I never disputed that college professors are democrats. I disputed your idea that democrats are all atheists. Would you care to post your source for that 'fact'? I would be very interested in seeing the survey/study that supports it.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Never did I equate universites to a college education. If you read the link you would have seen that I was referring to the faculty.
"A recent survey issued by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute reveals that the overwhelming majority of college professors are registered Democrats"
"More that 90 percent of professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at leading colleges and universities belong to either Democrat, Green or Working Class parties"
But I guess facts don't mean much to one who already has his mind made.
I never said the universe was a closed system, and in fact most scientific evidence points to it not being a closed system. If you read what I posted about zero-point energy (I believe I posted about zero-point energy, I cant remember at this point) earlier in this thread, you would see that there is a great deal of energy in the universe that doesnt seem to have any source. If you do not understand how the Earth is not a closed system at this point, I think I'm wasting my time. I would draw you a picture, but im not sure it would help any.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
How is the universe a closed system and earth is not? Please enlighten me.
I'll ask God about that one... after I die of course, He doesn't seem to talk to living people.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
MT 10:32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
You make the call.
'The Earth is flat' was based on simple observation, not science. If you consider the former to be science, then my theory of "outer space is blue" would also be scientific, because when I look at the sky I see blue (of course this is not true). Thats a rather poor analogy by my own admission, but I think you get the point.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The earth as the center of the universe was scientific was it not?
NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER USE THE FOSSIL RECORD TO SAY THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE!wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
It would be nice if you actually read the links I posted and understood what I said.Skruples wrote:
If you'd like a source for my numbers, here you go:wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Hmmm... did you know that 73.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Nice statistics but they do not relate to what I said.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris … sp?PID=408
Or heres one from fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html
Or the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/w … 518375.stm
Or religioustolerance.org, though these numbers may be inflated.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm
As you can see, belief in God runs pretty high. So I would ask you, are a college education and a belief in God mutually exclusive?
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html
Never did I equate universites to a college education. If you read the link you would have seen that I was referring to the faculty.
"A recent survey issued by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute reveals that the overwhelming majority of college professors are registered Democrats"
"More that 90 percent of professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at leading colleges and universities belong to either Democrat, Green or Working Class parties"
But I guess facts don't mean much to one who already has his mind made.MT 10:32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.Skruples wrote:
Bleeding hearts eh? I think I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Yet I persist.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Read it again, "universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God." Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God.
What are you defining as 'liberal'? My mother is both liberal and Christian. Much of my family is religious, and my Uncle is a Protestant pastor. Are they all conservative by virtue of believing in God? Or is it perhaps not as black and white as you'd like to believe?
You make the call.You pointed out theory and nothing concrete.Skruples wrote:
I'd say anything from the book of Genesis is almost certainly not true, and can be proven as such. That or God has a wicked sense of humor. The logical flaws with a global flood that I pointed out earlier are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to scientific incongruities in the Bible. Furthermore, if you believe in the Bible as a literal account of what happened a couple thousand years ago, I think you're in serious need of a reality check.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Again, that point of view is relative. Now, point out the "glaring logical and scientific flaws."
As someone else mentioned, the Bible is more about meaning and faith than it is about cold hard facts.
And why not? Do you really understand history? Do you understand that what is written down is how we view how they lived thousands of years ago? Or are all historical records trumped by science too? Take the Bayeux Tapestry for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry History? or did someone like to sew? What made the Vikings leave their homeland? Can we really take what they've written down as accurate or do we second guess because they shouldn't have had the technology to sail to north america? Yet, today there is evidence that they indeed were in north america.How is the universe a closed system and earth is not? Please enlighten me.Skruples wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. Thermodynamics does not apply to evolution because its not a closed system.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Like, the fact that the law of thermodynamics is all about a closed system. Hmmmm... I think science has proven that the universe is not a closed system.Such as? The solar system is a relatively closed system, but has a very high level of energy (mostly stored in the sun). Life on Earth gets all of its energy from the sun (look up trophic food structures if you're confused on this point). So where exactly does this closed system come into play?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Try a closed system.The earth as the center of the universe was scientific was it not?Skruples wrote:
'The world is flat' was based on experience, not science. I don't think you'd argue that todays scientists are wrong about the world being round, as they have mountains of evidence to support it.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I was thinking the same thing about science. "The world is flat." And speaking of closed minds...Your mind is indeed closed because you won't even consider the facts that disprove darwin's evolution when the holes are clearly evident.Skruples wrote:
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian GodIf you're trying to imply that my mind is closed, I would disagree with you. I am an agnostic, I have never said that God did not exist, (and if I did, somewhere, then I made an error). I said that God most likely does not exist, based simply on the utter lack of evidence supporting His existence. However, there is also absolutely no evidence to disprove His existence, so I'm in the middle.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
most liberals don't believe in God.
I do, however, believe that the Bible is not factual. That is based on all the best scientific evidence and research of the modern age, and if you refuse to consider that evidence then you, sir, are the one that is close minded.
Again, how did the matter get there that became the universe.
Where is the fossil record of humans evolving from apes.
Apes from other land animals.
Birds from land animals.
Land animals from fish.
Fish from single cell organisms.
Where's science when questions need answering?
I said Christian God. In the department where I work, I'm the lone Christian where none of my colleagues are republican or believe in the Christian God.Skruples wrote:
I never disputed that college professors are democrats. I disputed your idea that democrats are all atheists. Would you care to post your source for that 'fact'? I would be very interested in seeing the survey/study that supports it.
Furthermore, if you understood what I was getting at in my response, you would see that your notion of all liberals being atheists is ridiculous and, quite frankly, arrogant in the extreme. Who are you to denounce someone elses faith because of their political affiliation?
"predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy" ... "most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real"Skruples wrote:
I never said the universe was a closed system, and in fact most scientific evidence points to it not being a closed system. If you read what I posted about zero-point energy (I believe I posted about zero-point energy, I cant remember at this point) earlier in this thread, you would see that there is a great deal of energy in the universe that doesnt seem to have any source. If you do not understand how the Earth is not a closed system at this point, I think I'm wasting my time. I would draw you a picture, but im not sure it would help any.
If I did not in fact say anything about ZPE, you can read all about it here: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceSkruples wrote:
'The Earth is flat' was based on simple observation, not science. If you consider the former to be science, then my theory of "outer space is blue" would also be scientific, because when I look at the sky I see blue (of course this is not true). Thats a rather poor analogy by my own admission, but I think you get the point.
Actually, no. Due to lack of organized scientific testing methods it was a simple observation based on the fact that the sun appeared to move, not the earth. The theory originated with Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy. These obersations became part of Christian theology in the middle ages.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The earth as the center of the universe was scientific was it not?
By the Middle Ages, such ideas took on a new power as the philosophy of Aristotle (newly rediscovered in Europe) was wedded to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason undertaken by philsopher-theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. The Prime Mover of Aristotle's universe became the God of Christian theology, the outermost sphere of the Prime Mover became identified with the Christian Heaven, and the position of the Earth at the center of it all was understood in terms of the concern that the Christian God had for the affairs of mankind.
Thus, the ideas largely originating with pagan Greek philosophers were baptized into the Catholic church and eventually assumed the power of religious dogma: to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church.
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue"Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Actually, no. Due to lack of organized scientific testing methods it was a simple observation based on the fact that the sun appeared to move, not the earth. The theory originated with Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy. These obersations became part of Christian theology in the middle ages.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The earth as the center of the universe was scientific was it not?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect … totle.htmlBy the Middle Ages, such ideas took on a new power as the philosophy of Aristotle (newly rediscovered in Europe) was wedded to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason undertaken by philsopher-theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. The Prime Mover of Aristotle's universe became the God of Christian theology, the outermost sphere of the Prime Mover became identified with the Christian Heaven, and the position of the Earth at the center of it all was understood in terms of the concern that the Christian God had for the affairs of mankind.
Thus, the ideas largely originating with pagan Greek philosophers were baptized into the Catholic church and eventually assumed the power of religious dogma: to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church.
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-03-29 07:33:33)
Stop reading things into what isn't there. Science challenged the idea, it did not come up with the idea. Also, at that time most of the Christian religion fell under the Catholic church.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue"Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Actually, no. Due to lack of organized scientific testing methods it was a simple observation based on the fact that the sun appeared to move, not the earth. The theory originated with Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy. These obersations became part of Christian theology in the middle ages.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
The earth as the center of the universe was scientific was it not?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect … totle.htmlBy the Middle Ages, such ideas took on a new power as the philosophy of Aristotle (newly rediscovered in Europe) was wedded to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason undertaken by philsopher-theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. The Prime Mover of Aristotle's universe became the God of Christian theology, the outermost sphere of the Prime Mover became identified with the Christian Heaven, and the position of the Earth at the center of it all was understood in terms of the concern that the Christian God had for the affairs of mankind.
Thus, the ideas largely originating with pagan Greek philosophers were baptized into the Catholic church and eventually assumed the power of religious dogma: to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church.
Your own article states it was scientific.
And the catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. It speaks for themselves.
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue" is in the second paragraph you pasted. The sentence reads: "to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church". (emphasis mine) As well means in conjunction. And to say that this was only a catholic belief would be ignorant of the fact that it originated from the Greeks as stated in the article. The catholics merely said "it was true and you should believe it."Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Stop reading things into what isn't there. Science challenged the idea, it did not come up with the idea. Also, at that time most of the Christian religion fell under the Catholic church.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue"Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Actually, no. Due to lack of organized scientific testing methods it was a simple observation based on the fact that the sun appeared to move, not the earth. The theory originated with Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy. These obersations became part of Christian theology in the middle ages.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect … totle.html
Your own article states it was scientific.
And the catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. It speaks for themselves.
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-03-29 08:26:04)
Simple observation is not science.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue" is in the second paragraph you pasted. The sentence reads: "to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church". (emphasis mine) As well means in conjunction. And to say that this was only a catholic belief would be ignorant of the fact that it originated from the Greeks as stated in the article. The catholics merely said "it was true and you should believe it."Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Stop reading things into what isn't there. Science challenged the idea, it did not come up with the idea. Also, at that time most of the Christian religion fell under the Catholic church.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue"
Your own article states it was scientific.
And the catholic church doesn't speak for Christianity. It speaks for themselves.
It was scientific based on observation and later disproven by more observation.
>"Also, at that time most of the Christian religion fell under the Catholic church."
Not the ones that the inquisition killed. Those who wouldn't submit to the authority of the pope were labeled heretics and murdered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Simple observation is not science.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
"to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue" is in the second paragraph you pasted. The sentence reads: "to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church". (emphasis mine) As well means in conjunction. And to say that this was only a catholic belief would be ignorant of the fact that it originated from the Greeks as stated in the article. The catholics merely said "it was true and you should believe it."
It was scientific based on observation and later disproven by more observation.
>"Also, at that time most of the Christian religion fell under the Catholic church."
Not the ones that the inquisition killed. Those who wouldn't submit to the authority of the pope were labeled heretics and murdered.
Facts that disprove evolution? Which exactly are you refering to? I havent seen any. (links to pseudo-scientific www.GodIsCool.com sites dont count)wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Your mind is indeed closed because you won't even consider the facts that disprove darwin's evolution when the holes are clearly evident.
[...]
Where is the fossil record of humans evolving from apes.
Apes from other land animals.
Birds from land animals.
Land animals from fish.
Fish from single cell organisms.
Where's science when questions need answering?
Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-03-29 14:00:57)
I highlighted the gerund in your dictionary post. The scientific process is not defined when only one of those measures are carried out, but when all of them are. Simple observation is not science at all unless the full scientific process follows it.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
sci·ence (s?'?ns)
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
The real question should be......"Who HASN'T doubted their faith?" I know I've doubted mine before. That's part of the spiritual growth process. We can never be like Jesus or any other prophet; we can only strive to come as close as possible. For me, science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, there are no tools to measure the existence of God. Evolution is the most acceptable explanation for the rise of humans and Genesis can still mesh with evolution if the book isn't taken LITERALLY, which some faiths don't. The Big Bang Theory is also the most acceptable explanation for the existence of the universe as well. I will not put on blinders and say it didn't happen this way, BUT I do believe that God did start the process that created the Big Bang and the evolution to get us where we are now.afewje wrote:
Havent u ever doubted your faith? with science proving more and more things like the big bang theory and finding more and more evidence its hard not to quesiton your faith. What if God or whoever you believe in isnt real what if u die u die thats it, its over no nothing for the rest of eternity. So iunno i would like to know what you guys think. It would be a shame for all the people in the world to have a crummy life then noting forever. makes you think...
Last edited by Yeticus Rex (2006-03-29 14:25:15)
i agree i think science and the BIBLE go hand and handsfg-Ice__ wrote:
The way I see it...science is just discovering the building blocks of how god did it all.
I see. So in the department you work in, you're the only god fearing republican, therefore everywhere in the country must be the same. Your reasoning is flawless.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I said Christian God. In the department where I work, I'm the lone Christian where none of my colleagues are republican or believe in the Christian God.
Go to your local University and venture to the Biology, English, or Math department and ask away.
If you are implying that I have 'faith' in zero-point energy, you are mistaken. I was merely using it as an example to show that the universe is not as cut and dried as you like to believe, and is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them. (And even if I did have faith in it, it would still based on material evidence, however weak it may be)wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So you believe in this by faith.
faith (fāth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
If you admit you live by faith as I have admitted then I'll stop.
Do not equate the bible with God. The Bible was a book written by men to inspire faith, and to explain things that seemed to have no other explanation. Science would have never gotten anywhere if all the scientists went around saying "Hang on, I cant explain this. Let me consult my Bible... ah yes. God did it."masterderman wrote:
i agree i think science and the BIBLE go hand and hand
We should not equate god with anything. God has no equal. The bible is imperfect. All parts of it are biased in one way or another (depending on the writer).RAIMIUS wrote:
If we should not equate the Bible with God, then what?
Scientists who are Christians do not say "Oh, it must be because of God."...or, at least, not call themselves scientists if they do. (allowing for the religious nut here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceMarconius wrote:
I highlighted the gerund in your dictionary post. The scientific process is not defined when only one of those measures are carried out, but when all of them are. Simple observation is not science at all unless the full scientific process follows it.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
sci·ence (s?'?ns)
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Do you not understand how statistics are gathered? They ask samples of the population and then run the numbers. I gave you one sample. You will find it is the same across the board. And I challenged you to ask another sample to prove me wrong. But again, truth is not what you're after.Skruples wrote:
I see. So in the department you work in, you're the only god fearing republican, therefore everywhere in the country must be the same. Your reasoning is flawless.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I said Christian God. In the department where I work, I'm the lone Christian where none of my colleagues are republican or believe in the Christian God.
Go to your local University and venture to the Biology, English, or Math department and ask away.
As for asking my local professors, why should I? Their faith or lack thereof has no bearing on me, or you for that matter.
Now your doing circular reasoning again.Skruples wrote:
If you are implying that I have 'faith' in zero-point energy, you are mistaken. I was merely using it as an example to show that the universe is not as cut and dried as you like to believe, and is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them. (And even if I did have faith in it, it would still based on material evidence, however weak it may be)wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So you believe in this by faith.
faith (fāth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
If you admit you live by faith as I have admitted then I'll stop.
Furthermore, you mentioned earlier in this thread that I have faith in gravity. I'm pretty sure my belief in gravity is based on logical proof and materical evidence, as is my belief in everything else in my life.
My reasoning is flawless? Try, 'I don't believe in God so I make up an embryonic drawing to disprove that God exists by showing all species are similar at birth'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawingsSkruples wrote:
Do not equate the bible with God. The Bible was a book written by men to inspire faith, and to explain things that seemed to have no other explanation. Science would have never gotten anywhere if all the scientists went around saying "Hang on, I cant explain this. Let me consult my Bible... ah yes. God did it."masterderman wrote:
i agree i think science and the BIBLE go hand and hand
Religion has no place in science, but that does not mean they can't coexist.
I guess that makes for an easy debate since the opposing side to your points are picked up by those sites.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Facts that disprove evolution? Which exactly are you refering to? I havent seen any. (links to pseudo-scientific www.GodIsCool.com sites dont count)wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Your mind is indeed closed because you won't even consider the facts that disprove darwin's evolution when the holes are clearly evident.
[...]
Where is the fossil record of humans evolving from apes.
Apes from other land animals.
Birds from land animals.
Land animals from fish.
Fish from single cell organisms.
Where's science when questions need answering?
"could slowly become human" Wouldn't it then be easier to find the in between fossils?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
fossil record of humans evolving from apes: Well humans didnt evolve from "apes". But we got the same ancestors. ------> fossils of hominids show clearly how an ape-like creature could slowly become human.
I researched this and it was inconclusive in their determination.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Birds from land animals: Well archaeopterix got some reptile characteristics and some of birds. He may not be the direct link but you can see how it could have happened.
http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/fishf … /coela.htmArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Land animals from fish: fossils of Latimeria, fish that already got a land animal-like skeleton structure with 5 fingers and that swims pretty much like a land animal walks. It existed millions of years ago and similar fishes were just recently found in the sea. It became a little bigger since then though (evolution....). There are also some species of fish that have primitive "legs" and lungs so they can survive on land for some time.
Fish from single cells: pretty hard to find single cell organisms that existed millions of years ago so I guess they will never be found. The fact that we cant find all the fossils is mainly due to the fact that it is extremely rare that a land animal becomes a fossil. Additionally it is extremely rare that we will actually find this fossil.
Maybe the same reason mammoths no longer exist? And it looks incredibly like an elephant. If an elephant skeleton was uncovered today do you think it would be dated or assumed it is modern?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Other signs that make evolution a logical explanation:
- fossils.....why do we find a lot of strange fossils of animals that no longer exist but look very similar to modern animals e.g. Hyracotherium--->Merychippus--->Equus......horse.... It became bigger and lost some toes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MammalsArMaG3dD0n wrote:
- homologies: morphologic similarities between closely related species e.g. skeleton of all mammals got 5 fingers-- same ancestors
Care to read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
- As an embryo humans, fish and birds look almost exactly the same. All got gills (even if they re not working). Why would a human embryo have gills which are not working? No its not because it could breathe in the amniotic liquor. Not enough O² in there I guess.....if there s any at all. Did god think: ah well I feel like giving them gills just.....dunno....because I m bored. It s really a strong sign that we and the fish have in fact the same ancestors.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … awings.jpg
Ever heard of mutations?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
- rudiments: Rudiments are organs that are not functional anymore but are still there. Human rudiments: nictitating membrane, Ear muscles (to rotate your ears), canine tooth, spanned muscles on the belly etc. (there are more). Another example of a rudiment: Wales got rests of a pelvis and rests of legs. Why? Because they were land animals and went back to the sea.
- atavisms: Another strong point: Some people got a mutation that reactivated old genes that had been deactivated. These genes could be located in the introns which are parts of the genetic code and normally arent translated. For example they got hair everywhere like fur. Or some got unfunctional gills. Some women got a milk line (more than 2 nipples in lines) like animals...... Why do they get it? Its a relict which makes you see our own evolution.
Reproduce the rest in a lab since marconius said "The scientific process is not defined when only one of those measures are carried out, but when all of them are."ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
- So how could complex structures like the eye have developed through evolution, you might ask. At first there were simple structures like a cell that had a substance that broke down when light hit it. These organisms could detect light in a primitive way. The earthworm still got cells like that. So these cells gave those organisms an advantage and they spread. Slowly the light detecting cells were surrounded and sort of went into a primitive eyeball so movements could be detected. The different steps in this process can be seen in modern animals too (e.g. Planaria). So very slowly a complex eye could evolve through gradualism (slow changes).
Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-03-31 00:29:59)
I would say that I have a better understanding of statistics than you do, based on your gross generalizations. If YOU had any idea, you would see that by virtue of you working in a university (which I assume you do, based on one of your previous posts), you are disproving your notion that all universities are full of liberal atheists. Why? Because there is at least one christian republican working in a university, and that's you. Thus, not everyone who works in a university is liberal or atheist. You see the logic there? Furthermore, if you understood the gathering of statistics, you would know that taking a sample of one University department will not get you results representative of the entire nations university system. And finally, you did not give me a sample of anything but your opinion, and I would definitely not consider that reliable statistical evidence of what you were trying to prove.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Do you not understand how statistics are gathered? They ask samples of the population and then run the numbers. I gave you one sample. You will find it is the same across the board. And I challenged you to ask another sample to prove me wrong. But again, truth is not what you're after.
I said the laws of thermodynamics, as we understand them clearly do not apply to the universe as we understand it. Bear with me here, I'll make it simple. There is alot of stuff in the universe. At some point, there was no stuff, so it would appear that all this stuff came from nowhere. This violates the laws of thermodynamics. Now unless we get into some pretty crazy physics, which involve the fourth dimension and 'time' as a form of energy, this cannot be explained. Now, do you see why applying the laws of thermodynamics to everything does not work?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Now your doing circular reasoning again.
ZPE = not proven
the universe = not proven to be a closed system
But yet, thermodynamics can't be used because the universe isn't "subject to the laws of thermodynamics" because the universe is not a closed system.
For the last time, none of us are trying to disprove the existence of God. It is you that has somehow linked evolution with God, when they are not mutually exclusive ideas. You will find that there are millions of Americans that can accomodate both God and the theory of evolution into their beliefs.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
My reasoning is flawless? Try, 'I don't believe in God so I make up an embryonic drawing to disprove that God exists by showing all species are similar at birth'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings
"It has been suggested that Haeckel deliberately "fudged" his drawings in order to de-emphasize the differences, thus providing better evidence for his arguments."
So your argument can go both ways, skruples. But then again, truth is not what you're after.
What was your point?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
No we are not evolving to have more than 2 nipples. Didnt you understand my point or are you refusing to understand it on purpose?
Show me the pictures. Google disagrees with your statement - http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&a … amp;tab=wiArMaG3dD0n wrote:
If you look at latimerias skeleton and not just some crappy pictures you can indeed see 5 fingers.
In the text I got here it says the modern form is a little bigger than the old form.
Your words - "It became a little bigger since then though (evolution....). "ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
But I didnt say that evolution is "all about becoming bigger" so your super dragonfly is pretty pointless.
You would like to think that they wouldn't but as Ernst Haeckel has proven, some just want to be right to prove their theory.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
The fact that we dont find skeletons of modern horses, humans or whatever as fossils is not just because if they are found everyone thinks they are modern. That looks like a very cheap excuse. Do you really think archeologists are that stupid to throw all the bones they find in old layers of earth away which are found next to ancient fossils only because they look like modern animals or humans? Hell no! If they find bones in old layers they will surely analyze them.
You cannot say that with 100% certainty. You can only conclude that this most likely happened.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Thus it is pretty much a fact that there was an evolutionary process. If there wasnt we for example wouldnt find fossils of ancient horses showing several steps of its evolution.
The inbetween that would show the skeleton of a 4 legged land animal evolving into a 2 legged upright walking human.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
"Wouldn't it then be easier to find the in between fossils?"
Which in between fossils are you talking about. Enough in between fossils have been found which show how hominids evolved to modern humans. It would be extremely unrealistic to expect that every single fossil on this path has a) been fossilized AND b) been found yet.
You stated everything as fact. I proved that it is not fact as their are differing views on everything you presented. Even among the non-Christian scientists. Yet you look at my points and dismiss it immediately? Why? Are you scared of uncertainity? You should be.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Your last sentence made me laugh......I didnt see you disproving anything. All I saw was weak attempts to close the eyes unwilling to see the truth or what is most likely to be the truth.
Not just exaggerated but fabricated. A huge difference.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
The picture of the drawins I posted may be exaggerated but it s still not just all made up by him.
It's easy to say that with no evidence. However, I did research it yesterday and today and found that the "bone in whales that he calls the ‘pelvic bone,’ which is some 30 centimetres (12 inches) long, ‘but unlike the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column.’ This bone serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs. " So again, it is unclear what this bone is used for. Ever heard of a human have an extra rib? Finger? A frog with 2 heads? A snake with 2 heads? A cow with 2 heads? All documented.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
How would you explain the whale having a pelvis and rests of legs?
On paper and in theory. Now find the evidence. Should be an easy task since it "perfectly fits together."ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
You also cant explain why all the methods I stated lead to the same family tree. Everything perfectly fits together.
No, I showed with more than enough evidence that your claims to evolution were not claims at all but instead, someone's assumption as to 'how it came about'. Nothing you showed is accepted as fact. Face it, you have to have faith for both sides. I have faith in God and Christ. You have faith that what people are telling you is true. But one poster is right... we will all be certain one day.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Your argumentation is typical for creationists. I came up with loads of things that indicate that evolution is a logical explanation. You did not have own arguments that indicate that there was NO evolutionary process. All you did was trying to make my arguments less plausible (needless to say that it failed). As you are strongly biased you do not look at both sides and lean towards the side that has more evidences. If you would do that evolution would clearly win the "fight".
Because evolution as stated by its theory tries to disprove God in how we got here. If we evolved from single cell organisms then how are we created in His image?ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Now go on and ignore the evidences.
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you!
No....seriously....you could just accept that there was an evolution and still believe in god. Why cant you say: Wow now I understand how god made it!! He started the big bang and knew that one day humans would evolve on earth! This is not what I believe but it would at least be more realistic than completely denying evolution.
I'm just gonna state the obvious WE where not made in his image.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
[Because evolution as stated by its theory tries to disprove God in how we got here. If we evolved from single cell organisms then how are we created in His image?
I'll take credit for that.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
But one poster is right... we will all be certain one day.