Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 305 (84315)
02-07-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by NosyNed
11-14-2003 7:24 PM


Hi Ned,
Just wondering about your statement:
We will debate almost any fool topic that comes up. If you don't like being in a knock-down, no holds bared, nothing spared debate then you dropped in to visit the wrong place.
Does "no holds barred" include being a little "snarky" sometimes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by NosyNed, posted 11-14-2003 7:24 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2004 5:32 PM Skeptick has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 287 of 305 (84327)
02-07-2004 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Skeptick
02-07-2004 4:36 PM


Snarky?
[qs]Does "no holds barred" include being a little "snarky" sometimes?
/qs
It shouldn't, of course. And I wasn't thinking about that in any detail. Of course, there need to be some "rules" and some decent behavior.
I was more just using the phrase to mean that there will be responses (too many, according to Adminomooses) in great number to almost anything. That is, people are not shy and don't hold back.
It seems to me that over all most of us on both sides do a pretty good job of not being 'snarky' all that often. And I think this is even true in spite of obvious cases of significant provication. Examples are 'secularists' using the word "myth" more than is really necessary and 'believers' suggesting that lies are being put forward or, as bad, thinking that they know more about these subjects than those who study them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Skeptick, posted 02-07-2004 4:36 PM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Skeptick, posted 02-09-2004 2:14 AM NosyNed has not replied

Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 305 (84627)
02-09-2004 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by NosyNed
02-07-2004 5:32 PM


Re: Snarky?
Blast it Ned, you've got the kids going around the house using the word "snarky"! Your Mum seems to have inadvertantly left an unintentional legacy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2004 5:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 289 of 305 (113062)
06-06-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 2:10 PM


Wirth pleads guilty to unconnected fraud
Actually an organization here tried to replicate another experiment that Wirth was involved with. However, he was very difficult to contact to get details to execute the replication. When he finally responded it was to threaten to sue if someone tried to.
News flash from Bob Park's What's New:
quote:
Three years ago, Columbia U. researchers reported in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine that in-vitro fertilization is twice as likely to result in pregnancy if the women are prayed for by a group of total strangers, even though the women are unaware of being prayed for. Recognizing that such a finding would threaten the very foundations of science, WN called on WN readers to "pray this study is wrong" (WN 05 Oct 01). This week we learned that our prayers seem to have been answered. No one, of course, ever replicated the study. But meanwhile, one of the coauthors has been exposed as a con-man. Daniel Wirth, J.D. (not MD), is known in alternative-medicine circles for his studies of Non-contact Therapeutic Touch on wound healing. Touch therapy, you may recall, was thoroughly debunked in a Journal of the American Medical Association paper by a 9-year old scientist, Emily Rosa (WN 03 Apr 98). On 18 May ‘04, Wirth reportedly pled guilty to fraud charges in Federal Court for his role in bilking troubled Adelphia Communications out of $2M. The senior author on the prayer paper, Rogerio Lobo, Chairman of the Columbia Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, now says he provided only "editorial asistance." Bruce Flamm, Clinical Professor of Obstetrics at UC Irvine, who relates this incredible tale of academic chicanery in Skeptik magazine, says the third author, Kwang Cha, has left Columbia and isn’t talking.
See also Exposed: conman's role in prayer-power IVF 'miracle' (which is a terribly deceiving headline) and Prayer Study Flawed and Fraud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 2:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 305 (118028)
06-23-2004 6:26 PM


Prove What ??
That is a cool offer: Prove .... to me, and I'll give you $$$.
Well, I think I'll offer $5,000 to anyone who can prove to me that the sky is blue. I can see, but I may refuse to look at the sky. I know my colors, but I may decide to re-define their meanings.
If you want something to be proven to you, the first step YOU need to take, is to open the mind up a tad.
Can you make horses drink? Sometimes horses will drink, when you take them to water, or when you take the water to them. But, if a horse is not thirsty, it will NOT drink.
However, you might put some water in an old Coke bottle, stick the bottle down the side of his teeth (inside the mouth wall), and you can MAKE him drink. You will need several people to hold his head.
We humans have a slight advantage over the domesticated animal -- if we do not want to accept data, we simply turn our minds away, or completely off. The only thing someone can do in an effort to FORCE a change of mind, is torture. Torture is not good.
Besides, it does nothing, except to show that Person A can not tolerate Person B's right to hold a personal opinion or conviction, and that this Power Freak A is happy to use FORCE as a Tyrant.
Do you really want to hear evidence against Evolution, or are you just poking the ant mound?

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Cthulhu, posted 06-23-2004 6:48 PM Reina has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5853 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 291 of 305 (118040)
06-23-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Reina
06-23-2004 6:26 PM


Re: Prove What ??
This is a satire of the "challenge" issued by a one Kent Hovind. The whole point of this thread was to show how ludicrous his challenge was.
This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 06-23-2004 05:51 PM

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website
Idiot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Reina, posted 06-23-2004 6:26 PM Reina has not replied

Deimos Saturn
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 305 (128337)
07-28-2004 9:24 AM


I win
I can prove evolution is fake.
time isn't "real", it is an illusion of the mind. Since time isn't real, even if there was a physical universe that existed, nothing would ever happen in it, no atoms would ever bond, life would never reproduce, therefore, the process of evolution would never take place.
Now gimme my fifty bucks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Prince Lucianus, posted 07-28-2004 9:35 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied
 Message 294 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2004 3:22 PM Deimos Saturn has not replied
 Message 295 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 4:09 PM Deimos Saturn has not replied

Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 305 (128339)
07-28-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Deimos Saturn
07-28-2004 9:24 AM


Re: I win
Could it be that it is an illusion in your mind to think that it's an illusion in your mind.
Once you start to describe things as illusionary, then it's hard to say what is true and what is fiction.
Lucy

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Deimos Saturn, posted 07-28-2004 9:24 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 294 of 305 (128416)
07-28-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Deimos Saturn
07-28-2004 9:24 AM


time isn't "real", it is an illusion of the mind.
If that's true how come clocks always seem to agree with each other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Deimos Saturn, posted 07-28-2004 9:24 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 305 (128424)
07-28-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Deimos Saturn
07-28-2004 9:24 AM


Re: I win
quote:
time isn't "real", it is an illusion of the mind.
The title of the thread includes the word "prove", so you must first prove that time is not real. You have to prove that your theory is not an illusion of YOUR mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Deimos Saturn, posted 07-28-2004 9:24 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied

Lucifer
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 305 (153204)
10-26-2004 11:28 PM


Time is just a word. We made up that word to describe the state of "time", but really, it doesn't exist as a physical object. It's just an idea. You can measure physical distance, mass, volume, surface area, etc. Because there is an object associated with it, but with time, it has to be relative to something, such as velocity and acceleration. There should be an object that accelerates or has a speed. If time were an illusion, then you could have increased or decreased its flow (I'm careful about using the word speed because it uses time) or turned it back. That only happens in dreams. Time could be described as how long it takes for something to happen. If you suggest that time is only an illusion of the mind, then are you suggesting this whole world is happening in an illusion of the mind?

DeviantArt: 404

RastaRedLocks
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 305 (156497)
11-06-2004 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sharon357
08-20-2003 10:04 AM


Friendly $50 challenge
First...I just want to clarify that I am a student at a Christian University that whole-heartedly believes in evolution...but I found your challenge interesting. I dont have a way to dis-prove evolution...or I would be famous enough for you to have already heard of me since you are interested in the topic to beigin with, however, I believe I have an interesting scenario in which it does truly apply. For example, one of the features of evolution is that populations evolve as the individuals in that population are selected for or against by natural selection based on each individuals fitness...this is agreed upon by most. If you go deeper than that, say a look into the aspects of kin selection and social behavior, you will find that the general consensus of scientists feel that there are 4 types of social interactions, cooperative (actor benefits/redipient benefits), selfish (actor benefits/recipient is harmed), spiteful (both actor and recipient harmed), and Altruistic (actor harmed at the benefit of the recipient). Spite obviously has not evolved since an allele that lowers the fitness of an individual would quickly be selected against and evolve out of a population, but altruism, explaine in part by kin selection seems to be pretty abundant in nature...including human nature. Which brings me to my point to challenge your question. My point is that I feel that altruism does not actually exist at all. If you look at humans, you may give an example of a parent pushing their child out of the way of a moving car as altruism...the parent dies or is harmed and the child lives...altruism. Or is it? Since the main purpose of all living organisms, including humans is to survive and reproduce can be viewed as increasing ones fitness in order to pass their genetic lineage on to future generations. So in the case of the parent and the car...it isnt altruistic...the parents main purpose of passing on their genetic lineage (fitness) is improved by ensuring the harm is on themselves rather than their offspring, since it better ensures their offsprings ability to pass on the genetic lineage. So what about non-relatives? Take the example of a small town, there is a man with a flat on the side of the road, and someone stops to help, thus expending energy to aid and benefit a non-relative, this expendature of energy is a decrease in fitness at the benefit of another...altruism. Or is it? You might look at it this way, in a small town, if you stop to help out a stranger and it benefits them at a cost to yourself, you may be stopping in hopes that you will be helped when you get a flat, or you may want the people in the small town to see what a good person you are, increasing your appeal to possible mates, which will increase your fitness and chance to reproduce to pass on your genetic lineage. This is possibly why you wouldnt be surprised to see strangers helping each other out in small towns...but youo rarely see this happen in large towns...becasue in a large town the odds you will later benefit by recieveing help in return for your "altruisitic" act of kindness decrease as the population in wuestion increase. So, my point is after all of this explanaintion is that I feel there is no such thing as "altruism", I have pondered this many times and come to the same conclusion...in no circumstances, from the most miniscule and simple to the largest and most complex organisms, is there one example in which one organism performs an action in which some way a benefit, even if not immedeatly obvious, is not gained. Though this does not disprove evolution and render myself deserving of the fifty dollars, I think that it does offer a different perspective to view a facet of evolution that is taught in graduate level textbooks...that may in fact...be wrong. I am not challenging whether or not evolution exists, I am just trying to see things from all angles. But if you really want to disprove evolution...it would be simple to do so. All you need to do is discover an organism that performs an action that is harmful, and in no way whatsoever beneficial to that individulas fitness while benefiting another, you essentially prove that there is an organism that defies the laws of evolution. Anybody know of one?
Good question, made me think! Feel free to reply with any thoughts.

~peace~love~equality~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sharon357, posted 08-20-2003 10:04 AM Sharon357 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-06-2004 2:11 AM RastaRedLocks has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 298 of 305 (156563)
11-06-2004 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by RastaRedLocks
11-06-2004 12:15 AM


semantics?
Hey Rasta,
Welcome to the forum - a stylistic note: breaking your comments in to paragraphs makes them much easier to read and understand.
You wrote:
in no circumstances... is there one example in which one organism performs an action in which some way a benefit, even if not immedeatly obvious, is not gained. I think that it does offer a different perspective to view a facet of evolution that is taught in graduate level textbooks...that may in fact...be wrong.
I don't think that your perspective is really different from how scientists think about these concepts - it may just be a matter of semantics. Evolutionary scientist have long discussed the evolutionary basis of altruism along the lines you describe.
When a behavioral ecologist sees a baboon preferentially protect siblings/nieces/nephews, or fight along side of non-relative troop members, they may refer to it as "altrustic", simply as a means to characterize the immediate situation. However, this doesn't mean that the ecologist is ignorant of the fact that the baboon is also receiving indirect benefit from the situation.
In other words, the term "altruism" doesn't always mean "100% selfless".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by RastaRedLocks, posted 11-06-2004 12:15 AM RastaRedLocks has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Quetzal, posted 11-06-2004 8:45 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 299 of 305 (156604)
11-06-2004 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by pink sasquatch
11-06-2004 2:11 AM


Re: semantics?
I don't think it's semantics. Rasta wrote;
I have pondered this many times and come to the same conclusion...in no circumstances, from the most miniscule and simple to the largest and most complex organisms, is there one example in which one organism performs an action in which some way a benefit, even if not immedeatly obvious, is not gained.
S/he is absolutely correct. In fact, IIRC, this was one of Darwin's own potential falsifications of evolution: if any organism could be found which acts in complete unselfishness/altruism to benefit its unrelated conspecifics OR benefits another species, then his natural selection mechanism would be falsified. Over the last 150 years, no one has found one. I think Rasta's post was simply hard to fathom because of the stylistic issues you raised. However, it appears s/he understands quite well the basics: IF such an organism could be found it WOULD falsify the key mechanism of evolution AND win the $50.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-06-2004 2:11 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by RastaRedLocks, posted 11-06-2004 1:00 PM Quetzal has not replied

RastaRedLocks
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 305 (156657)
11-06-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Quetzal
11-06-2004 8:45 AM


Re: semantics?
I think I might have found an example of altruism. If I remember correctly for an organism to exhibited truly altruistic behavior, or a behavior that decreases the fitness of the actor and increases the fitness of the recipient, where fitness is defined as the extent to which an individual contributes genes to future generations, or an individual's score on a measure of performance expected to correlate with genetic contribution to future generations (such as lifetime reproductive success). These are the exact definitions from the textbook Evolutionary Analysis third edition by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron...so it is very up to date on the topic, and if I understand these correctly, it seems that one organism that exhibits altruism is...Humans. I would have to argue, according to the above definition of altruism that some humans are altruistic, the example...priests, nuns, monks, or any other religious leader who has taken a vow of celibacy. These individuals, in doing this reduce their lifetime reproductive success to zero since they are no longer contributing their genes to future generations. That is the part where the actors fitness is harmed by their actions, and the recipients who benefit from this are those who are religious, and seek the guidance and advice of these religious figures, The gain in fitness, or reproductive success, for the recipients comes from simply being a part of the religious organizations, churches, temples, etc, which gives these individuals the opportunity to congregate amongst other individuals, who share qualities in the area of spirituality that they find attractive in a mate, which increases their chance of finding a suitable mate. Let me note that I am not the church going type...so I might be wrong about the way religious structure works, but it doesn't seem likely that a religion would exist without places of worship, and leaders to guide prayerand you can’t have leaders without followerswhich is a mutually beneficial relationshipbut not in terms of fitness. I realize that there are spiritual benefits to becoming a priest or nun, but technically it seems that the fact that they reduce their fitness by voluntarily removing their reproductive success, which directly benefits their religious follower’s fitness by indirectly increasing their reproductive success, qualifies this as an example of true altruism. Which if this is altruism, it is interesting that the only example that I could find comes from religion...which as far as I last heard, was the most vocal non-supporter of evolutionary theory...seems kind of ironic. Just random thoughts, let me know what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Quetzal, posted 11-06-2004 8:45 AM Quetzal has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024