# Evolution



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

OK so it wold branch out from another topic if I had adressed evolution in it there so here is a thread to deal with evolution.  Just as long as it intrests people and has something to do with evolution this should work.
Everybody here knows at least about evolution generally right?  This is of course about biological evolution mainly.
So there is apparently scientific evidence for it so would anybody like to try and prove it.
Anybody here want to show it isn't real or show how the devil(or what ever you chose to use here) is trying to trick us.  Sorry about that if you belive it but I'm seriously doubtfull that the devil planted fossils to trick us into beliving in evoltion.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2004)

OK I'll start. Darwin never said man evolved from the ape.
Sean


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Creation Science Evangelist _Dr. Kent Hovind _Says this:
"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."

www.drdino.com

And no one has yet to come up with evidence. So what they are teaching in school is junk. If they say that you can't prove Christianity because there is no "physical" evidence, how can you prove evolution with no evidence? The most ludicrous Idea I ever heard was teaching a false creation in school.


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

Darwin I think refrained from using the word evolution and onl used it once in his paper.  Actually another intresting thing about when Darwin wrote his paper there was another paper writen about it published the day after Darwin's I think.  It might have been abit more but it was close.
Now as for proof this should be fun to prove it.  If only I could contact my archeology teacher right now I might be able to do abit better of a job.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2004)

Sigh. Well, this will be completely useless. 

Nevertheless and just for kicks, I refer you to Stephen Jay Gould's excellent work on this subject.

Fundamentally, here's the issue: religion is by definition an idealism; its account of what's real rests upon the notion that Ideals, themselves not material, are the ground of what's reality.

Science is a materialism: its proofs rest on material evidence, not faith and not books. 

By definition, then, the truths of religion are not provable--or disprovable--in scientific terms. 

Anyone who wishes to ignore the mountain of scientfic hard evidence for evolution is welcome to do so. It's silly, because it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, but they're welcome to do so. 

Less silly and less harmless are the claims that science should teach religious beliefs such as, "intelligent design theory." Less silly and less harmless, too, is the reiteration of claims such as, "there's no evidence,"  or, "the scientific theories change, so they're wrong," or, "evolution destroys faith and morality," that we now have to hear all the time. These are less silly and less harmless because they demand ignorance of what science is, blindness to the facts, and unreason. They are also dangerous because of the reiterated claim that Christians can't go along with the theory of evolution, which is just plain pernicious nonsense. 

The real things at stake are: a) fear of the modern world; b) anxiety about, "not being special," c) concern about tracing our ancestry back to Africa, which is where the human race (and there's only the one) came from, because then, well, we're all related. 

It's a shame that some folks fear reality so much. Even more, it's a shame to see the return of these silly arguments.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 19, 2004)

I don't mean to be offensive, but do you folks ever read the newspaper?  Do you read books?  Do you ever go to a museum?  Watch a documentary?  Read Scientific American?  Did you ever take a science course or two?  Do you ever do any scientific research on your own?  Do you know what "peer review" means?  How about "double blind"?  Do you know any history?  Geography?

Being ignorant makes you very easy prey for people with strong personal, political, or religious agendas.  All they have to do is yell loudly enough, and frequently enough.

"Lose weight safely with ephedra!"

"We KNOW there are weapons of mass destruction, and we KNOW where they are!"

"There is NO evidence for evolution!"

Take your pick.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 19, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> "There is NO evidence for evolution!"
> 
> Take your pick.



Actually... if you consider a lot of the "evidence" is either contradictory or been proven to be fraudulent... it's still reasonable to question the validity of it.  Yes, evolution DOES occur, but I have yet to see solid proof that any species has ever "evolved" into a new or different species. Even the "Neandrathal man" fossils we have found are now believed to be a "normal" human skeleton deformed by Rickets and Arthritis.   (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Piltdown man was proven to be a hoax... so was the "Nebraska man" who was the used as the basis of evidence for evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trials... (source: Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, [Master Books 1987], pp.155-156)


So I have ask, where is the SOLID scientific evidence that we used to be monkeys?  The scientific community is full of as much speculation as the religious community... I think some People just feel it easier to legitimize science "fiction" then religious "fiction".  The only FACT is that NEITHER SIDE has PROOF, just ideas and beliefs.


----------



## Cthulhu (May 19, 2004)

> So I have ask, where is the SOLID scientific evidence that we used to be monkeys?



The above phrase, and 'descended from an ancestor common to monkeys' does not mean the same thing.

Cthulhu


----------



## Cryozombie (May 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Anyone who wishes to ignore the mountain of scientfic hard evidence for evolution is welcome to do so. It's silly, because it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, but they're welcome to do so.



Of course "evolution" has been proven, that evolution being that a single species will continue to breed stronger, more positive traits, and weaker ones will die off... Girraffe's are a perfect example of that... but Can you share some hard evidence that we were once monkeys? 

I don't mean the theory showing the missing 5 or six steps in the evolutionary chain that scientfic hard evidence cannot prove yet, but has failed over and over again to prove, I mean the real scientfic hard evidence that shows me my ancestor was a monkey.

If you can show me that I will come out there and buy you a very expensive meal and share a drink with you.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 19, 2004)

Cthulhu said:
			
		

> The above phrase, and 'descended from an ancestor common to monkeys' does not mean the same thing.
> 
> Cthulhu



Well, hell, That's misleading... 

I could say I am "decended from an ancestor common to whales" and it would be true because we are both mammals, therefore "common"...


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Creation Science Evangelist _Dr. Kent Hovind _Says this:
> "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."
> 
> www.drdino.com
> ...



How would you like it if I told you there was "no evidence" that Jesus ever existed, so what they teach at your church is junk?

I hate it when people do that. You have evidence to support christianity, which you choose to believe. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, which you choose not to believe.

If you want to refute the evidence, that is one thing, but to say their is "no evidence" is an insult.

Evolution to me is a sound scientific theory; it's truth or untruth won't change my religious beliefs.
__________________


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

On too material evidence....

There is probably more material evidence to support evolution then my religious beliefs, but who am I but a heathen for saying so.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

I agree 100% with Robert's post on the thread, excluding this:



> Science is a materialism: its proofs rest on material evidence, not faith and not books.



Scientific process is not, by definition or nature, strictly material. Much of science (in various fields) rests heavily on what could be regarded as mental or logical "evidence" (physics, mathematics, psychology, anthropology, etc).

I would say it is empirical, however, which rests on following the scientific process through to its end (whether in material or non-material applications). As such, "blind faith" is definately out of the picture.

The entire basis of the scientific process rests on three points (or so sayeth Thomas Kuhn): 1) an injunction or practice, 2) a datum or illumination disclosed by said injunction, and 3) validation by others that have also performed said injunction. Very basic stuff, really.

All that really means is 1) if you do this, 2) you'll gain knowledge of this, and 3) others can also do this and test the knowledge you gained. Very, very, very basic stuff.

Regarding evolution --- its a theory. I suggest you go up to your high school biology teacher and ask what a _theory_ really is. Not what it means in the common, everyday vernacular --- but what the term means in _science_. There is as much scientific proof for evolution as there is for the cell. Only those with an agenda will claim otherwise.

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

hmmmm...nice come back, but here's my touche(you won't agree, obviously). The Bible. 2000yrs(the Bible) vs. 200(Darwin). Darwin's "truths" have been disproven more over the past 200 yrs than anything anyone could muster against the Bible other than people claiming that Jesus wasn't real, he was only a man, etc.(not that I believe any of that...I believe He was real) I think that's pretty good grounds. Of course you'll want more than that. But then, we'd be getting off topic. So, please stay on topic or Nightinggale will be getting her topic-bat, ok?

:asian:

P.S. The whole thing with Evolution vs. Christianity is irrelevant. It's Evolution vs. Creationism. Stay on that one. Another thing, has Creationism been disproven? No. Evolution? HECK YEAH! So that's why this creationist is putting up $250,000 for any proof of evolution. I don't see an evolutionist doing something that bold. And its not stupid. The evolutionist would be so embarrased.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2004)

See also:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11990


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> hmmmm...nice come back, but here's my touche(you won't agree, obviously). The Bible.



I already tore apart the notion that the Bible can be used as a "historical document" in the Judeo-Christian Wackiness thread. I don't care to repeat the same proofs again.

Suffice to say, you're the only person here that has publicly professed faith in the Bible as literal history, so you may want to come up with a more cogent basis if you wish to "disprove" a theory so well-grounded as evolution.



> 2000yrs(the Bible) vs. 200(Darwin).



The time a "truth" is held has nothing to do with its validity. For millenia, the world believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around our planet. Both are now thoroughly discredited.



> Darwin's "truths" have been disproven more over the past 200 yrs than anything anyone could muster against the Bible other than people claiming that Jesus wasn't real, he was only a man, etc.(not that I believe any of that...I believe He was real) I think that's pretty good grounds.



That claim is, in fact, a lie.

There have been far more arguments leveled against traditional Biblical literalism (going as far back as 400 years) than against either Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. And, unlike the anti-Darwin claims, many of the Biblical critiques actually have a basis in _science_.

In any event, although I know Darwin is such a hot topic to many "true believers", his theories and proofs aren't generally looked upon that highly among modern biologists and evolutionists. That'd be like saying Freud is the paragon of modern psychology --- when, the truth is, modern experts in both fields (biology and psychology) generally discredit a lot of their claims.

More comprehensive and empirical theories of evolution are generally relied upon by today's scientists, and an _exclusive_ "survival of the fittest" (a phrase Darwin never used) is usually not the standard approach.

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

And obviously, the wools been pulled over your eyes. The time and validity is proven. Let's see, if I remember right, A man by the name Colombus actually found out the world is round. He challenged it. Yet, it didn't take him 2000 or more years to disprove it. There has been more proof of the Bible found by unbelieving scholars of history. 

As to the darwin thing, Let me remind you that they have not come up with a valid proof of Evolution, only assumptions. NOT PROOF! Of course, they have come up with fraudulent stuff and the missing links, but then again that's fraudulent. The Coelecanth, that fish they said was a missing link? Shoot, they found it still swimming around today and it was in the same layers as or before the animal they said it had evolved from or to. And then there have been plenty of findings of animals in the wrong time layers(can't think what the word is, please someone correct me, it's late, not stratosphere...ok anyways). Man, heck even Dinosaurs are still living today. (you wany proof of dinosaurs? I'll give you it, but only if you ask nicely...)

:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> The whole thing with Evolution vs. Christianity is irrelevant. It's Evolution vs. Creationism. Stay on that one.



Actually, its science vs blind faith. That's what it all really boils down to.



> Another thing, has Creationism been disproven?



Depends what you mean.

Nobody has not, and cannot, emphatically "prove" that a Higher Power does not exist. Namely, because it is (usually) impossible to prove a negative. Simple logic.

If, however, you are referring to traditional explanations of history based on the Biblical genesis --- well, yeah, that pretty much has been disproven.



> Evolution? HECK YEAH!



Another bold-faced lie.

Evolution, again, is a _theory_. You obviously don't know what that word means in science, so let me explain. Among a theory's many definitions and connotations it means:

"A time-tested hypothesis that has yet to be countered."

This applies not only to the Theory of Evolution, but to the Cell Theory, as well. There has been, to date, no major counterevidence provided against either. Any high school biology teacher will tell you this stuff --- its very basic.

Simply claiming a theory as been "disproved" doesn't actually make it so.



> So that's why this creationist is putting up $250,000 for any proof of evolution. I don't see an evolutionist doing something that bold. And its not stupid.



Actually, its very, very stupid. 

Such behavior is EXTREMELY reminiscent of the "online challenges" provided by Ashida Kim at his website. And equally dubious. I bet you would find a history of the challenger "being sick" whenever an offer is accepted.

That online challenge is the mentality of a child, not a mature scientist. The scientist would attempt to discuss the issue among a review of peers, not offer schoolyard "challenges" on the internet for the ignorant. There is a reason you won't find that kind of behavior among any scientific or scholastic review.

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

As to the validity of the Bible being historically accurate(Nightingale, please don't hit me, I'm not going to totally go off subject), go to the  Judeo-Christian Wackiness ...I'll post it there


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> The time and validity is proven. Let's see, if I remember right, A man by the name Colombus actually found out the world is round. He challenged it. Yet, it didn't take him 2000 or more years to disprove it.



What are you talking about?? People believed the world was flat for _thousands_ of years prior to Colombus. Again, the amount of time a belief is held has no relationship to its viability.



> There has been more proof of the Bible found by unbelieving scholars of history.



Uhhh... right.   

How rewritings of Egyptian and Babylonian myths are regarded as "proof" is beyond me.



> As to the darwin thing, Let me remind you that they have not come up with a valid proof of Evolution, only assumptions. NOT PROOF!



Uh-huh. I guess they "made up" all those fossil records with their "Satanic" instruments, too.   



> Man, heck even Dinosaurs are still living today. (you wany proof of dinosaurs? I'll give you it, but only if you ask nicely...)



At this point, I don't think anyone can take any of your claims for "scientific proof" very seriously. But thanks for your time.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Ah, but I meant the issue with Evolution being disprove because they want it accepted as science so badly that everytime they find the "theory"(yes, I understand that, I've done plenty of study on theory) proof, it's turned out to be fraudulent. That's what I meant by that. Yes, theorys are only proven after time. then they might become facts possibly then laws. laws are hard to come by, though.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

What you don't believe that dinos are still alive today? Bah! want proof, then ask me.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

> Ah, but I meant the issue with Evolution being disprove because they want it accepted as science so badly that everytime they find the "theory"(yes, I understand that, I've done plenty of study on theory) proof, it's turned out to be fraudulent.



Ah, yes. The typical resort of the desperate creationist:

"There's an atheistic conspiracy among the scientific community that seeks to undermind us God-fearing Christians. They ony claim there is proof for evolution because they love Satan."

I guess claims like this ignore the fact that most scientists are themselves Christians, neh??   



> Yes, theorys are only proven after time. then they might become facts possibly then laws. laws are hard to come by, though.



No. A hypothesis becomes a theory only after it has been validated over long periods of time. Evolution is such a theory. Deal with it.



> What you don't believe that dinos are still alive today? Bah! want proof, then ask me.



Sure. I'm positive it'll come right along with "evidence" showing how the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, and all insanity is the result of demonic possession.

Geezus.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

Ouch! you must have never heard of any of these examples. 


In the 1970s there was a pterydactyl found in the top of a cathedral(don't remember which one). Then back in the 1800s there was another pterydactyl found in a cave; it was stuck. Unfortunately, when they tried to help get it out, the cave collapsed and it died. Fortunately, they were able to get it's body out; they had to take it out peace by peace. Or more recently, they found a plesiasaur, water-dwelling dino off the coast of Japan. Japanese Fishermen found it.(I think it was dead when they found it, because it got tangled in the nets or  something). Then even more current, back in 1993, some african tribe were out hunting and found an apatosaurus(brontosaurus) and killed it. They brought it back to each it. Everyone sat down to eat it after it was cooked. Many died because the meat was poisonous. And there have been so many more finds. I'll see if I can find the biblio on them and some news clippings. I have some of the books here and a few clippings, but I'll have to go dig them out. I'll post them when I find them.

:asian: 

P.S. Another thing, People have not been able to go through the deep swamps [of Africa] because of diseases, wild animals, thickness and such. The craters and mountains are too hard to climb. So, what makes you think that the whole earth has been scoured? Or what about the depths of the Ocean? There could possibly be the animals of the so called "Ice Age" still living today. I mean, what about the parts of Antartica and the deepest parts of Greenland? And other cold wildernesses? There is more to this earth than people believe.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

Once again, your word does not constitute proof.

Prove it. Cite primary sources.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

I might not be able to find the proof of my examples, but I can get you a website. Lemme look one up...bbl.


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ouch! you must have never heard of any of these examples.
> 
> 
> In the 1970s there was a pterydactyl found in the top of a cathedral(don't remember which one). Then back in the 1800s there was another pterydactyl found in a cave; it was stuck. Unfortunately, when they tried to help get it out, the cave collapsed and it died. Fortunately, they were able to get it's body out; they had to take it out peace by peace. Or more recently, they found a plesiasaur, water-dwelling dino off the coast of Japan. Japanese Fishermen found it.(I think it was dead when they found it, because it got tangled in the nets or  something). Then even more current, back in 1993, some african tribe were out hunting and found an apatosaurus(brontosaurus) and killed it. They brought it back to each it. Everyone sat down to eat it after it was cooked. Many died because the meat was poisonous. And there have been so many more finds. I'll see if I can find the biblio on them and some news clippings. I have some of the books here and a few clippings, but I'll have to go dig them out. I'll post them when I find them.
> ...


Highly improbablr.  A creature from that long ago would either have to live  insane life spans or have a breeding population.  Include the size of the creatures and you WOULD see them especially as they would have to migrate or starve to death.  
There was a gigantic type of shark discovered to be alive still around 1993 I think that you may be confusing this with.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> There was a gigantic type of shark discovered to be alive still around 1993 I think that you may be confusing this with.


That is highly irrelevant. I'm sorry, and where was this? Africa? I'm talking about Africa, I mean on the land. Not in the water....LOL. anyways, I'll come back when I have some backing up of the proof. Otherwise, it's just tales. Anyways, catch ya later.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 19, 2004)

I know this is far from proof, but it's an interesting thing to read. Maybe we will have some up to date findings...who knows...anyways, I'm back to searching for the websites...and my books.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/mokelembembe.asp


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

*laughs* 'Creation' magazine?? That's like looking to an article in a New Age magazine to "prove" astrology can actually fortell the future.   

You can bet your left thumb that an article like that would never reach the pages of a _reputable_ scientific peer review, as funded by any number of universities across the world. That magazine clearly has an agenda in mind (proving Creationism), and hardly reaches the criterion of any truly 'scientific' publication.

I suggest you listen to someguy's words regarding the survivability of modern dinosaurs. Its not even feasibly possible.


----------



## arnisador (May 20, 2004)

I assume we're being trolled by *ShaolinWolf*.

As *heretic888* indicates, the most severly clueless part of these arguments is the belief in a conspiracy of scientists (to what end?). The scientist who disproves evolution and puts a new theory in its place will get a Nobel prize and half a million dollars, just for starters. Any scientist would love to do to evolution what Einstein did to Newtonian mechanics--it's a scientist's dream to make the next big theory and be remembered for it. Scientists make progress by questioning and challenging others' work.

People who make these arguments are ignorant of scientific methodology.


----------



## someguy (May 20, 2004)

My comment was basically saying that there was some huge shark found around that time that was supposed to be long since extinct.  That is why I said that least what you said was a mixture of a mistake and some strange stories.  
I was trying to put it nicely and say thats wrong but I'll just say it this way its wrong.  Improbably not really impossible.  Ludicrous really.  
Forgive me for what I'm about to say.  I know it quite possibly will get me bad rep. points but that doesn't matter much to me really.  I respect that you stand firmly for your views but there is a point when views must be abandon.  Believe in creation over evolution fine.  Believe that dinosaurs are alive today well there is no reason for faith in that as that is tangible if true and surely we would see them as some one would go find them.  I hope your just trolling.

I'm going to leave the study for a while.  Things here may well be getting a bit insane.  I apologize again for saying that so harshly.  Feel free to criticize what I have sad harshly I don't mind.  
Peace. :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

Creationism

Assumption: That Human beings were created by a greater power.

No proof of this greater power exists, other than looking inside yourself and seeing if you have faith in one or more religions of belief systems.

Yet, let us look at the big picture. Does a person throw away all knowledge of how to do a block when they learn a new block? Do they recreate from nothing the next technique? Or do you base it upon other basics and concepts?

So, if you create a primate do you not use the same basic concept and basics for other primates? As a builder or creator or a scientist one would hope to think that there would be some re-use. Yet, I have no proof of this concept other than to draw references to the similarities.


Evolution:

Assumption: That humans evolved from some other primate.

There is a theory about the Aquatic Ape (* See Here and Here or search on it *).

The aquatic ape explains the fatty layer of humans and the salt tears and the reason for no missing link evidence. (* The bones ground up in the beach *).

So, we have here an explanation by an English House wife, that references the similiarities and explains why there is no proof.



No disrespect to either side of the arguement. There will be away to explain the evidience to support either side.

Just my silly little opinion.
 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 20, 2004)

Aquatic apes?

To my mind, the only real question is this: why do people who live in a vast, beautiful, wonderful universe find the way that universe works so frightening?

The sheer arrogance of believing that Everything Revolves Around Us never ceases to amaze me. Yikes.


----------



## qizmoduis (May 20, 2004)

Several points to make:

1. Kent Hovind is a fraud.  His "doctorate" was from a non-accredited christian degree mill.  His "challenge" requires evidence to be sifted through his own hand-picked panel of "experts".  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind for more information.  Using arguments from Hovind is beyond laughable.

2. The Aquatic Ape Hopothesis is cute, but has no real supporting evidence that would validate it as a working theory.  See http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html

3.  Be careful about the word "creationism".  They like to give out a wishy-washy definition that seems inclusive, but just ask one if the ancient Egyptian creation story is viable and observe the reaction.  Make no mistake, creationism means exactly this:  That the biblical account of creation is literally true.

4. "Intelligent Design" is a pseudo-scientific sounding euphimism for creationism, and is just as scientific (meaning, not at all).


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> As heretic888 indicates, the most severly clueless part of these arguments is the belief in a conspiracy of scientists (to what end?). The scientist who disproves evolution and puts a new theory in its place will get a Nobel prize and half a million dollars, just for starters. Any scientist would love to do to evolution what Einstein did to Newtonian mechanics--it's a scientist's dream to make the next big theory and be remembered for it. Scientists make progress by questioning and challenging others' work.
> 
> People who make these arguments are ignorant of scientific methodology.



My sentiments exactly.  :asian: 



> My comment was basically saying that there was some huge shark found around that time that was supposed to be long since extinct. That is why I said that least what you said was a mixture of a mistake and some strange stories.



Indeed. However, the existence of a member of a once-believed extinct species (assuming the above story is actually factual) does not somehow "disprove" evolution. It is a very interesting find, to say the very least, but there are any number of phenomena that could account for it.

The find is provocative, but not conclusive.



> Creationism
> 
> Assumption: That Human beings were created by a greater power.



This is not Creationism as I've been explained it. Most Creationists I'm aware of don't believe the universe was created by a generic or non-descript "greater power" --- they're claiming that their tribal god created everything, and that their associated tribal religious literature records this faithfully and accurately in a literal-historical sense. "Creationism" is really just a grandiose attempt to prove how their particular culture's religion is right, and all other interpretations (including the scientific one) are wrong.

Others that lean towards a more "universal" take on Creationism typically are very symphathetic with the Evolutionist position, and for good reason.



> No proof of this greater power exists, other than looking inside yourself and seeing if you have faith in one or more religions of belief systems.



Its not always a matter of "faith" per se, but that's another topic.  :uhyeah: 



> So, if you create a primate do you not use the same basic concept and basics for other primates? As a builder or creator or a scientist one would hope to think that there would be some re-use. Yet, I have no proof of this concept other than to draw references to the similarities.



Yes, and such a position seems to confuse causation and correlation, in my opinion. Which is not big surprise, as most "Creationists" are not usually well-versed in scientific subtleties to begin with.



> The aquatic ape explains the fatty layer of humans and the salt tears and the reason for no missing link evidence.



Uhhh... dunno about that aquatic ape theory (very interesting, if true), but the entire notion of the "missing link" is more mythical than anything else. It was a desperate argument devised by Creationists in a vain attempt to disprove the Theory of Evolution.

Ask most modern primatologists, and they will demonstrate incredulity at any "missing link". Far from an expert myself, I have surveyed the anatomical differences between Austrolopethicus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magnon Man, and Modern Man --- and I can see absolutely no basis for any kind of "missing link" at all. Just my opinion, of course.



> Several points to make:
> 
> 1. Kent Hovind is a fraud. His "doctorate" was from a non-accredited christian degree mill. His "challenge" requires evidence to be sifted through his own hand-picked panel of "experts". See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind for more information. Using arguments from Hovind is beyond laughable.
> 
> ...



Well said, qizmoduis.  :asian: 

Laterz.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *laughs* 'Creation' magazine?? That's like looking to an article in a New Age magazine to "prove" astrology can actually fortell the future.
> 
> You can bet your left thumb that an article like that would never reach the pages of a _reputable_ scientific peer review, as funded by any number of universities across the world. That magazine clearly has an agenda in mind (proving Creationism), and hardly reaches the criterion of any truly 'scientific' publication.
> 
> I suggest you listen to someguy's words regarding the survivability of modern dinosaurs. Its not even feasibly possible.


Wow, you can't read. I said something FAR FROM PROOF!!!!...Lol...and you say I have problems...


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

I can read quite well, thank you. 

And the point I was trying to make is that, not only does said article not reach the criterion of scientific "proof", it is also little more than agenda-driven propaganda. That magazine exists for the sole purpose of attempting to discredit Evolutionism --- its a political agenda given print.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 20, 2004)

That's why I said far from proof...I never said it was even close to scientific proof. Just thought it interesting. I went out looking at websites, and found it. 

Note: I didn't get any information from it, though.

:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Several points to make:
> 
> 1. Kent Hovind is a fraud.  His "doctorate" was from a non-accredited christian degree mill.  His "challenge" requires evidence to be sifted through his own hand-picked panel of "experts".  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind for more information.  Using arguments from Hovind is beyond laughable.
> 
> ...




qizmoduis.

I never said either arguement was valid.

I never said I truly believed in either arguement.

I believe, I did say that people will find what they are looking for. (* Only I did not put it into those words  *)

 :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> That's why I said far from proof...I never said it was even close to scientific proof. Just thought it interesting. I went out looking at websites, and found it.
> 
> Note: I didn't get any information from it, though.



Very well.  :asian: 



> I never said either arguement was valid.



My personal belief is that evolution as it is typically conceived is true, but partial. I think the idea is accurate as far as it goes, but feel there is more to evolutionary adaptations and so forth than "random genetic mutations" and "survivability impulses".

I lean more towards the likes of Hegel, Sri Aurobindo, and Tielhard de Chardin on this one.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Very well.  :asian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Heretic,

You say you lean towards, not stand 100% behind.  I agree, that I have not found one theory or piece of evidence that explains all the questions.

 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Aquatic apes?
> 
> To my mind, the only real question is this: why do people who live in a vast, beautiful, wonderful universe find the way that universe works so frightening?
> 
> The sheer arrogance of believing that Everything Revolves Around Us never ceases to amaze me. Yikes.



Yes Aquatic Apes Mr McRobertson. Check it out, it is an interestng read.

As to the universe I agree to me it is wonderful, and frightening. I only know this little planet and those on it frighten me from time to time. 

As to arrogance and revolving around us, humans. Has been around for a long time. The world is Flat. Then the world was round and the sun rotated around us. Then, there are people who still do not believe that travel to the moon was possible or happened. I have been jaded maybe, because it does not amaze me as much as it use too.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> You say you lean towards, not stand 100% behind.  I agree, that I have not found one theory or piece of evidence that explains all the questions.



True enough, but this does not mean all theories are necessarily equally valid.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> True enough, but this does not mean all theories are necessarily equally valid.


:rofl:

You can say that again 

 :asian:


----------



## qizmoduis (May 20, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> qizmoduis.
> 
> I never said either arguement was valid.
> 
> ...



Oh I know.  
In fact, regarding the aquatic ape thingy, you actually posted a link to a very well-written critical analysis rather than a hype page.

I was just giving my opinion on those things.  Hovind, especially, always makes me laugh.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 20, 2004)

"Prove that we used to be monkeys."  That's a ludicrous statement, and is not the point of the doctrine of evolution.  And I suspect that you know that.

There is a tremendous body of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supporting evolution.  If you ever studied comparative anatomy, the evidence would be patently obvious.
The physical evidence is even MORE compelling now, with advances in genetics and molecular biology.  If you were really interested, you could see just how close our DNA is to that of gorillas and chimpanzees, for instance.

You don't need to trash the principle of evolution in order to retain your belief in creation.  You're free to believe what you want.  But you can't argue faith with science, and vice versa.  I personally don't believe they are mutually exclusive, but some people might.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

Nicely said, Phoenix. My sentiments exactly.  :asian:


----------



## Cryozombie (May 20, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> You don't need to trash the principle of evolution in order to retain your belief in creation.  You're free to believe what you want.  But you can't argue faith with science, and vice versa.  I personally don't believe they are mutually exclusive, but some people might.



But... you assume so much... Did I ever say I believe in creationism, or that they are exclusive of one another?  Nope!

In fact, I stated that I do believe that evolution exists, except that no "Hard Scientific Evidence" exsists that shows one "speicies" becoming another species... and that I find it just as hard to believe we were once "monkeys", based on some conjecture...  Yes, there is scientific evidence to support A THEORY that we evolved from the primordial "nothing" after the big bang... but no hard evidence that it ACTUALLY happened, just mixed evidence to support the plausability of it.

There have been scientific studies that support A THEORY that man was created by a Divine Being... Discovery channel runs specials about the scientific evidence that supports some of what the bible claims too... (Of course the problem there is most of the scientists who do those studies are often religious themselves, and therefore scoffed at by Aithiests and Agnostics who disclaim their findings, oftentimes only because of their religious beliefs, not because of their lack of "scientific principle")

There have been scientific studies that SUGGEST the possibility of extra-terrestrial life forms, tand hat COULD support the THEORY that we were "seeded" here by another race...

The way I see things... The Creationists discount "Evolution" based on the lack of "complete" evidence in the fossil record and the continued discoveries of not only errors but outright "frauds" used to prove the theorys.

The Evolutionists discount creationism, believing that hard science has "enough" data to support all the missing information.  The discount any opposite or contradictory findings stating "its just those wacky religoinits trying to prove a point"

And the ET Seed Theory people?  Well... they just keep drinking coolaid while sitting on the roof of a barn in their underware and sticking rolls of quarters in their... yeah...  :idunno:


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 20, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But... you assume so much... Did I ever say I believe in creationism, or that they are exclusive of one another? Nope!


Actually, YOU assume so much.  What made you think I was talking about you?

The fossil record may be incomplete.  But there is other evidence:  DNA.  Comparative anatomy.  Embryology.  Biochemistry.

I'd suggest everyone read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World."  It's a well-written lesson in critical thinking.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 20, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Actually, YOU assume so much.  What made you think I was talking about you?.



Ummm... Hmmm... er... maybe because you, uh, you know...

QUOTED ME.

I said "Prove that we used to be monkeys."


----------



## Andi (May 21, 2004)

What do these "creationists" say about fossils then out of interest?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 21, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> What do these "creationists" say about fossils then out of interest?


The great flood.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2004)

"In fact, I stated that I do believe that evolution exists, except that no "Hard Scientific Evidence" exsists that shows one "speicies" becoming another species... and that I find it just as hard to believe we were once "monkeys", based on some conjecture... Yes, there is scientific evidence to support A THEORY that we evolved from the primordial "nothing" after the big bang... but no hard evidence that it ACTUALLY happened, just mixed evidence to support the plausability of it.

There have been scientific studies that support A THEORY that man was created by a Divine Being... Discovery channel runs specials about the scientific evidence that supports some of what the bible claims too... (Of course the problem there is most of the scientists who do those studies are often religious themselves, and therefore scoffed at by Aithiests and Agnostics who disclaim their findings, oftentimes only because of their religious beliefs, not because of their lack of "scientific principle")"

1. Absolutely untrue. I suggest looking at the work of Louis and Mary leakey, among others, as well as the very extensive fossil record of, "transitional," stages in the development of all sorts of new species. Which, by the way, appear in a far-more complex way than simple succession.

2. Absolutely not true. Among other things, I suggest you look at a) Hubble's Constant and the discussion of red shift; b) the COBE satellite findings of several years ago. 

3. These "scientific," programs ("Hello. I'm Charlton Heston, and tonight: science uncovers Noah's Ark.") are hardly science of the same rigor, any more than, "Alien Autopsy," was. I recommend reading Sagan, Gould, et al, on what science actually is. 

4. I continue to have a very hard time understanding why, a) people find the beautiful, diverse, immense material universe in which they live so scary and contemptible; b) some religious folks don't simply argue that their way of seeing reality--their idealism--is every bit as valid as scientific materialism, and simply face the facts that the two ways of knowing are different.

5. I continue to be amazed at the repeated statements and suggestions that it is impossible to believe the Bible and accept scientific evolution, given the history of science's development as a branch of humanist enquiry, itself tied directly to Christian thought. After all, it used to be said that the Author of all things left us two books to read--the Bible, and Nature, and if we were too stupid to see that these two books in fact agreed with each otherand were complementary, well, that wasn't because God got things wrong. It was because of our own blindness, our own limitations. By the way, this is pretty much the position of the Catholic Church at this time, so....you're kinda stuck with Christians who but both books.


----------



## Cruentus (May 21, 2004)

I would like to second Roberts #4 and #5.

 :ultracool


----------



## Cryozombie (May 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Absolutely untrue.
> 
> 2. Absolutely not true.



The problem with "broad" statements like that is the "Truth" is based on which scientist you choose to believe... 

Clarke Says austrlopithecnes are definatley related to humans.
Oxnard says they arent.

Supporters of Clarke say Oxnards study was incomplete. 
Supporters of Oxnard say that the studys by Clarke were wrong.

Who's "Truth" do you want to accept?  The same arguments can be applied to ANYTHING where experts disagree... Dr. Atkins provides a bunch of proof that his Diet is the best, and it is Argued by many MDs it is, and by many MDs it isnt... You have "expert witnesses" in court who do the same thing...  Its all a matter of who's "truth" you subscribe to.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. These "scientific," programs ("Hello. I'm Charlton Heston, and tonight: science uncovers Noah's Ark.") are hardly science of the same rigor, any more than, "Alien Autopsy," was. I recommend reading Sagan, Gould, et al, on what science actually is.



You misunderstood, or I misspoke, I didn't reference the programs as scientific evidence, I was trying to say that they spoke about the scientific research and/or researchers.  Keep in mind, before you blanketly discount them because they were "tv shows" that some media has to be used to "get the information out there"... and based on my original statement above of "who ya gonna believe" applies to this as well... YOU can say everything on TV is fake, and I can say everything in a book is fake... but that wouldnt make either of us right.


----------



## heretic888 (May 21, 2004)

Hrmmmm.... I would reply to some of Technopunk's misconceptions, but Robert already addressed everything I feel needs addressing. Well done.

I would add the caveatte that I believe the relationship between "religion" (subjective phenomena) and "science" (objective phenomena) is a bit more subtle and complex than has been portrayed, I personally believe the two are distinct but inseparable myself.

Just my opinion. Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Cryozombie (May 21, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hrmmmm.... I would reply to some of Technopunk's misconceptions, but Robert already addressed everything I feel needs addressing. Well done.
> Just my opinion. Laterz.  :asian:



I disagree, you can hardly call a belief that different groups of scientists have different opinions a misconception... If they were all in 100% agreement this coverstaion wouldnt be happening.

And bear in mind I am not speaking from a "Religious" standpoint... 

Even back when i was (gasp oh no) a hardcore Satanist (go ahead throw rocks or whatnot) I thought the idea of Evolution was a bit... hmmm... farfetched... Could have happened, but then why havn't we found all the "stages of man" (Unfortuantly, as best as i could tell from a few internet articles on the subject, there are still gaps that we are theorizing about, if someone has a COMPLETE chart, with findings from all the stages please post it.) 

But regardless of which side you are on it really does come down to the fact that "Expert A" says "Data A" proves my theory, and "Expert B" says "Data A" is wrong, because "Expert B" found "Data B" ... blah blah blah...

Carbon dating works.  Carbon dating doesnt work. There was a brontosaurus. There wasnt a brontosaurus. We landed on the moon.  We didnt land on the moon it was a conspiracy.  Whatever.  Side A vs Side B.   

Personally, until I see "solid proof" one way or the other I will remain skeptical.  I've checked out some of the findings of  Louis and Mary Leakey, and the findings of their son which seems ON THE SURFACE to contradict some of their findings... (there is a dating issue there, if you would like to see the article i bookmarked it at work) and members of Camp A defend it as "Rock Solid" and members of Camp B say "Full of Holes"  

All I can say for sure is as science advances we may yet find out, no? 

I'm not, by any means looking at this like ShaolinWolf (sorry buddy) and saying "God Made Man, noone can prove otherwise" I'm saying I personally would like to see more evidence before I take the "leap of faith" (haha) into science's "findings"  Maybe I just dont want to admit I was a monkey in a past life.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (May 21, 2004)

Not too much offense taken. I just have taken it to belief that God created man and that no one can prove otherwise to me. Call me hard headed and junk, I don't care. I've been brought up on it all my life and I've had a personal relationship with God for quite some time. I don't see how it can be otherwise because of all the Christian scientists(again no references, but really, there is no point to putting them up at this point). I've seen logic work and the thing that has worked me up with evolution is they say it's a theory and creationism is a theory, yet they teach evolution in schools and expect no one to balk it. Hmph! I see it as offensive as people think creationism is. I mean, that's just not right. Why are we being taught a theory like that in school when it has to be accepted or not by the individual? And the whole thing with church and state. That kind of collides with it. 

And Prayer is offensive. LOL. And evolution is not. ROFL!!!!!

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2004)

The problem, fundamentally, T'punk and SW, is that you simply do not know what science is. 

The revelatory statement is this: "I just have taken it to belief that God created man and that no one can prove otherwise to me."

First off, science is not a belief system. Its theories, and their supports, are based on material reality: we get a better picture of material reality, the theories necessarily change. (Yes, I've read Kuhn, Feyerabend and other discussions of the history of science. Have you?) As Gould and others have been pointing out for going on two centuries (!), the way science adapts to new facts is not a sign of weakness in method, but of strength.

Why? Because unlike the pure faith cited, scientific theories are indeed falsifiable. They can be tested by observation and experiment, as religious beliefs cannot. Otherwise, they would not be science.  The results can be duplicated, as religious experience cannot.

If you'll actually LOOK at the discussions of Gould and others, you'll find things that you will not find in the cheap TV shows and pseudo-scientific "Institute for Creation Science," nonsense--including a certain humility, a willingness to accept new data, and an interest in re-examining one's own premises.  But then, personally I find it incredibly arrogant to announce that God gave ME the Truth and nobody else, that everybody has to play by my MY rules or burn in hell--and that I don't have to look at the data in order to know it all. 

And again, science rests on a willingness to think about who we are and what the world is. If your mind's made up, if you're afraid of the data and the theories, that's going to be hard to do.

The real reasons people refuse to look at the data and the ideas seriously have very little to do with the integrity of scientific thought. They have to do with a stubborn insistence that Man is the center of the universe, that (sorry, folks, but it is in part a racial fantasy) we did not originate in Africa, that men are superior to women (oddly, the creationists often borrow evolutionary arguments when it suits their purposes), that their set of morals is better than anyone else's (note how often evolution gets linked to claims that them lesbians and leftists is a-takin' over our schools?), that capitalism is great (again, note the adoption of social Darwinist ideas). 

The posts are revealing: when you say, "I don't need to look," when you cite cheesy TV, well....you gots a problem arguing.  For example--I know the fundamentalist Christian arguments about this, the ICS claims, and a good deal about the Bible. But I also know the scientific method, some of the basic texts involved (like Darwin), and a lot of the modern discussion from folks like Gould. You don't, and you tell me you won't look. So...unless we start dragging the Almighty into it, who wins the discussion?

I also note that, as usual, there's a continued avoidance of certain issues. Like the fantasy that Christians cannot legitimately accept and/or teach evolution--good to know the Pope isn't a good Christian.

There are a lot of things in education that offend the hell out of students and parents. And ya know what? Good. Education isn't about learning lists of aimless, well-edited facts. It isn't about being patted on the head and reassured. It's about learning what is true, insofar as we know what is true. And it's about learning to think. And, it's about growing up. 

To me, those are among the REAL offenses of evolutionary theory.


----------



## someguy (May 22, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> What do these "creationists" say about fossils then out of interest?


Early on fossils were the devils work to some.Sharks teeth were fangs of the devil.  Even earlier some early greek philosophers said that the rocks had grown bones.  I can't remeber which one said that.  If only I had my notes wwith me from Historical Geology.  
As to what rmcrobertson said.  Really you should go read Stephen Jay Gould.  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/  have fun.
Faith cannot deafeat facts or facts faith unless a person opens there mind to both.  There is a time for both.  
"by the doctrine of the cross, after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God." (1 Corinthians 1:21.)  Yes I'm using the bible to prove my point but think about it.  How can conventional wisdom know about that which goes beyond this world.  At the same time if God wanted us to know everything about this world with out us having to work for it then we would know it.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 22, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The problem, fundamentally, T'punk and SW, is that you simply do not know what science is.



Actually Robert, the problem is you are lumping my Arguments and ShaolinWolf's together, and taking much of what I said out of context.

It would be easier for you to help me understand where I am wrong, if you address my issues, insted of simply insulting me and telling me I am wrong because of some things ShaolinWolf said. 

With the exception of your misconstured notion that I think Evolution is fake because of a "Cheesy" Tv show... very little in that last post actually pertained to anything I have said.  They were SW's arguments.

I have said, I am willing to learn more about this, if you point me in the right direction, and show me the data.  Not obscure references Robert, hard Links to direct data my lazy *** can click on and read. I dont want to hunt for bits and pieces of what is supposed to be such an obvious truth, there should be an easy place to see it, please provide it, if you can. My mind is not "made up" or closed by any means... not nearly as much as everyone else on both sides of this thread...

SW says "Science is wrong because god is right" and you couldnt show him evidence to change that veiw, even tho he has no more proof than the Bible which was written by men, not god. (yes, I am christian but I do not believe the bible is the "Divine word of god")

Heretic and Robert feel "Scientists who are part of the religious right are jokes" therefore their science is bad... and cannot possibly be valid...

I SAY "Im looking for more proof i havnt seen enough to convince me! Show me more!"

And yet i am the wacky one?

Haha.  You guys kill me.

And you know whats funnyest about the whole thing?  I havn't argued "Creationism is right, Evolution is wrong" but you all are assuming that is what I believe, and instead of answering my questions and addressing my issues you are ignoring my comments looking for a bigger better explaination of evolutionary proof... and attacking my understanding of the world. Cute.  What that tells me is that you CAN'T answer them, not that you WON'T.

Lets try something here... I know it may be difficult, because everyone is so..."uppity"

Lets redirect this thread. Questions and answers with the emotions Removed.  I'll Start.

Regarding the evidence to Support Human Evolution: The Fossil record shows That there Were "Apes", that there were then a series of "Hominids" and lastly "Man"

The problems I see with this are twofold... 

1) Datings of the fossils.  There is controversy in the scientific community over the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, specificaly as the samples get older... it can be estimated on younger samples of an error rate somewhere in the 50 year range, but they believe that as the sample ages that range MAY expand.   But if we are going to assume that the dating process is reletivly accurate, some of the "less evolved" hominids are actually "newer" fossils than some of the old ones, which would suggest that we were either "devolving" at that point or they are not part of the same evolutionary chain and should not be used as "missing links" therein. 

2) The methods used by many of the Scientists to find and identify the links in the chain of Hominid evolution are based on partial bone/skull fragments to indentify a unique or new Hominid "species".  However, when researchers such as Oxnard attempted to disprove the theory his opponents claimed his research was inaccurate because he used "partial bone/skull fragments" Scientifically, can you have it one way and not the other, and still be... uh... whats the word... impartial? No... Well, I think you understand what I mean... 

Can you point me to some links that might overcome those arguments for starters?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 22, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> As to what rmcrobertson said.  Really you should go read Stephen Jay Gould.  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/  have fun.



I was reading a lot of what Gould said on that page, and althought I have only read 4 or 5 of the essays so far, they bring up other questions for me.

In one study, he claims they have Ample Evidence in the field of evolution, and goes on to cite black moths.  He states that when ash covered the trees the black moths were better hidden from predators therefore that is the species that dominated and survived.   Later in the same essay he goes on to say that many "creationists" claim a silly notion that evolution is possible, but a Dog or a Cat or a Monkey cannot become a Human. 

But what I guess I missed, or don't understand is that Genetically speaking, because there were more black moths breeding, ergo that population thrived,as opposed to the white ones which were being eaten, isn't that natural selection, as opposed to evolution? Just because one "color" trait breeds better, does not really change the genetic structure of a creature enough to support the idea that a Cat could become a human, does it?  

I would think that that would be closer to saying "Genetics have shown that Dark Skinned people living in one concentrated area will breed with each other and produce more dark skinned offspring than light" Rather than "Genetics have shown that Dark Skinned people living in one concentrated area will breed with each other and produce offspring who are chimpanzees" 

And I understand that the point of the article was not to say "The Moths Prove that an Ape can become Human" but he cited it as an ample example of evidence that evolution occurs and in the same article he said that based on the evidence it's silly to assume that an ape could not become human. 

Also, in another of his articles, he basically stated that one day his compainon  went, hey i know why there is no consistant fossil record, we didnt evolve slowly, but all at once! And he (Gould) expanded on the idea and got creative with it.  He couldn't find a way to prove it with humans, tho, so he started working on snails.  As of my reading so far, he hadn't proved it however. (maybe in a later essay, i am not that far)

But here is a prominent Evolutionist (NOT CREATIONSIT) saying Nope, the Fossil Record is incomplete but this is why it think evolution still happened, now i just need to prove it. 

So that brings me back around to: Am I wrong when I say the Fossil record is incomplete? Gould would seem to be supporting that idea.


----------



## someguy (May 22, 2004)

evolution can occur through 4 things or something like that.  One is the fittest live so they continue to breed and those traits carry on.  Theres also genetic drift.  Let me think for a while longer and I might be able to think of the other two that were stated by some person that I heard about in a class.  Man I'm specific today.


----------



## arnisador (May 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Carbon dating works. Carbon dating doesnt work. There was a brontosaurus. There wasnt a brontosaurus. We landed on the moon. We didnt land on the moon it was a conspiracy.


These are your examples? Sheesh. First they said the moon was made of green cheese, now they say it isn't...

I am reminded of this story: _Keynes, when admonished for being inconsistent, replied, "When someone convinces me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" _

From another post:


> I SAY "Im looking for more proof i havnt seen enough to convince me! Show me more!"


There's enough proof out there to fill the Grand Canyon. Looking for accessible works? Gould, Dawkins, Mayr...

Isn't tracing DNA similarity, and knowing that we understand how mutations occur in DNA, enough?

Saying the fossil record is incomplete means we haven't _found_ it all yet. The first dinosaur bones (that were recognized as such) were found about 200 years ago...give it time. How many field biologists/paleontologists do you suppose are working out there on this? Not as many as one would think from all teh discussion.

Suer, evolution could be wrong...Newtonian mechanics is (though it's still a good and widely-used approx.). But it's the only _scientific_ explanation for the diversity of species and the resemblences between certain species.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2004)

Again: the problem is, you simply don't know what science is. If you think that the problem with science is that the fossil record is incomplete--well, you fundamentally misunderstand what science is (and what faith is) because, by definition, science is always incomplete. 

Similarly, you don't seem to know what religion is. If you claim to be Christian, yet refuse the divinity of Biblical text...well, oops. 

You live in an immense, beautiful, and mysterious universie. Why do you find that's so frightening--and it's not a merely rhetorical question, but one that's fundamental.

Fundamentalist Christianity teaches that the world began very recently, prehaps as recently as 4004 BC. Carbon, argon, or any other dating that tells you the world began 5 billion plus or minus whatever years ago ain't going to help you much in that argument.

Why are y'all content with such a tiny, small, petty little version of God?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again: the problem is, you simply don't know what science is.
> 
> Similarly, you don't seem to know what religion is.




Robert. Thanks for ignoring my questions.

Ive never blocked someone on a forum, congrats on being the first.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 23, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> These are your examples? Sheesh. First they said the moon was made of green cheese, now they say it isn't...
> 
> I am reminded of this story: _Keynes, when admonished for being inconsistent, replied, "When someone convinces me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" _



Arnisador, 

I was only using those as examples of things various branches of science and some nutcases (in the case of the moonlanding) choose to disagree on... I was not using them as examples of proof of evolutionism vs Creationism. I can provide different ones and sources if you would like. But do you at least agree that not every scientist agrees on all the data?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> From another post:
> 
> There's enough proof out there to fill the Grand Canyon. Looking for accessible works? Gould, Dawkins, Mayr...
> 
> ...



I understand that.  however some prominent evolutionists including one you quoted as a source (Gould) doesn't believe we will find the rest of those fossils, because he believes we evolved "differently".  I actually find some his ideas more plausable than the missing portions of the fossil record, simply because of some of the dating issues that would suggest less evolved fossils were newer than some of the more evolved ones, But by the same token, his resarch to support his ideas is imcomplete and many evolutionists disagree with it, and still think we will find those "missing links".

I'm just waiting.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Suer, evolution could be wrong...Newtonian mechanics is (though it's still a good and widely-used approx.). But it's the only _scientific_ explanation for the diversity of species and the resemblences between certain species.



Absolutley.  I agree that current science (that thing I have no idea what it is)   has that as the best explaination for how and why we are here with other species on the planet... But keep in mind, just a couple hundered years ago, Current science thought leeches cured the sick... Maybe they havn't found somthing yet... that will either Definitivly prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, or completely discredit it... who's to say?


----------



## someguy (May 23, 2004)

Evolution in all its trueth could well be something I could never really understand too much about anyways.  I sure can't really understand much about Quantum phisics although I never really tried but physics was to annoying as it was.  So proof of evolution may really be proving part of the trueth.  Now of course yo  can say that there is evolution i a sense but if there is an omnipotent God then well that goes into fate basically but I don't see a way around fate if there is an omniscientgod who created us all.  As such I belive there is evolution but at the same time all of our actions have been decided and as such well in a way we are created.  I don't exactly belive that the creation story should be taken litterally though.  Take that for what its worth.


----------



## Cobra (May 23, 2004)

Wait guys,

Just because the theory of evolution is true, which I believe is, doesn't mean it proves the theory creation is false too.

For example, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps and a close amount with other apes (not monkeys, apes). Heck, we are apes. That doesn't prove creation is wrong. That is how God created the world as people should see it. 

Another example is embryology. Many say that animals such as chickens and turtles share a common ancestor because their embryos look almost identical in early development. Who knows, maybe they didn't. Does it say in the Bible that animals don't evolve? As far as the embryos being so identical, it could be as said before they may have come from a similar ancestor. Or maybe THAT IS THE WAY GOD CREATED THEM. Or, it could be both. Fossils are no difference in proof.

 Carbon dating. It has told us the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Firstly, carbon dating is very unrelible. Second, even if the Earth was that old, where does it say in the Bible the Earth isn't that old? In the beginning, peharps the the days were actualy millions or billions of years.

You have to be fluent in both sides. Neither point is wrong, just gotta see the accuracy in both. I don't think we evolved from apes, but it doesn't mean Neantherdals never exsisted. Could be another creation by God.


----------



## michaeledward (May 23, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> For example, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps and a close amount with other apes (not monkeys, apes).


Yeah, and we share 95% of our DNA with a banana. It has to do with the fact that all organic life forms originated on this planet.




			
				Cobra said:
			
		

> where does it say in the Bible the Earth isn't that old? In the beginning, peharps the the days were actualy millions or billions of years.


Add up the 'Begats'. Let's not forget that some of those Old Testament guys lived for 900 years, I love that part.


----------



## Andi (May 23, 2004)

> Originally Posted by *Technopunk*
> So that brings me back around to: Am I wrong when I say the Fossil record is incomplete? Gould would seem to be supporting that idea.


 
The fossil record is demonstratably incomplete. The processes that lead to preservation of these structures, are heavily biased towards sedimentary, depositional, watery environments, preferably anoxic. Stuff on land just doesn't preserve as easily as stuff in the water, that's why most of the fossils we have are shells of various descriptions. The far greater availability of oxygen on land means decomposition is much more rapid.

I think it was a paper by Raup or Sepkoski or somebody twenty years ago that suggested that the percentage of animal life preserved in the fossil record could be as little as 5%, but probably lower. I don't think there's much debate on whether or not the fossil record is complete or not. Is there?





> Originally Posted by *Cobra*
> Carbon dating. It has told us the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Firstly, carbon dating is very unrelible. Second, even if the Earth was that old, where does it say in the Bible the Earth isn't that old? In the beginning, peharps the the days were actualy millions or billions of years.


 

I just want to point out for clarity that it isn't Carbon dating that gives a date of 4.6 billion years- it was using...uhh...now my memory is getting a bit fuzzy but I think it was Samarium/Neodymium and Rubidium/Strontium isotopic dating on primitive meteorites- these isotopes have much longer half-lives than carbon (billions of years compared to about 50k years for carbon). I realise you may be just referring to all isotopic dating as carbon-dating as an umbrella term though.

Now, where in the bible does it say the Earth isn't that old? Well, in Genesis, I'm fairly certain that the word for day used in the original text was the word used specifically for 24-hour period. This seems to be why so many people point-blank refuse to take the 'creation week' as anything but a literal week. For me, I'm quite happy to treat the creation story as pictorial rather than literal.

I've never been able to bring myself to get too deeply immersed in the answers in genesis stuff because I seem to find too many instances of unscientific method straight away which puts me off looking at it properly! Maybe I should examine their "evidence" more thoroughly.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 23, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> The fossil record is demonstratably incomplete. The processes that lead to preservation of these structures, are heavily biased towards sedimentary, depositional, watery environments, preferably anoxic. Stuff on land just doesn't preserve as easily as stuff in the water, that's why most of the fossils we have are shells of various descriptions. The far greater availability of oxygen on land means decomposition is much more rapid.
> 
> I think it was a paper by Raup or Sepkoski or somebody twenty years ago that suggested that the percentage of animal life preserved in the fossil record could be as little as 5%, but probably lower. I don't think there's much debate on whether or not the fossil record is complete or not. Is there?
> .



Well, I believe it was Robert who suggested, no wait, told me, I didnt know what i was talking about and I should read some of his sources before stating is was incomplete.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But do you at least agree that not every scientist agrees on all the data?


Yes. That's usually the case; look at the disagreements over interpretations in quantum mechanics, for instance.

But finding a biologist who thinks that evolution is bad science is like finding one who thinks smoking cigarettes is good for your health. It can be done, but it's very hard. Note, many scientists who are religious may recognize evolution as good science but use their own version of Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" argument to simultaneously believe in a biblical view. Personally, I have no problem with this.

Remember, science is itself evolving theories. More data comes in, things get re-evaluated. Kuhn makes for excellent background reading on the general nature of this process.

There _is_ a sociology of science/scientists. You can even major in it (often called something like Science and Technology Studies). Science is a human activity.



> I'm just waiting.


If you applied this reasoning to the medicine based on evolutionary theory you'd be putting your health in danger, I imagine. (Why do we test things on animals? How can we justify that?) I daresay we understand evolution better than aerodynamacs--the underlying equations of fluid dynamics, Navier-Stokes etc., are very hard to solve--so there's better understanding of this than of flight. You're picking and choosing which results to accept, but they all come from the same general method.



> Absolutley. I agree that current science (that thing I have no idea what it is) has that as the best explaination for how and why we are here with other species on the planet... But keep in mind, just a couple hundered years ago, Current science thought leeches cured the sick... Maybe they havn't found somthing yet... that will either Definitivly prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, or completely discredit it... who's to say?


This is an argument against ever believing anything science produces. How can you say this, yet visit a physician? Antibiotics come from the same scientific method, applied in the same way. Why are they trustworthy? Because they seem to work? A biologist would say, so does evolution--it's a scientific theory that works to explain the world around us. A search on evolutionary medicine might also prove interesting; see also evolutionary psychology, which has become popular recently.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 23, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This is an argument against ever believing anything science produces. How can you say this, yet visit a physician? Antibiotics come from the same scientific method, applied in the same way. Why are they trustworthy? Because they seem to work? A biologist would say, so does evolution--it's a scientific theory that works to explain the world around us. A search on evolutionary medicine might also prove interesting; see also evolutionary psychology, which has become popular recently.



Actually, I just don't think being skeptical hurts... I mean, Science can PROVE certain things, like, Why a Television works, so of course, I am going to believe that a televison works, and that I can see things that are far away.  But Naturally I am going to be skeptical of say... Remote Viewing, the psychic ability to see things far away... But I wont discount the fact that some people claim its possible, I will just wait for stronger science to prove it.  Remember, I never said I don't believe in evolution, I said I have a hard time with the concept that we were all one species, and eventually apes became man.  But at the same time I'm thinking "tomorrow", we may uncover absolute proof to show it did happen, or maybe we will find an alien spacecraft frozen in the polar icecap with all the species inside that proves we didnt...

In the end, however... Regardless of whether my Ancestor was a monkey, Adam, or Glurg of the planet Bloogi, it makes no real difference, because I am here... I really don't think about it most of the time.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 23, 2004)

Science = the religious faith of the new era?

Cute book called "the adventures of anybody" has a prince going on a guided tour of a distant, semi-enchanted land. They pass the clerics, who are identified as holding fiercely on to an outdated set of beliefs, even in the face of "evidence" (those poor, mislead souls, thinks the prince).  Further in the woods, they pass the encampment of the Academics...the very ones who provided the evidence that tossed the clerics from their lofty heights, into the realm of being merely a faith.  Prince asks guide, "Who tells these academics they are the one's who are right, or even on the right path?". The Guide replies, "They do. Just like the clerics."

Just reminded of it while reading this thread.

My own position: Science, mere decades ago, made assertions we now consider silly in the face of modern knowledge. Our best science today will someday be viewed as archaic and simple-minded. Creationist? Nope. Evolutionist? Nope. Each assumes we are asking the right questions then looks for answers to support either the stated position, or the null hypotheses; and I sincerely doubt we even know what the right questions are yet.

Old men arguing in a cave about what the world outside looks like: Religion.  A couple old men in the argument posit that they could have a stronger, more valid understanding of life outside the cave by studying the dirt in the cave...the drawings on the cave wall...the elements composing the wall, and the laws governing the interaction of those elements: Science. 

As long as we remain within the cave, true knowing is outside our reach, making the search a fun hobby, but nothing more substantial than that.  The unknown is called that, because it is that...Unknown. The wisest of the religious will say, "we don't really know, and won't till we die". (How does one prove the existence of God? Simply saying we had to come from somewhere doesn't prove our own suspicion of what or whom that somewhere/someone is). The wisest of the scientists will say, "the more we learn, the more we realize we have learned nothing." (how does one prove 'brane theory, or the virtual/transient state of matter in quantum physics?)

My own ponderings,

Dave


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> As long as we remain within the cave, true knowing is outside our reach, making the search a fun hobby, but nothing more substantial than that.


In a philosophical sense, perhaps. But in a practical sense, this "hobby" has put men on the moon, made it possible to cross oceans in hours by flight rather than weeks by boat, cured a variety of diseases, extended the average lifespan by about a factor of two, and made this form of communication possible. So, it _is_ more substantial than that.

The success of these advances is evidence that the scientific method works, even if it doesn't work as rapidly and as cleanly as would be nice.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 23, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> In a philosophical sense, perhaps. But in a practical sense, this "hobby" has put men on the moon, made it possible to cross oceans in hours by flight rather than weeks by boat, cured a variety of diseases, extended the average lifespan by about a factor of two, and made this form of communication possible. So, it _is_ more substantial than that.
> 
> The success of these advances is evidence that the scientific method works, even if it doesn't work as rapidly and as cleanly as would be nice.


And problematic. Many in medical research are looking for bigger and better ways to fight cancer, disease, etc. If we accept evolution, then science is destroying the gene pool by assisting the weak - who would otherwise be culled fro the human herd - to survive, and pass on their polluted genes. Science is helping to create a new generation of problems associated with overpopulation.

Crossin oceans in hours has assisted in the spread of diseases that kill. On a boat, the carriers would have passed, leaving the boat adrift until the bug itself decayed.

Lunar exploration has cost untold millions of dollars, and given us what, exactly?  We have learned a lot about how bodies degrade and bean sprouts grow in zero gravity...find a lot of that here on earth?

Longer living people leads to increased resource consumption. Hmmm. Maybe not such a good idea on a planet with more people alive on it now, than in the entire recorded history of the planet added together, up to 1950-ish.

As for this form of communication, there is a richness in human conversation...a lost and nutritive art...that is not being enjoyed in all it's possible modalities by remaining seated at a computer terminal.  Again, science as culprit in degradation of the quality of human experience.

My original point was that perspective and desire govern experience, and Truth (with a capital T) remains an unkown.  The perspective of the cleric vs. scientist, and the desire to know what can't be known. Have scientific gains been beneficial? A matter of perspective. And in the long run, that's all we really have.

D.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2004)

Science is not based upon faith. If you think it is, you need to read up a little. Moreover, using Gould's discussions of evolution as grounds for arguing that evolution is only a belief is perverse in the extreme: that is, quite literally, the opposite of what Gould says, and says repeatedly.

Personally, individual beliefs are pretty much none of anybody's business. It's when creationists of various stripes start dismantling science education in public schools that I begin to get vexed. And it's when these attacks on science get linked to other claims about people, morality, politics and the rest that I start to take it personally. 

And more generally, it's the unreason that these "arguments," demonstrate that is a little scary. Reason and logic are precious, and they were very hard-won, historically speaking: it is appalling to see so many people rejecting them, especially when they start saying--as several posters have here--that they don't need to actually know anything about what they're rejecting.

As for T'punk's issues with my not responding in ways he finds adequate to his interrogations, well, pots and kettles. Still waiting to read some response to questions about materialism and idealism, some acknowledgement that lots and lots of Christians don't see any conflict between the Bible and evolution, etc. But I don't recollect that there are any rules about having to respond to a damn thing.

And just incidentally, it might be helpful to acquire a little more knowledge of the creationist arguments. Among other things, they do indeed insist that the earth isn't anything like billions of years old, that the Great Flood dug little features like the Grand Canyon more or less overnight, and a bunch of other goofy notions. Like the one Gould mentions: there's apparently a big painting of one of Noah's kids feeding a brontosaur in the stables on the Ark hanging in the front lobby of the Institute for Creation Science.

Nor does the way that dating techniques are always expressed with a margin of error really help anybody prove that dating techniques are wrong about the age of the world. 

Last, it is at best disingenuous to claim that the creationist attack on science education isn't in any way a religious and political attack. It is--if you'll read the examples a little--precisely an attempt to impose certain fundamentalist values in public schools. And it is--if you'll simply listen to what clowns like that Jay Sekula are saying--directly linked to the attempt to impose other ideas too. But that isn't my idea: it's theirs. Just listen to 'em.

It's such a petty, scared little view of the universe. I hope there is an afterlife, because if so, Mark Twain must be rolling in the aisles every time he lookss our way.


----------



## Cobra (May 23, 2004)

But science doesn't have to prove faith is wrong. Every person is entitled to their beliefs, but just because something is that way on our planet, doesn't mean any of it is not explainable. Many people who have been converted to athiests have been saying to themselves for example "This doesn't make any sense, we are so close to chimps, so that means God never was there." Now how does that prove crap. That could be because God created apes so close to us. And, if you don't know enough on creation before you study evolution, you will come up with bull that God doesn't exsist. It has to do with the lack of knowlage.

As far as public schools and evolution, there is nothing wrong with teaching, it is science. But before teaching the so called history of the Earth, they should go over the theory of creation in public schools too. Some say that public schools shouldn't teach the theory of creation in school because it isn't based on science, but who are we to judge either way. Atleast teach a big amount of the theory of creation in a social studies class.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Have scientific gains been beneficial? A matter of perspective.


That's orthogonal to the point, however, which is that as far as the scientific method is concerned, "[t]he success of these advances is evidence that the scientific method works" as I had posted. You can argue whether or not inventing the atomic bomb was a good/useful/beneficial idea, but it's more evidence that the scientific method is a successful way to accomplish something. It works--put whatever moral value you wish on it.

That same successful method led to evolution, meaning it's likely to be fundamentally correct. Since it's an aspect of nature, does it matter whether we label it Good or Bad?

As to medical treatment of cancer being possibly undesirable, I'll just say again that natural selection is an aspect of nature, so it's neither Good nor Evil. We can oppose it or no. If a lion attacks you and you shoot it dead, are you cheating because Natural Selection would have eliminated you if you hadn't had a gun? Heck, we cheat just by living in houses--the genetically hardier would last the winter better than the sweater-wearing shiverer.

All of this is besides the point, which after all is whether or not Evolution is a (Scientific) Fact, not whether or not it's a Good Fact.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2004)

Yes, every person is entitled to his or her beliefs, but those beliefs aren't entitled to be correct.

There is no theory of creation, in the scientific sense. Teaching mythology in a religion class is fine, but this isn't a Social Studies issue. Creation Science is simply a series of attacks on Evolution. An attack against evolution isn't automatically a win for creationism. Intelligent Design is a _proposed_ theory that is lacking evidence to a much, much greater extent than is evolution. Until it leads us back to the designer, _its_ record is woefully incomplete.

It's very possible to criticise evolution. That doesn't move any otehr theory higher in the polls.

As an aside, it is so that carbon dating isn't the type used to establish the earth's age. Carbon dating is for (formerly) living things.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Lunar exploration has cost untold millions of dollars, and given us what, exactly?  We have learned a lot about how bodies degrade and bean sprouts grow in zero gravity...find a lot of that here on earth?
> 
> D.



Kembudo-Kai Kempoka,

Let us play agame. You name a technology, and I will try to show where it came from space research or development?

I believe that the development and research has improved our standard of living. Now, some are going to ask how does this equate to evolution? I could argue the evolution of thinking and or the growth of the mind.

I just do not wish to trivalize the space research done.

 :asian:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 23, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Kembudo-Kai Kempoka,
> 
> Let us play agame. You name a technology, and I will try to show where it came from space research or development?
> 
> ...


Having grown up behind the Orange Curtain of Orange County, CA, a mecca for space and military tech comapnies in the 70's & 80's throughout the heyday of the space shuttle and Star Wars, I am full aware of the manner in which technologies derived from research and development into the space programs has influenced our daily lives.  Ergo, no bet.

Reading this post, and the stanch positions taken by either side, simply reminded me of the idea of a pot calling the kettle black.  No one really knows. We can make educated guesses, and some of them even pretty darn good ones that allow us to shot-put explorers to a whole different planet.  But, has anybody walked off the distance from here to the sun?  96,000,000 miles?  Based on calculating the speed of light, ...etc.

I remember an article in Time Magazine about a guy at UCI who had demonstrated that the speed of light was slopwing down.  Got nominated for a Nobel Prize (never followed to see if he won it or not). Used as the constant for measurement, it would appear, if his science is good, that *the only constant is the energy of change*.  Neither good, nor bad, but changing nonetheless.

From what, to what, and under what influences are certainly excellent questions for the explorations of science.  Science not based on faith?  Sure it is.  But we call them Paradigms, and they shift with the forces of change...just as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., have all shifted under the force of some change or other; neither is practiced today, as in any number of stages in antiquity. Science itself evolves. Is it alive?  It certainly has it's own prophets, to whom one is sent to read in the event they doubt it is the correct faith, with the same veracity a disbeliever is admonished by a fundamentalist to read the bible if they want to know the source of truth. And why is it the truth? Because the Bible says it is.

There is a philosophy of science. And, as with all philosophies, there are points at which skilled philosophers of other veins can find inconsistencies within the internal consistency of it's tenets. It may be a more rigorous faith, with more actual yield in productivity.  But, IMO, it's still a faith.

D.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Having grown up behind the Orange Curtain of Orange County, CA, a mecca for space and military tech comapnies in the 70's & 80's throughout the heyday of the space shuttle and Star Wars, I am full aware of the manner in which technologies derived from research and development into the space programs has influenced our daily lives.  Ergo, no bet.
> 
> D.



Anyone else??? 


Kembudo-Kai Kempoka,

Thank You for your reply.
 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2004)

It's really very simple: "creation science," isn't a science, and no amount of claiming will make it one. The problem is: a) it isn't a 'scientific,' theory, because its hypothesis doesn't primarily rest on material evidence or come out of scientific thought; b) its fundamental premise is neither provable nor disprovable in scientific terms; c) no possible evidence can be provided for the proposition of some guiding Creator.

As for the tired argument that biology teachers should have to teach this stuff, fiddlesticks. There are a lot of deeply-held beliefs that we don't teach in science classes, because they simply aren't scientific ideas. By all means, teach them in history or cultural studies or comparative religion classes or even in English--but teach them along with a lot of the other creation myths. 

Again, it is erroneous to claim generally that this is some issue of "religion," and religious freedom. The real point is that a minority of Christians--not Catholics, not the National Council of Churches, etc.--want to impose their particular version of Protestantism upon the rest  of us. And, they want State sponsorship.

And this reiterated claim that science is a faith, too...only if you concede that we don't really know that the physical universe exists; we take that, I suppose, on, "faith." But paradigms are wholly different from beliefs--paradigms, finally, can be measured against reality.

Then, they change. Beliefs, it would seem, do not--whatever the facts  are.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> No one really knows.


I believe that science, and philosophy, make progress.

Incidentally, the upcoming transit of Venus reminds me that the AU was calculated from a much earlier transit (late 1700s?) to good accuracy. (There was a story on this in the 5/14/2004 Chronicle of Higher Education.) Which also goes to the point that for all these things, evolution included, tehre is evidence from a wide variety of categories. It doesn't all hinge on one weak link.



> *the only constant is the energy of change*.


I don't think this phrase means anything.



> Science not based on faith? Sure it is. But we call them Paradigms, and they shift with the forces of change...


In a sense, certainly...scientivism, in the sense of H.L. Nieburg, for example. But the "faith" isn't based on paradigms (in the sense of Kuhn). That's a sociological phenomenon. The faith on which science rests is the set of axioms and postulates one uses. For example, we take on faith, as being obvious, that A and not-A cannot coexist. One can read certain Oriental philosophers as disagreeing with this. But do away with this basic tenet of logic and you eliminate a lot of physics.

So, yes, science and scientists do take certain things on faith. It's scientists acting as natural philosophers. In that regard I find nothing contradictory about saying "I choose religion, not Western science, as my basic belief." But if one then rejects evolution on that basis while one takes antibiotics/has an appendectomy/etc., _then_ I have to wonder. Evolution goes along with all the standard biological science and allopathic medicine. You can't accept the methods that lead to one but not the methods that lead to the other--they're the same.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 23, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's really very simple: "creation science," isn't a science, and no amount of claiming will make it one. The problem is: a) it isn't a 'scientific,' theory, because its hypothesis doesn't primarily rest on material evidence or come out of scientific thought; b) its fundamental premise is neither provable nor disprovable in scientific terms; c) no possible evidence can be provided for the proposition of some guiding Creator.
> 
> As for the tired argument that biology teachers should have to teach this stuff, fiddlesticks. There are a lot of deeply-held beliefs that we don't teach in science classes, because they simply aren't scientific ideas. By all means, teach them in history or cultural studies or comparative religion classes or even in English--but teach them along with a lot of the other creation myths.
> 
> ...


Very well said, and without the usual underlying anger I've come to expect in your posts.  As for the universe thing, my limited understanding of quantum theory has lead me to reading suggesting that the physical universe does not, in fact, exist as we percieve it to be.  Rather, that particles of matter are constantly winking in and out of physical existence millions of times per second, restoring themselve to the most orderly spot we know not how.  An argument for Creation? Pah!. Just a neat idea that allows me to concede that we take the physical world on faith.


----------



## arnisador (May 23, 2004)

I gotta be honest--I'm suspicious of many of the interpretations of quantum physics. The numerical predictions seem to work out fairly well, but I'm still not sure I want to believe that God (!) plays dice with the universe. Still, the stochasticity explains a lot!


----------



## qizmoduis (May 24, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> 1) Datings of the fossils.  There is controversy in the scientific community over the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, specificaly as the samples get older... it can be estimated on younger samples of an error rate somewhere in the 50 year range, but they believe that as the sample ages that range MAY expand.   But if we are going to assume that the dating process is reletivly accurate, some of the "less evolved" hominids are actually "newer" fossils than some of the old ones, which would suggest that we were either "devolving" at that point or they are not part of the same evolutionary chain and should not be used as "missing links" therein.



Radiocarbon (C-14) dating isn't used to determine fossil ages.  It isn't accurate beyond about 50000 years.  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html for information about how ages are actually determined.

Your second sentence shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is.  You assume that a species will disappear immediately upon spawning an "improved" version.  IOW, that homo sapiens neanderthalis disappeared immediately upon the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans).  This doesn't happen in nature.  Often, a new species will appear in a small area due to localized environmental pressures.  The parent population will continue unchanged, perfectly adapted to its environment while the new species exists, adapted to its environment.  Sometimes, the new species will spread out, taking over the environment of it's parent, sometimes not.  There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved".  There's simply more successful or less successful.



> 2) The methods used by many of the Scientists to find and identify the links in the chain of Hominid evolution are based on partial bone/skull fragments to indentify a unique or new Hominid "species".  However, when researchers such as Oxnard attempted to disprove the theory his opponents claimed his research was inaccurate because he used "partial bone/skull fragments" Scientifically, can you have it one way and not the other, and still be... uh... whats the word... impartial? No... Well, I think you understand what I mean...
> 
> Can you point me to some links that might overcome those arguments for starters?



Your arguing for science to be monolithic in nature.  This isn't the case.  Science progresses through research, studies, experiments, and great big honking arguments over long periods of time.  Shady results are shaken and sifted out by the process as experiments are retried and results are duplicated.  That's the way science works.  Oddly enough, it works.  Notice the results of science all around.  

Oh, and for some links and discussions, see www.talkorigins.org


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

Axly, fella, I was pretty annoyed at something else when I wrote the last post. So much for that special insight into people we've never met, based solely on their writing...and perhaps it might be best to skip such comments based on intentional fallacies, lest one start writing things like, "Nice post, but with that deep pomposity I've come to expect in your writing," (based on expressions like, "Pah!" which one usually associates with minor sorcerers in, "Conan," novels) eh?


----------



## someguy (May 24, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Radiocarbon (C-14) dating isn't used to determine fossil ages.  It isn't accurate beyond about 50000 years.  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html for information about how ages are actually determined.


This really isn't my area but I believe that how long the accuracy of it can go back to is debated somewhat.  There are other isotopes that can be used I think uranium can be used to date some things predominately fish.  A professor of mine for a geology class said that she was surprised that she doesn't glow from all of the fish fossils she has dealt with.
Now prove to me that those fossils aren't just made with the proper ratio of carbon 12 13 and 14 to appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old.  You can't really prove it.  To do this you must assume some things.  But of course then again I can say prove this post existed 5 seconds ago.  Maybe everything was created .00000001 seconds ago including you with your memory.  A bit insane of a thought but so be it.


----------



## qizmoduis (May 24, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> This really isn't my area but I believe that how long the accuracy of it can go back to is debated somewhat.  There are other isotopes that can be used I think uranium can be used to date some things predominately fish.  A professor of mine for a geology class said that she was surprised that she doesn't glow from all of the fish fossils she has dealt with.
> Now prove to me that those fossils aren't just made with the proper ratio of carbon 12 13 and 14 to appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old.  You can't really prove it.  To do this you must assume some things.  But of course then again I can say prove this post existed 5 seconds ago.  Maybe everything was created .00000001 seconds ago including you with your memory.  A bit insane of a thought but so be it.



Well, again, I need to point out that C-14 dating isn't used for fossil dating.  And you don't really want to get into the doctrinal wars that still continue between the Church of Last Thursdayism and the Church of Last Tuesdayism.  The Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuhhh) will shake her invisible horn at you in consternation!

Seriously though, Occam's razor suggests that the unsupported positing of an insubstantial, undetectable entity that goes around creating fossils is not necessary.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 24, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Your second sentence shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is.  You assume that a species will disappear immediately upon spawning an "improved" version.  IOW, that homo sapiens neanderthalis disappeared immediately upon the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans).  This doesn't happen in nature.  Often, a new species will appear in a small area due to localized environmental pressures.  The parent population will continue unchanged, perfectly adapted to its environment while the new species exists, adapted to its environment.  Sometimes, the new species will spread out, taking over the environment of it's parent, sometimes not.  There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved".  There's simply more successful or less successful.



I understand this, however... we are talking about periods of 500,000 years or more in some cases, if the new species was a "localized" phenomina, it would seem that if they were going to thrive that long in the face of a "more successful" species, that more of them would have survived, or even evolved again... 

Also

Lets look at it this way... 50,000,000 years from now, an achreologist discovers the wright brothers plane.  Then a B52, Then a modern Biplane, (because they do still exist in limited numbers now) than a Stealth Bomber.

Dating shows them to be "dated" in that order... But the design of the Biplane is more "primitive" than the B52...  Can you honestly say he could beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that the biplane came first? He could speculate that since the B52 and Stealth Bomber both had single wing designs and the Wright brothers plane had 2 wings, that the Biplane MUST have been the next developed... but could he PROVE that?  He could apply logic to suggest it...

And then what if another archeologist saw how much more modern the insturments in the Biplane were compared to the B-52... well, based on that it wouldnt be too big a leap of logic to assume, despite the 2 fixed wings, that it was a later "evolution" of the aircraft...

And suddenly you have two schools of thought... neither of whom can PROVE they are right or wrong, arguing about it till the end of time. 

Ive read a lot of the arguments on Talkorigns, even their anti-creationist things.  I have also seen a lot of evolution sites that talk about the radiocarbondating of the fossils, so either their information is bad, or it is used... Ill dig up some links for you.


----------



## Andi (May 24, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> This really isn't my area but I believe that how long the accuracy of it can go back to is debated somewhat. There are other isotopes that can be used I think uranium can be used to date some things predominately fish. A professor of mine for a geology class said that she was surprised that she doesn't glow from all of the fish fossils she has dealt with.


There's not really any debate that I'm aware of. You're right that different isotopes have different age ranges that it can cover, so for example you could use Uranium or Carbon to date something a lot more easily than a more unstable one like, I dunno, Astatine. But half lives are taken as constants, so while elements might not degrade like clockwork at the atomic level, the bulk rate of decomposition is consistent over time.

Uranium is certainly used for dating, but to say it's predominantly for fish is unrealistic. It may well work with some fish (I don't know much about dating fish...(!)) but as far as I'm aware it's far more commonly used on rocks. As for your geology teacher, I'm certain she said that with her tongue in her cheek. Otherwise we'd have loads of green builders glowing from all the uranium in bricks.

What do advocates of these young earth theories say about the geophys results?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 24, 2004)

> Hardly more than a year ago, Alan Walker, of Johns Hopkins University, and Richard Leakey, son of Louis and Mary Leakey and Director of the National Museums of Kenya, announced the discovery of the fossilized remains of a 12-year-old male on the western shore of Lake Turkana in Kenya. 6 Its height was 5'6", and Walker and Leakey estimated that if he had lived to adulthood, he would have been six feet tall, Walker declared that its postcranial skeleton was so similar to that of modern man he doubted whether an average pathologist could tell the difference. Furthermore, he said that when they placed the jaw on the skull, it looked similar to Neanderthal Man. In spite of the fact that Neanderthal Man is classified as fully human Homo sapiens, and that the postcranial skeleton of this 12-year-old male was essentially identical to that of modern man. Walker and Leakey classified him as Homo erectus, a sub-human species, rather than Homo sapiens. No doubt one of the major reasons for this is the fact that the fossil was dated at 1.6 million years, supposedly 1.5 million years older than Homo sapiens.



Is what this says grossly inacurate?  and if not, wouldnt it indicate Evolutionary science "making up" the evidence they want?

The reason I ask, is because it reads to me "We found a near human skeleton that dates to before many of our evolutionary links, therefore it cannot be human."


----------



## someguy (May 24, 2004)

Oops My mistake I didn't mean to say predominately fish.  I don't know where that came from.  Yes Dr. Wegweiser did say that tounge and cheek.  Thanks for correcting that. 
As to the debate about it some say that you can't use the results near the end of the range for some reason or another from what a differnt professor of mine said. I don't mean to say that the debate is really all of that big.  I dunno much about it because as I said this really isn't my area.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

Or, this mythical future scienties could apply what they know about aeronautical design, metallurgy, engine design, avionics, and a buncha other fields, and make some reasoned, informed, fact-based pretty good guesses about whether a biplane or a B-52 came first.

I don't quite see how it helps the creationists and young earth guys to feature a couple of archaeologists arguing about the precise sequence of human evolution, given the denial that human evolution happened at all. I should also very much like to know PRECISELY where the quote came from, since it has many of the earmarks of pseudoscientific claptrap from organizations like the ICS.

Again: scientists can be wrong, and the good ones cheerfully admit it. Science has always involved re-examining premises and theories. Funny how that never seems to happen with fundamentalists...except when the Jimmy Swaggerts of the world get caught in motels with lots of girls.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, fella, I was pretty annoyed at something else when I wrote the last post. So much for that special insight into people we've never met, based solely on their writing...and perhaps it might be best to skip such comments based on intentional fallacies, lest one start writing things like, "Nice post, but with that deep pomposity I've come to expect in your writing," (based on expressions like, "Pah!" which one usually associates with minor sorcerers in, "Conan," novels) eh?


I'm using my magic sorcerer scrying glasses to mind-read that you may have some aggression issues...Pardon me while I use my pomposity to note: It's too bad such a brilliant mind is seated in such a seemingly angry man.

I still love your posts, Bubba, even if you can't see past the compliments becuase of a...um...you know...thing..in your eye. (there was something deep in there to say, but I got distracted...Conan comic fell of the bookshelf, and landed open. Coincidence?). You clearly have an excellent grasp of logic and critical thinking -- a rarity in this era -- which is a true joy to see play accross the screen at silly people making silly assertions.  Subjectively, I just can't seem to say anything without arousing something unpleasant in your written demeanor...even when I agree with you on a post.  Such is life: I will never get to know Robert, because he will always-only-never engage in an interplay of ideas or dialogue without hatin' on me.

Infinitely superior to all I survey, (and working on my Jr. Sorcerers' Girl Scout Honor Badge, yet feeling somehow blue & dejected)

Dave

"When logic has played itself out to it's end without satisfactory resolution, the only tool left is sarcasm." -- Gregory C. Gibson.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

Lotta good points that some people have made. A lil' something I'd like to add...

One of the most amazingly humorous aspect of discussions like these is that the proponents of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and so forth have a tendency to try and get everyone else to believe that the validity of the Theory of Evolution is actually hotly debated in scientific circles.

This might be a shock to some of you, but scientists aren't actually debating whether evolution happens or not. No more than they are debating as to whether cells exist or not. The Theory of Evolution and the Cell Theory have pretty much equal empirical support, all things considered.

My college biology professor put it like this a few years back:

- Student: "So, did they ever figure out that evolution thing?? Do we know if people came from monkeys or whatnot??"
- Prof: *chuckles* "Yes, we 'figured it out'. Evolution is, for the most part, pretty much settled. The only people still debating the theory are in religious circles --- not scientific ones."

She made a pretty good, and this tells us leagues about the Evolution vs Creation debates as a whole --- scientists don't actually debate this stuff. Conservative religous leaders do. Surprise, surprise.

And, of course, what is the typical religious response to science's apparent apathy towards these discussion: that there is some kind of "godless atheistic conspiracy" among scientists to disprove God --- which, I gotta say t'punk, isn't exactly leagues away from some of the stuff you've been alluding to.

But, hey, for all you guys know I could be part of that atheistic cabal to, bent on destroying your precious religion. Conspiracy!!


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 24, 2004)

Dare we suspect you may be a *suspensful drum roll* Heretic?

So, what is the difference between heresy and hearsay?

D.

Note to self: avoid logging on while bordering on diabetic coma. Must. Eat. Pizza.


----------



## heretic888 (May 24, 2004)

> So, what is the difference between heresy and hearsay?



A syllable. 

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.  :boing2:


----------



## qizmoduis (May 25, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Lotta good points that some people have made. A lil' something I'd like to add...
> 
> One of the most amazingly humorous aspect of discussions like these is that the proponents of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and so forth have a tendency to try and get everyone else to believe that the validity of the Theory of Evolution is actually hotly debated in scientific circles.
> 
> ...



Your exactly right.  Scientists of all stripes and disciplines do not debate evolution.  They do, however, delight in arguing about various details.  This is the part of science that creationists cannot accept.  They want SCIENCE (as a monolith) to have THE ANSWER, right now, because that's how they, themselves, think.  To them, knowledge doesn't come about through observation, research, experimentation, etc., but rather through revelation.  This idea of knowledge through revelation is why creationism has such purchase among those without a decent education in science.  To them, knowledge comes from a book.  Through revelation.  Since they don't understand science, anything can be scientific, so long as someone in authority says it's scientific.

One of the most amazing and annoying attitudes you can get from a creationist is the assumption that, since scientists make mistakes, everything they've ever done was mistaken.  Or since science doesn't know the answer to something right now, then it never will.  Ignorant attitude, yes, but prevalent among creationists.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2004)

I agree with quizmodius, but have two issues...

*This is the part of science that creationists cannot accept. They want SCIENCE (as a monolith) to have THE ANSWER, right now, because that's how they, themselves, think.*

I agree completely. This is very similar among developmental psychology with the dilineation between concrete-operational and formal-operational modes of thought (or whichever labels you prefer for these consciousness structures). A little Piaget, anyone?? 

In any event, we tend to see these consciousness structures emergy collectively among humanity on a historical scale, as well. Concrete-operational thinking (or role/rule mode), which historically was typified by mythic-membership, sociocentrism, and concrete-literal beliefs (usually mythic-fundamentalist), seemed to have more or less collectively emerged some 5 to 6 thousand years ago --- along with the rise of heavily patriarchal religion, predominantly agrarian (as opposed to horticultural) forms of subsistence, and powerful empire-states revolving around rigid rules, laws, and hierarchies. All of these qualities are somewhat indicative of modern conop, as well.

Coincidentally, the period in time in which mythic-membership first emerged on a grand scale --- 5 to 6 thousand years ago --- is just around the time that creationists claim the earth was created. Coincidence?? I think not.

Formal-operational thought, however, is collectively a more modern phenomena. It first emerged on a grand scale with the Renaissance (with smaller pockets found in some parts of ancient Greece), of course, and really flowered with our Western "Enlightenment" --- the Age of Reason. Thus, formop really began showing up in humans some 300 to 400 years ago. Along with it came the likes of humanistic philosophy, liberal democracies, an emphasis on egalitarianism of various sorts, capitalism (i.e., the middle class), and industrial technology. Slavery was abolished, two revolutions occured (American and French), theocracies took a blow, and rational-empiricism (i.e., scientific process) gained prominence.

This all probably sounds familiar. Which isn't too surprising, as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. 

But, is any of this really relevant?? Eh, maybe not --- but it is interesting nonethless.  :asian: 

*To them, knowledge doesn't come about through observation, research, experimentation, etc., but rather through revelation. This idea of knowledge through revelation is why creationism has such purchase among those without a decent education in science. To them, knowledge comes from a book. Through revelation.*

Woot ---- now, hold on a second. I would differentiate between the likes of "blind faith" with that of "revelation". Now, granted, sometimes (in fact, probably most of the time) the people that claim to have received a "revelation" are really just going on blind faith devoid of any real experience. But, I definately feel that transcendental illuminations of various sorts _do_ happen --- I just would disassociate them with the baggage many conservative religious types try and lump them with.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2004)

Well, David, perhaps the thing to do would be to simply discuss the issues and ideas and evidences and leave off passing judgments--at least, judgments you seem to need to write down and ship out--on people. I find it offensive, and I suspect you do too.

I'll take care of my own development, psychological, spiritual and otherwise, thank you.


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, David, perhaps the thing to do would be to simply discuss the issues and ideas and evidences and leave off passing judgments--at least, judgments you seem to need to write down and ship out--on people. I find it offensive, and I suspect you do too.
> 
> I'll take care of my own development, psychological, spiritual and otherwise, thank you.



Being a bit harsh, don't you think?


----------



## arnisador (May 25, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> One of the most amazingly humorous aspect of discussions like these is that the proponents of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and so forth have a tendency to try and get everyone else to believe that the validity of the Theory of Evolution is actually hotly debated in scientific circles.


Yes. It's the same tactic the Tobacco Institute used to use--anyone else remember their lawyer appearing on Nightline and talking about the "controversy" and "debate" over the health effects of smoking? It's the same here--pretending that the scientific community is debating something more than the smaller details of what is overall a fully accepted theory.

Scientific inquiry is a process--like making sausages, perhaps not everyone should watch it!


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes. It's the same tactic the Tobacco Institute used to use--anyone else remember their lawyer appearing on Nightline and talking about the "controversy" and "debate" over the health effects of smoking? It's the same here--pretending that the scientific community is debating something more than the smaller details of what is overall a fully accepted theory.
> 
> Scientific inquiry is a process--like making sausages, perhaps not everyone should watch it!



So...are you saying we should hide the sausage? You would say that arnisidor!

 :roflmao:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, David, perhaps the thing to do would be to simply discuss the issues and ideas and evidences and leave off passing judgments--at least, judgments you seem to need to write down and ship out--on people. I find it offensive, and I suspect you do too.
> 
> I'll take care of my own development, psychological, spiritual and otherwise, thank you.


No, Robert, I don't think. I believe (and not blindly) that both change, as well as the optimum exchange of information, takes place in the context of a relationship. Pure logic is devoid of this realm of human interaction; the Chinese assertion (and therefore NOT scientific or rational) that the part can only be understood in relationship to the whole. I don't log on purely for the fun of argumentation and debate, but also for the pleasure of enjoyable interaction, and the simple social pleasure of getting to know someone ot the limited extent such media allows.

Consistently, you've referenced in posts that people making comments about you know nothin about you. In one post, I specifically invited you to share with us a bit about what your core views were, and started by disclosure on my part. You never replied. I'm sure you have your reasons, and events such as these -- in the light of apparently hostile undertones in your posts -- gives the appearence of an unpleasant person to dialogue with. I have yet to see you stick to just the issues and ideas and evidences, without a bit-o-mudslinging on yer own part. Does superior logic require color commentary?

If all you want is to argue, I'll just stay clear. I, personally, logon as an avocation, partly to enjoy the connection and exchanges of personalities. Nice ones. And I'm even willing to bet you are a genuinely caring person to the people in your immediate circle, which makes your online demeanor all the more puzzling.

My offer, and the reason I cajole you, remains. I would like to "meet" the person Robert, and not just the excellent critical thinking online persona.

Simpler joys in life than being right...among them? Tossin' back a couple beers with an acquaintence, and arguing in person. But you gotta get to know the person first, and they gotta be willing to. I've no interest in guiding your personal or transpersonal development. I've an interest in meeting the man behind the mind, and you remain intellectually aloof. So it is, and so, I suspect, it will be. Self-disclosure is risk, and not for all.

As for judgement...doesn't one, critically, have to judge to discriminate between P, and Not P? Can you say, with all internal honesty, that you've avoided being judgemental in your posts regarding issues, ideas, and evidence?

All pomposity, etc., aside, I really do look forward to meeting you sometime. You write some brilliant points, and I'm sure I would enjoy the person from which the knowledge has emerged.

Dave.


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

Dave,

I can't help but be suspicious with that last post. Do you really want to get to know Robert because you admire him, or because you want to get more personal info about him so you can attack his persona online?

Sorry to ask, but I only wonder because all that could have written in a PM.


----------



## loki09789 (May 26, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Dave,
> 
> I can't help but be suspicious with that last post. Do you really want to get to know Robert because you admire him, or because you want to get more personal info about him so you can attack his persona online?
> 
> Sorry to ask, but I only wonder because all that could have written in a PM.


Demons in posts again, Paul?  You CAN help being suspicious, on the Religious based discussions the topic of free will comes up, that is why I say you have chosen to remain suspicious.  This could have been a PM too, but honestly why even comment when it isn't directed at you.  Let me say this up front:  I AM speaking up for Dave here this time AND a plea for some reasonable thought on your part.

Dave has openly apologized to me when he suspected that his postings could have been misinterpretted as personal attack.  He has generally been polite and informative.  We all slip, but that is human.  I don't remember the author but there is a quote that goes something like:  We don't see others as they are but as WE are..... 

I am conscious of the fact that since I have stuck my nose in this uninvited I am being ironic, but as a contributing member of the MT forum, and in light of the 'media' discussion, are you just stirring the pot to increase subscription/viewings with such comments or are you trying to sincerely question Dave's integrity?

I fully expect a comment, but I have said my piece on this.


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

Paul M.,

Are YOU seeing Demons again? I have liked some of Dr. Dave's posts before, and I have told him so. But, in this case, I just asked him a question because the post seemed odd to me; and his post was public, so I asked publically. I haven't accused him of anything, I just asked a question, and explained why it seemed wierd to me. Your making something into a big deal that isn't. Now, do we even need to get into the irony that by you accusing me of butting my nose in where it doesn't belong, you've just possibly butted your nose in where it doesn't belong? Naw, probabily not.   

So, are you seeing demons, or just being an @$$hole? (or am I seeing demons by possibly thinking that you might be just being an @$$hole?  )

Paul Janulis
Wondering "what the F?"  :idunno:


----------



## heretic888 (May 26, 2004)

> Pure logic is devoid of this realm of human interaction; the Chinese assertion (and therefore NOT scientific or rational) that the part can only be understood in relationship to the whole.



Errrr..... might wanna re-evaluate your statement there.

Holism, process theory, dialectic theory, and what is sometimes called vision-logic and network-logic do indeed attempt to take the context of a part's existence to better understand it. Its actually pretty popular among various sciences and disciplines right now in the West (even though it is still understood in very materialistic terms), and is indeed very "rational" and "scientific". Hell, its the entire basis for most postmodern philosophy.

Outside of philosophical documents by the likes of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, you're not gonna find most of these sentiments in typical "Chinese" thought (although Western romanticism may have you think otherwise). Traditional "Chinese" thought is often very tribalistic and totemistic, more akin to pre-operational thought than network-logic.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2004)

I don't post an e-mail address, because I do not care to receive endless personal attacks, a decision that seems eminently rational in view of some of the nonsense about other people (including myself) I've read on these pages.

As for my core values, well, I believe I'm pretty much made them as clear as is necessary. Do I ever reflect on my words and ideas? Why no, not at all. Us intellectual types never do...but we do, from time to time, wonder why the heck it is that people seem to think that they have a lock on the world's total supply of moral behavior. Personally, I keep running tabs of my assorted and extensive screwups.

If my writing has developed more of an edge, well, what I'm willing to say is that I've decided enough with trying to be entirely polite and reasonable and educational in the face of some pretty mean-spirited attacks. In other words, I get a little sick of being told (and check the posts, if you think I'm exaggerating) that I hated my country, or was too limp-wristed to deal with reality, or was going to burn forever in everlasting fire, or was helping terrorists, and the whole litany of stupidities with which way too many people, these days, confront anybody and everything that is different from them. To me, the interesting thing is that a more aggressive style has actually elicited FEWER such remarks...which makes me realize, of course, that these forums have a lot to do with variations on the theme of wienie-waggling anyway. 

As for evolution, I continue to think that the right-wing and fundamentalist repsonse is really misplaced anger about capitalism and  cultural change.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I don't post an e-mail address, because I do not care to receive endless personal attacks, a decision that seems eminently rational in view of some of the nonsense about other people (including myself) I've read on these pages.
> 
> As for my core values, well, I believe I'm pretty much made them as clear as is necessary. Do I ever reflect on my words and ideas? Why no, not at all. Us intellectual types never do...but we do, from time to time, wonder why the heck it is that people seem to think that they have a lock on the world's total supply of moral behavior. Personally, I keep running tabs of my assorted and extensive screwups.
> 
> ...




Not a bad post Robert.

Could you also apply this to me.  :asian: By apologizing and then making it out that if I do nto agree with you then I am some how either sick in the head or really uneducated, or just plain stupid. You have been much better with me recently, yet for a while you were making broad statements and assumptions about me.

Thank You and no disrepect or hidden agenda, for I do like this post.
 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

> I don't post an e-mail address, because I do not care to receive endless personal attacks



I can appreciate that. But, can't people Private Message you here? That way they can talk to you personally without you having to put up your personal e-mail or information up for attacks. What-er-u-think?


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

btw, I liked your post too. Also, I agree that wennie waggling plays a huge role in these forums  :lol:  :rofl: .


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 26, 2004)

Paul:

Genuinely interested; not looking for ammo.  Bit-o-disclosure: most of my friends and acquaintences have either passed away, moved away, or I've moved away from them. As a martial artist with a mind, I'm sure you can appreciate the difficulty in finding persons of like mind, and mental horsepower.  Granted, I'm nowhere near a mental giant, but I have made an investment in time and energy to be (hopefully) well-rounded as a person.

I am infinitely intrigued by what I do not know, and consider it much more vast than what I do, and I make a fairly concerted effort to be well read and open minded. When I am introduced to information that's new to me, I like to learn about it so I can come back to the conversation with some informed perspective. Robert continually introduces ideas from authors I've not read, etc.

Kenpo, philosophy, and emerging frontiers in the development of science are among my favorite issues of exploration. I even like a good round of friendly debate, and get a chuckle out of being handed my hat because I couldn't find a way to make my argument, or unmake theirs.

As such, I've made most of my social acquaintences in the dojo. As you all know, the crowd in a dojo can vary widely, from educated, insightful & quick-minded, to dumb as a bag of hammers.  If not in the dojo, where might one go to dialogue with people with gifted minds, about such things as kenpo, philosophy, and emerging science?

If I understand correctly, Robert & Billy are afficianados under the tutelage of Mr. Tatum.  Unless they are available during the pre-dawn hours when insomnia strikes, I'll never get the opportunity to meet them in person, establish some type of rapport, and learn about their experiences of their training. That leaves online.

My previous fencing with Robert are some of the things I've regretted about my behavior on the fora, as it's set a tone such that I'm not sure how to engage in some of these conversations without seeming confrontational. I'd rather be inclusive, then exclusive. Crunchy granola, perhaps. But having been to waay to many funerals of late, and not enough parties, I'd rather err on the side of trying to get to know someone and appreciating lifes potential through their perspectives, than hash out minutae in a way that drives a potential kindred spirit further and further away.

I'll likely never meet Robert, which I count as a bummer and not a blessing, as I'm sure he's a kick to sit back and shoot the shyte with about the headlines; probably has well-informed perspectives to offer that have never even occurred to me, or spins on previous perspectives that signigicantly shift their meaning.

Yes, this might have been more appropriate in a PM. However, I had been a sarcastic a$$ to Robert with no good provocation, publicly, and as such owed him an apology/olive branch, publicly.

Dave :asian:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 26, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Errrr..... might wanna re-evaluate your statement there.
> 
> Holism, process theory, dialectic theory, and what is sometimes called vision-logic and network-logic do indeed attempt to take the context of a part's existence to better understand it. Its actually pretty popular among various sciences and disciplines right now in the West (even though it is still understood in very materialistic terms), and is indeed very "rational" and "scientific". Hell, its the entire basis for most postmodern philosophy.
> 
> ...


Yep. I was vaguely aware of that, but could not have phrased it quite as well. Working in the medical community, I see Western scientific thought mostly represented through seeking direct causal relationships..."This bug caused that illness; this organic materia caused that genetic mutation", etc. When I start asking patients about cravings for sweet or salty foods, palpating for thready pulses, or evaluating tongue color in an ortho's medical office, I get some pretty odd looks.

D.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 26, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Paul:
> 
> 
> Yes, this might have been more appropriate in a PM. However, I had been a sarcastic a$$ to Robert with no good provocation, publicly, and as such owed him an apology/olive branch, publicly.
> ...



You have to bear in mind, also, that he, for whatever reason,  :idunno: doesnt accept PMs.

SO, that pretty much leaves anything that needs (?) to be said to being said openly to everyone.


----------



## Cruentus (May 27, 2004)

Dr. Dave,

Thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering what was going on because that seemed strange to me, but you explained it well. I also apologize if I sounded accusatory, as apparently Robert doesn't except PM's, so there would have been no way for you to contact him privately. Thanks!   

rmcrobertson,

I still don't understand why you don't allow PM's. You don't have to lend any personal information to do so, and people could contact you privately if needed. A lot of friends and aquantances can be made from these forums; not everyone is out to get you or I. There have been times when I was in the same town as other people from martialtalk, and we had gotten together and had a good time. The PM feature is a nice way to allow open and private communication in a safe manner, w/o you having to lend your personal info out. Sure, you may get the occasional clown that attacks you via PM, but not only do you not have to respond th that, you just put them on your ignore list and I believe that they can't PM you.

Anyways, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you don't allow PM's. It perplexes me, so I am sorry to "hammer" the subject, and if you do not wish to answer and if you'd like me to drop the subject, just please say so. :asian: 

Thanks,

Paul


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

> Yep. I was vaguely aware of that, but could not have phrased it quite as well. Working in the medical community, I see Western scientific thought mostly represented through seeking direct causal relationships..."This bug caused that illness; this organic materia caused that genetic mutation", etc. When I start asking patients about cravings for sweet or salty foods, palpating for thready pulses, or evaluating tongue color in an ortho's medical office, I get some pretty odd looks.



*shrugs* Well, we're in the process of many significant cultural changes in the West --- and have been for about 40 years or so, I might add.

In many scientific circles, there are currently many debates about 'atomism' versus 'holism' --- often manifested say, in physics, as Newtonian model versus Einsteinian model. I personally think virtually ALL the views are fundamentally flawed in that they are horridly reductionistic and materialistic --- a holistic materialism is materialism regardless.

Nonetheless, we are in a process of change. But, really, I think this is more appropriate for another thread (which I probably wouldn't add much to, as I've pretty much said my fill here).

Laterz.


----------

