Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,416 Year: 20,452/19,786 Month: 849/2,023 Week: 357/392 Day: 47/41 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 128 (366317)
11-27-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL
11-27-2006 12:58 PM


members here do not stand with primary authority on any matters.

No, actually, some of us do. A fair number of us argue from a position of years of academic training and teaching in the biological sciences, or years of experience in employment in biological research and application, or sometimes both.

For my own part I'm a genetics student and a lab technician working for the USDA on beetles and spiders. (I help develop and implement research techniques; I'm kind of a tech guy.)

ultimately, i have to battle your information from a creationist academic because they are the ones who understand the implications and falsehoods of the evolutionist.

The problem you're going to have is that your sources don't understand evolution. Your best bet is to make an effort to understand it yourself, not relying on erroneous creationist distortions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL, posted 11-27-2006 12:58 PM nO_JeZeBeL has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 92 of 128 (366319)
11-27-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL
11-27-2006 12:58 PM


members here do not stand with primary authority on any matters. they all relay the stories they hear in the news...

Well personally I wouldn't agree with you on that. I am a practicing scientist and I both read the primary literature and perform primary research on a day to day basis. But I don't expect you to take any notice of that nor do you have any reason to believe me.

Be that as it may it is still possible to get information directly from the primary literature, more and more in these days of open access journals, so there is little call to resort to pre-digested forms taken from secondary or tertiary sources unless there is no other option and certainly no need to just plop them down wholesale as if they will stand in for a well reasoned and cogent argument of your own.

TTFN,

AW


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL, posted 11-27-2006 12:58 PM nO_JeZeBeL has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20244
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 93 of 128 (366599)
11-28-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL
11-27-2006 12:58 PM


Welcome to the fray nO_JeZeBeL

To add to what others have said:

ultimately, i have to battle your information from a creationist academic because they are the ones who understand the implications and falsehoods of the evolutionist.

What you are admitting is that you are unable to understand the implications and falsehoods of creationists and that you are unable to understand the refutations of those creationist falsehoods.

ie - when a creationist says the world is 6000 years old, you nod your head because this is what you want to hear, not because you can tell whether it is true or not.

and when another person points out the evidence for an old earth exists and that the so-called evidence for a young earth is based on false science and how it is false, you reject it because it is NOT what you want to hear, not because you can tell whether it is true or not.

Ultimately what you really have to battle is ignorance, denial and delusions that get in the way of understanding the real universe, its age, and how science operates.

we are only as blind as the fool who gave us the information in the first place.

No, we are only as blind as we willfully put unquestioned trust in the foolish information we have been given, rather than look to see if it is really correct or not, whether it stands up to scrutiny, and whether it can explain any existence of contradictory evidence.

Enjoy.


ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nO_JeZeBeL, posted 11-27-2006 12:58 PM nO_JeZeBeL has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 7:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 94 of 128 (378454)
01-20-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


ONE,two chromos, three homos..
In response to Martin (preview available @“MV.doc on The Trainer’s products)I have begun to unfold an idea about the origin of sex (as latent variables are combined biophysically by algebra across creationist mediated (Noah’s) limits on phenotypic variety geometrically).

Kitcher makes the view


Click to enlarge

quote:
“If human beings were a completely separate creation, why did the creative force find it apt to form our species in the chromosomal image of the great apes?”

quote:

Click to enlarge

On the enumeration I am attempting for MV lies the possibility the quantification of human chromosome 2 is completely beyond the difference of sex of any mammal(I do not want to say crassly that Philip simply misappropriates Gould's use of Lamarck being hired to work on "lower" creatures).

It was merely a quick thought for me while reading Kitcher, to recognize that reverse reading frames along DNA could be speculatively responsible for the apt difference he ascribes to the Creator or Designer.

I have no idea if this is true but perhaps someone invested with the argument may look it up further. Copy number variation WK brought up may proove instrumental in the discussion with Bernd in another thread. I don't know.

Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling

Edited by Brad McFall, : sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 95 of 128 (379603)
01-24-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
11-28-2006 7:22 PM


Evidence Of A Young Earth
There is no way to prove evolution without a shadow of a doubt. No theory in science is proven. Ideas are accepted when they seem to be supported by physical evidence. However, nobody can claim that evolution was the certain cause of life on Earth. The scientific method does not allow for someone to say that evolution is 100% the cause of life. Contrary to evolutionist, who are doing nothing more but making up guesses and conjectures, the creationists have a tradition going back a few thousand years. Is it not funny that the Evolution Hypothesis has only been around for about 150 years and that the creationist have been around for thousands. The evidence of creation is the oral tradition leading back to creation. Nobody ever told their children that their grandfather was a wild animal and he had to get along with him anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2006 7:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 01-24-2007 8:04 PM Open MInd has not yet responded
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 01-24-2007 8:07 PM Open MInd has responded
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2007 8:45 PM Open MInd has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 01-26-2007 11:02 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 96 of 128 (379606)
01-24-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Open MInd
01-24-2007 7:58 PM


How much doubt does one need?
Hi, Open MInd.

quote:
There is no way to prove evolution without a shadow of a doubt.

Sure. And there is no way to prove someone is guilty of a crime without a shadow of a doubt. Yet, we still convict people of crimes and send them to rehabilitation and/or punishment. Hell, in my country (the United States) we even execute people without proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Why get hung up on "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I doubt that you wait until you're "beyond a shadow of a doubt" before you make most important decisions in your life.

Edited by Chiroptera, : To change subtitle. (Just for you Asgara.)


But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 7:58 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1984
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 97 of 128 (379608)
01-24-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Open MInd
01-24-2007 7:58 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
However, nobody can claim that evolution was the certain cause of life on Earth.

Nobody does. Evolution does not deal with the cause of life.

Contrary to evolutionist, who are doing nothing more but making up guesses and conjectures

So all those scientists are liars and frauds huh?

the creationists have a tradition going back a few thousand years.

So? I'll assume yo're talking about christian creationism, which isn't really that old when you look at other religions. Hinduism is older than christianity, does that give it more validity, are you about to throw off the shackles of jesus and accept Vishnu into your life?

Nobody ever told their children that their grandfather was a wild animal and he had to get along with him anyway.

No grandfathers, but I have cousins who'd fit that description.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 7:58 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 8:49 PM DrJones* has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20244
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 98 of 128 (379617)
01-24-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Open MInd
01-24-2007 7:58 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
Welcome to the fray Open Mind.

I noticed that you titled your reply "evidence of a young earth" but did not say anything about that or give any such evidence.

Rather than drag this thread off-topic on this issue I suggest you reply to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), by first answering the evidence that refutes a young earth (it is easy to have evidence for a young earth on an old earth, but much harder to refute the evidence for an OLD earth).

There is no way to prove evolution without a shadow of a doubt.

Evolution can be observed happening every year with no other mechanism being involved. OF course this does not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it does give a LOT of doubt to any other mechanism on can conceive.

Is it not funny that the Evolution Hypothesis has only been around for about 150 years and that the creationist have been around for thousands.

And this somehow makes the creationist concept valid? Of course I prefer the NORSE one if we have to choose ... it's so much more pithy.

This is a logical fallacy, a version of the appeal to popularity, and it has nothing to do with validity and more to do with gullibility or ignorance eh?

Nobody ever told their children that their grandfather was a wild animal and he had to get along with him anyway.

Given that Homo sapiens is 160,000 to 200,000 years old, the racial memory in the oral tradition would be some 40,000 to 50,000 times longer than your biblical one ... and we do have oral traditions of trolls and ogres and the like -- where do you think those might come from?

Enjoy.


ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 7:58 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 99 of 128 (379619)
01-24-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by DrJones*
01-24-2007 8:07 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
First of all, if evolution does not deal with the cause of life, then what field of science does? Why is it that creationist argue with evolution if evolution does not at least conjecture the causes and the origins of life. Second of all, I just used the word conjecture again and I did not intend to use the word lie. Just because someone may make conjectures does not make him a liar. Finally, what makes you think that I am a Christian any more than a Hindu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 01-24-2007 8:07 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AdminNosy, posted 01-24-2007 9:17 PM Open MInd has not yet responded
 Message 101 by DrJones*, posted 01-24-2007 9:18 PM Open MInd has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 100 of 128 (379624)
01-24-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Open MInd
01-24-2007 8:49 PM


Stay on Topic Please
This topic is about the differences between Chimps and Humans. It is not about the origin of life. That is, in fact, a completely separate forum.

but to answer your question: It is obvious that origin of life questions are of chemistry. Since the word "evolution" as used most often and certainly used here means "biological evolution" it obviously can't be talking about the origin of life since biology only deals with living things.

Anyone may argue with ideas, speculations or theories about the origin of life. But it doesn't matter to the evolutionary model how life arose. It may be zapped from the dust by a god, seeded my space aliens or a inevitably result of chemistry. Once it is there then, and only then can any biological evolution take place and it takes place no matter how it arose in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 8:49 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1984
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 101 of 128 (379625)
01-24-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Open MInd
01-24-2007 8:49 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
First of all, if evolution does not deal with the cause of life, then what field of science does?

Abiogenisis
Why is it that creationist argue with evolution if evolution does not at least conjecture the causes and the origins of life

Cause they dont understand what evolution is about

Second of all, I just used the word conjecture again and I did not intend to use the word lie

you said (bold mine):
Contrary to evolutionist, who are doing nothing more but making up guesses and conjectures

Using the phrase "making up" is ignoring the evidence and research that goes into the formulation of theory, you're implying that scientists who study evolution are liars.

what makes you think that I am a Christian any more than a Hindu.

Just from my experience here, when someone puts forth the arguements that you did, they're just repeating christian anti-science propaganda.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 8:49 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Open MInd, posted 01-25-2007 9:49 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 102 of 128 (379955)
01-25-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by DrJones*
01-24-2007 9:18 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
First of all, hypothesis statements are "Made Up", not discovered.
Secondly, why do you think that scientist are any more credible than the people who start religions. The people who start religions claim that they were actually spoken to by superior beings. Why would they lie? Maybe the scientist would lie for the exact same reason. On a side note, the name of this web site is
Creation versus Evolution. Why? obviously you believe that the people who named this web site did not even know what evolution is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by DrJones*, posted 01-24-2007 9:18 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by iceage, posted 01-25-2007 10:33 PM Open MInd has responded
 Message 104 by DrJones*, posted 01-26-2007 4:01 AM Open MInd has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 103 of 128 (379962)
01-25-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Open MInd
01-25-2007 9:49 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
open mind writes:

why do you think that scientist are any more credible than the people who start religions.

Maybe because science has been remarkably successful in explaining the world - religion wallows in its own ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Open MInd, posted 01-25-2007 9:49 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:34 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1984
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 104 of 128 (380012)
01-26-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Open MInd
01-25-2007 9:49 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
First of all, hypothesis statements are "Made Up", not discovered

Hypotheses are based on initial observations and evidence and are tested against new observations and evidence to see if they are valid, they are not "made up".

why do you think that scientist are any more credible than the people who start religions

as iceage said; because science works.

The people who start religions claim that they were actually spoken to by superior beings.

So what? If I told you that The King of Kings Lord of Lords Odin the Allfather spoke to me woudl you automatically accept that?

Why would they lie?

First you start the religion, then you get the money, then you get the women.

Maybe the scientist would lie for the exact same reason.

Sure scientists have been caught in lies, but guess who found them out? Other scientists! Science is a self correcting process, unlike religion which sticks to the same stories written by primitive people who had limited knowlege about how the world works.

obviously you believe that the people who named this web site did not even know what evolution is.

No, judging by Percy's posts he's quite familiar with what evolution entails. Its those on the creation side who frame the debate as evolution vs. creationism.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Open MInd, posted 01-25-2007 9:49 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:41 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 105 of 128 (380085)
01-26-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by iceage
01-25-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
On the contrary, the TOE (Theory of Everything) has yet to be discovered. There are contradictions in the fundamentals of physics that even Steven Hawkings can not answer. I dont think scientist are able to explain the world. Contrary wise, religions deal with the reason for the world while scientist are completely baffled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by iceage, posted 01-25-2007 10:33 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019