaeus - the father of biological taxonomy, so to speak - was a creationist. Explanation:
Look at http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/331.html
and scroll down to my first post.
A shorter version at http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/2/95.html
scroll to my first post.

#8817 09/01/06 05:05 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
I think I will check the different ice ages to see if any changes might have been a result of environmental adaptations.
Uh, evolutionary changes ARE results of environmental adaptations, usually.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#8818 09/01/06 06:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I don't know what you are attempting to demonstrate with your analysis. Temperature variation is well-recognized as a factor in selection.
5 Million Years of Sediment Change


if you will notice the verry first skull (b) dates back to 2.6 million years ago.

now if you will compare the differences between the skulls (h) and (b).

according to the data from the above chart there
was a extremely slow but steady climate change from apx 3 million years ago to apx 1.7 million years ago.

aproximately the same dates as the two
skulls (b) and (h).

as referenced before in earlier post the changing of temperatures can cause the changing of bone structure as you have admited and as others have also admitted.

I have referenced this using the hominid skulls.
and using the various temperature charts.

I have shown the differences between skulls (j) and (n).
and have given a plausible reason for the changes.

and have shown how man has changed over the years due to climatic changes , if you would notice the differences by comparason to skulls (b) and (h) you will find that there is not much difference other than the jutting of the jaw in skull (b)

if you will look at the skull (L) you will see that the jaw has lowered and begining to jutt out as in (b) which has a more definite jutting.

it is my opinion that man has not yet found the first mans bones and that evolution is nothing but environment adaptations.

and that when man finds the first mans bones he will find something that looks very much like the skull (n).

and he will find that apes and chimps are the result of environmental adaptations in humans
not the result of evolution of man from nothing.

he will find that we are their ancestors.
not we theirs.

he will not find any older skulls or bones
of man prior to this point.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#8819 09/01/06 06:10 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"It is in my opinion that the changes to mens skulls were due to the colder climate."

You've taken for granted that they are all "men."

What you've described is a putative factor in evolution. You haven't refuted evolution.

#8820 09/02/06 03:36 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
You've taken for granted that they are all "men."
To be fair TFF, in its original old english sense the term 'man' or 'men' is generic and refers to both sexes of human (see... even that word has it in it). It's use is therefore a linguistic hangover rather than a misogynistic overtone.


Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
#8821 09/02/06 06:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"To be fair TFF, in its original old english sense the term 'man' or 'men' is generic and refers to both sexes of human (see... even that word has it in it). It's use is therefore a linguistic hangover rather than a misogynistic overtone."

You've mistaken my point. I was ambiguous. Let me restate it:

"You've (he's) taken for granted that they were all human beings."

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5