Evolution

[ShaolinWolf]

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]

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

 

[heretic888]

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]

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]

Once again, your word does not constitute proof.

Prove it. Cite primary sources.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

Well said, qizmoduis. :asian:

Laterz.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

*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]

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]

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]

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).

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: