Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75
  1.    #21  
    Originally posted by clulup
    You deduce he ignores entropy and thermodynamics just because he doesn't elaborate on it in "The Blind Watchmaker"? Believe me, he knows much more about both topics than would fit into a book for the general public.
    I deduce he ignores it because he attempts to explain something as complex as life and ignores evidence that makes his argument pointless.

    As to his knowledge, he can be smart and still be capable of faulty logic and even *gasp* lying by default.

    Scientists are supposed to examine all data, not just the data that supports their theory.
    Last edited by BobbyMike; 09/08/2003 at 10:34 PM.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  2.    #22  
    Originally posted by clulup

    As if the US would not have more than enough non-religious weirdos, starting from Ku Klux Klan to the Oklahoma bombers etc. ...
    So let's see, you named one group that has been - as they say- very quiet in the US for a while, and then one very small group of isolated nuts. How do they compare to the current and growing trends that I pointed out? To ignore the violent nature of your own people by spending your time trying to pin a violent button on others is like saying homelessness is an American problem and doesn't happen in Europe.

    Originally posted by clulup
    Of course Creationism stems from the Bible, but isn't the Bible a byproduct of religion as well? However, the US is unique in the Western world in putting any importance in the creationist view.
    ?? That's an interesting opinion (about the US and Creationism), but merely that, your opinion. Creation doesn't "stem" from the Bible either, it's part and parcel. And the Bible isn't a byproduct of religion, although it's interpretation has spawned many differing views on God.

    Originally posted by clulup
    Geocentricm and "Flat Earthism" are also "byproducts" of the Bible - does that make them any more important? Did you know that "geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html). How can you accept that someone who denies that Earth circles around the sun has any influence on education in the US?

    Actually neither of those two come from the Bible. As to your question about the "influence" I think it's a farce that evolution is taught as fact anywhere. It's still a theory as no-one has ever proved that any animal has evolved into a new animal. If you want a fair education system teach the two (evolution and creationism) side by side. Lets the kids make up their own as to which one makes sense.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3.    #23  
    Originally posted by clulup
    I perfectly agree with Dawkins' version. There is no other nation in the Western world that comes close to the US regarding religious fundamentalism.
    Define religion. Dawkins forgets to mention that Humanists and Atheists have declared themselves as religions in many countries (usually for tax reasons).
    Socialists and Communists do a pretty good imitation of zealots too. It all depends on which altar and to what idol they bend a knee too.



    aackk! This has devolved into a religion/anti-religion exchange!!


    Anybody think Bright is a good idea?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Define religion. Dawkins forgets to mention that Humanists and Atheists have declared themselves as religions in many countries (usually for tax reasons).
    Socialists and Communists do a pretty good imitation of zealots too. It all depends on which altar and to what idol they bend a knee too.



    aackk! This has devolved into a religion/anti-religion exchange!!


    Anybody think Bright is a good idea?
    I am against all sorts of narrow-minded ideologies and religions. The mind should be as unbiased as possible and open to investigate the world, test hypotheses as thoroughly as possible, accept verification and falsification, and go on to find better solutions for the problems we encounter. This way of proceeding has proven to be tremendously successful in the last 100 or 200 years, it is basically how we managed to create modern medicine, agriculture, computers, etc. For some people, e.g. books that have been written some decades or some millenia ago at least partially stand in their way of doing so, which I find sad.

    Some people develop a very strong ability to blind out well established facts if they contradict things that are written in their book or are part of their ideology. Personally I think this will ultimately be to their own disadvantage, because reality is that which does not go away even if you don't believe in it.

    For instance, some people's kids will die because their parents think donation of blood is evil, some societies will fall back in development when major parts of their population will not accept modern science any more because its results contradict what is written in their book. That's ok for me, as long as these people don't go back to burning people because of their results (e.g. that the sun does not revolve around earth).

    However, sometimes I do think it is slightly strange if people take advantage of modern science (e.g. by using antibiotics), while at the same time fighting and denying other aspects of modern science (e.g. the evolutionary adaptation of microorganisms to the selective pressure of antibiotics, as only one tiny example in the enormous amount of evidence for the evolution of species).

    Of course it is true that e.g. the theory of evolution is "only" a theory. Science is humble enough to accept that its results reflect only the current state of knowledge (or ignorance), therefore everything in science is "only" a theory that can be adapted or abandoned in the light of new results. However, the theory of evolution is backed by such a tremendous amount of data, and the contradicting evidence is so few and far between (which does not mean some people place all their focus there), and rarely (if ever) calls into question the central points of it, the vast majority of people who study evolution find it extremely likely that evolution indeed is what happened.

    But as I said, not everybody will accept every fact, no matter how well established, specially if a book written some thousand years ago says otherwise, and an important part of their life depends on that book being true, no matter what.
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [...] aackk! This has devolved into a religion/anti-religion exchange!! [...]
    LOL...you seem surprised.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6.    #26  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Of course it is true that e.g. the theory of evolution is "only" a theory. Science is humble enough to accept that its results reflect only the current state of knowledge (or ignorance), therefore everything in science is "only" a theory that can be adapted or abandoned in the light of new results. However, the theory of evolution is backed by such a tremendous amount of data, and the contradicting evidence is so few and far between (which does not mean some people place all their focus there), and rarely (if ever) calls into question the central points of it, the vast majority of people who study evolution find it extremely likely that evolution indeed is what happened.

    But as I said, not everybody will accept every fact, no matter how well established, specially if a book written some thousand years ago says otherwise, and an important part of their life depends on that book being true, no matter what.
    You seem to still confuse opinion with fact. That's sad, but your loss. As to the rest of what you said I could as easily argue that the very same attitude you tout contributed to every persons death from AIDS, the holocaust, etc. Modern science unleashes as many problems as it solves because of it's amorality. Truth is universal and it doesn't change. What changes is culture(s) attitudes towards truth.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    You seem to still confuse opinion with fact. That's sad, but your loss. As to the rest of what you said I could as easily argue that the very same attitude you tout contributed to every persons death from AIDS, the holocaust, etc. Modern science unleashes as many problems as it solves because of it's amorality. Truth is universal and it doesn't change. What changes is culture(s) attitudes towards truth.
    Since I can back everything I wrote with evidence, I do not consider it mere opinion.

    I do not see what the attitude I "tout" has to do with AIDS, holocaust, etc. Guess I am not bright enough.

    Since science is amoral in your view of this world, I worry your children are not vaccinated, don't get antibiotics or other medication, and do not eat food produced with the help of scientific methods such as chemical crop protection or modern plant breeding (specially considering that plant breeding is based on the principles of evolution, variation and selection - yuck!). Using amoral stuff is really amoral, no?

    Truth is universal? Tell me one truth that is universal. Of course religious people *believe* their truth is universal, but just about every religious group sees something completely different as truth.
    Last edited by clulup; 09/09/2003 at 07:27 AM.
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Tell me one truth that is universal.
    The VisorCentral Off Topic forum rocks!!!
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    The VisorCentral Off Topic forum rocks!!!
    Damn, I hadn't thought of that!
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    The VisorCentral Off Topic forum rocks!!!
    You're going to have to try again. Because it's the TreoCentral Off Topic forum.
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You're going to have to try again. Because it's the TreoCentral Off Topic forum.
    This is a pathetic attempt at history revisionism.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by Toby
    This is a pathetic attempt at history revisionism.
    Really? I thought it was quite noble.
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You're going to have to try again. Because it's the TreoCentral Off Topic forum.
    I guess that all depends on you're point of view, now doesn't it?

    http://discussion.visorcentral.com/v...p?s=&forumid=6
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Really? I thought it was quite noble.
    Nah...you would need to make a much better argument to make it a noble attempt. At least say "it must be on TreoCentral because that's how I got to it" or something along those lines. The work ethic of the revisionists these days... Furrfu.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15.    #35  
    Originally posted by clulup

    Since I can back everything I wrote with evidence, I do not consider it mere opinion.
    Evidence? Or merely what you read in a book and took for granted. If you can show me evidence of just one animal that can definitely be proven to have "evolved" into another animal I'll listen. I'm betting you can't.

    Originally posted by clulup
    I do not see what the attitude I "tout" has to do with AIDS, holocaust, etc. Guess I am not bright enough.
    One cannot be unbiased. That is a misnomer if I ever heard of one. AIDs turned into a world wide epidemic because of a relaxing of moral attitudes towards sex and drug use. Without casual sex and shared needles AIDs would have never spread the way it has. The Holocaust was enabled by "great" unbiased technological breakthroughs like Zyklon gas. Technology is amoral. We have to provide the morality.

    Originally posted by clulup
    Since science is amoral in your view of this world, I worry your children are not vaccinated, don't get antibiotics or other medication, and do not eat food produced with the help of scientific methods such as chemical crop protection or modern plant breeding (specially considering that plant breeding is based on the principles of evolution, variation and selection - yuck!). Using amoral stuff is really amoral, no?
    Why should you "worry" about my children? Isn't that my responsibility? BTW "scientific methods" don't usually provide what you think they do for food. Good food is still produced with a lot of very old fashioned farming.
    Science is amoral. To deny it is ridiculous unless you don't understand that morality lies only within people. Science doesn't care whether Einsteins theories produce working nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons.
    After your comment on plant breeding I now know that you really don't understand what the Theory of Evolution states. You're describing breeding that changes a characteristic in an existing plants offspring by breeding it with another plant so that you can bring out recessive genes and produce a plant with more desirable characteristics. Everything you do merely encourages what is already there to come to the surface.
    Evolution states that an animal/plant will evolve into a totally new animal/plant if given enough time, ie. a primate into a man WITHOUT any outside influence.

    Those are two very different things.

    Originally posted by clulup
    Truth is universal? Tell me one truth that is universal. Of course religious people *believe* their truth is universal, but just about every religious group sees something completely different as truth.
    Yes truth is universal. The problem with people who think like you is that you think that the only thing that is right is your point of view which says that everbody can be right, which is not only indefensible, but silly.

    Here's the some "universal" truths;

    No man/woman is perfect.

    Everybody will die at some point.

    If you spit into the wind you will get wet.

    Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is not a good idea unless it's on the ground.

    Not every choice you will make will be the right one.

    There, without even going into "religion" I managed to put some out. I could go on, but I have to meet my malnourished(forced to eat organically raised vegetables and free-range poultry) and unvaccinated(but strangely never ill) children at church where I plan to force them to play with other christian kids. (ok I'm joking about the forcing part, they love to play)
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Evidence? Or merely what you read in a book and took for granted. If you can show me evidence of just one animal that can definitely be proven to have "evolved" into another animal I'll listen. I'm betting you can't.
    What do you consider 'another animal'? Pugs and great danes can be considered different animals although both are obviously dogs, much like although we and apes are different we're both obviously primates. We really only have a couple thousand years of recorded history [and a lot of that is influenced by whatever agenda the recorder (or a later 'editor') may have wanted to push], so we're not going to get photographic evidence any time soon. Considering your statement in the next quote here, I have a hard time believing you're not being a tad overly strict in your terminology on purpose, though.
    After your comment on plant breeding I now know that you really don't understand what the Theory of Evolution states.
    You speak as if there's a Bible which preaches a theory of evolution which 'scientific' people must follow like a religion. That tells me you really don't understand science or evolution (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).
    You're describing breeding that changes a characteristic in an existing plants offspring by breeding it with another plant so that you can bring out recessive genes and produce a plant with more desirable characteristics. Everything you do merely encourages what is already there to come to the surface.
    And considering the amount of DNA all living things on the planet have in common...
    Evolution states that an animal/plant will evolve into a totally new animal/plant if given enough time, ie. a primate into a man WITHOUT any outside influence.
    No, it doesn't. All evolution really states is that organisms will adapt to their surroundings eventually by selecting the 'best' heritable traits to survive in those surroundings ('best' in quotes since 'best' will obviously vary depending on context).
    Those are two very different things.
    Not particularly. If us puny-brained men can do it, I don't see how it would be that difficult for good old natural selection to do it (or if you really need to pick a diety, God(s)/Nature/Gaia). Survival is a much stronger influence than seeing if we can make a seedless watermelon, IMO.
    Yes truth is universal. The problem with people who think like you is that you think that the only thing that is right is your point of view which says that everbody can be right, which is not only indefensible, but silly.
    I don't think he said everyone can be right.
    Here's the some "universal" truths;

    No man/woman is perfect.

    Everybody will die at some point.
    Really? How do you know? One would assume you don't really believe this, though, if you're really a religious man.
    If you spit into the wind you will get wet.
    Depends on lots of variables which can't always be counted upon.
    Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is not a good idea unless it's on the ground. [...]
    Or you're trying to kill yourself.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    I guess that all depends on you're point of view, now doesn't it?

    http://discussion.visorcentral.com/v...p?s=&forumid=6
    Hasn't this discussion just proven that out world is too complicated for universal truth - I really love that point of view example...
  18. #38  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Evidence? Or merely what you read in a book and took for granted. If you can show me evidence of just one animal that can definitely be proven to have "evolved" into another animal I'll listen. I'm betting you can't.

    .....

    Why should you "worry" about my children? Isn't that my responsibility? BTW "scientific methods" don't usually provide what you think they do for food. Good food is still produced with a lot of very old fashioned farming

    .....

    After your comment on plant breeding I now know that you really don't understand what the Theory of Evolution states. You're describing breeding that changes a characteristic in an existing plants offspring by breeding it with another plant so that you can bring out recessive genes and produce a plant with more desirable characteristics. Everything you do merely encourages what is already there to come to the surface.

    ...

    Evolution states that an animal/plant will evolve into a totally new animal/plant if given enough time, ie. a primate into a man WITHOUT any outside influence.

    Those are two very different things.

    ....

    I could go on, but I have to meet my malnourished (forced to eat organically raised vegetables and free-range poultry) and unvaccinated (but strangely never ill) children at church where I plan to force them to play with other christian kids. (ok I'm joking about the forcing part, they love to play)
    Let me clarify a few terms first: two animals (similar with plants) are considered being part of two different species in case they cannot produce fertile offspring when interbreeding.

    Evolution is based on two phenomena: variation and selection. Let me give you an example out of my personal experience:

    Take the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli for short) and let it grow in an appropriate medium (liquid). Let them grow happily. Then add the antibiotic spectinomycin, which kills Escherichia coli. The bacteria all stop growing and most of them die.

    However, after a while you will see strong growth of bacteria again. Why is that, scientists have wondered and found out (after many experiments): The bacteria that grow are still E. coli, but invariably there is a tiny variation in their DNA: one of the bases in their 16R rDNA (gene) has changed (say there is a "G" instead of an "A"): a so called point mutation took place which led to a slightly different gene product to which spectinomycin can no longer "attach". This can easily be shown be determining the base sequence of the E. coli DNA in spectinomycin sensitve and spectinomycin resistant E. coli.

    It can be shown just as easily, that point mutations (and also other sorts of mutations) happen all the time. Most of the variation is bad for the organism, but some of them lead to a *selective advantage*, which enables them to multiply faster under the prevailing conditions or to have more offspring, offsping which - cool enough - carry the same advantageous slightly variant DNA. That is evolution. It happens all the time, it can be (and is) observed in the test tube, in nature, in animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, everywhere, plain to see for those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and an open mind.

    If e.g. the variation is strong, a group of animals is separated (e.g. by climatic change which leads to a mountain becoming an insurmountable barrier, continental drift, etc., variations may accumulate and lead to animals that cannot interbreed any more, i.e. two different species. Very simple, unless e.g. some book blocks the free flow of thoughts. Take man an shimpanzee. Their DNA is almost identical, but a major part in one of the chromosomes has changed its orientation. An effect that can be observed quite often in genetics. What I have described here has been written down in far better words in many places, try this one: http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/

    Now to plant breeding: take good old wheat as only one example. It is basically a genetic monster containing the genomes of three (3) different species. It cannot interbreed with anything in nature. And yet it is the descendant of natural species, the product of variation and selection (by man, hence breeding). It is precisely what you are looking for: a new species that has evolved a few thousand years ago, in the hands of some of the first farmers on this world.

    Now to organic farming: it is kind of romantic, but it has (among other shortcomings) one major flaw: it could only feed a very small part of the population of this world. It is a romatic luxury for a few (like you), who can always get other food in case their crop has been devastated by some fungus or another pest. There is organic farming in Third World Countries, but only because they cannot afford better means, and the result of that (malnutrition) in only too obvious in many countries.

    Now to vaccination: according to the US Centers for Disease Control, about two in 100 reported cases of measles die (Mayo Clinic Summary). Why are your kids healthy and don't get e.g. the measles? Simple: because the vast majority of american kids (namely all of those who go to a "normal" school and are not "homeschooled" like yours) are vaccinated e.g. against measles. The parents of those kids are responsible, they - or their kids - take the very small risk that is associated with vaccination and thereby prevent an epidemic in the US. You go for a free ride, and you even seem to feel clever about it, mentioning how healthy your kids are. To be honest, I find that slightly disgusting.
  19.    #39  
    Originally posted by Toby
    What do you consider 'another animal'? etc...
    To make it simple, how about a small rodent-like mammal and man. That's the theory of evolution at work. You can say what you want about not having photographic evidence, I'd just like any definite proof. instead i get nothing but conjecture about "natuaral selection". What is that? A mystical force? Next you'll be saying aliens seeded our world.

    Originally posted by Toby
    You speak as if there's a Bible which preaches a theory of evolution which 'scientific' people must follow like a religion. That tells me you really don't understand science or evolution (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).
    I understand it quite well Toby, I'm just frustrated by it's proponents. When you have them continually saying that creationism is bunk, but they have NO evidence to support their thoeory, that holds water, I get tired of people confusing what they call fact with conjecture. It seems to come down to the prpoponents of evolution (the scientists who write about it) having a philosophical challenge with creationism which drives them to believe in an idea that they themselves don't believe will ever truly be proven for fact.

    Originally posted by Toby
    And considering the amount of DNA all living things on the planet have in common...
    The main contention seems to be that given enough time and the right circumstances (enviroment) a lizard could evolve into a bird. All this theory does is ignore mathamatical probability and basic biology.
    Originally posted by Toby
    No, it doesn't. All evolution really states is that organisms will adapt to their surroundings eventually by selecting the 'best' heritable traits to survive in those surroundings ('best' in quotes since 'best' will obviously vary depending on context).
    And then the belief is that eventually, given enough time will evolve into a new animal, completely independent of the first animal. There's a big difference between Darwins finches (which colud be bred back into their "original" form) and primate to man.

    Originally posted by Toby
    Not particularly. If us puny-brained men can do it, I don't see how it would be that difficult for good old natural selection to do it (or if you really need to pick a diety, God(s)/Nature/Gaia). Survival is a much stronger influence than seeing if we can make a seedless watermelon, IMO.
    Now you're getting mystical and sloppy. Natural selection? If there were a thing like natural selection it would be comparble to a deaf, dumb, and blind ***** groping in the dark. Not exactly my best choice for creating life. As to your next examples you come back to God, and then your convention says that it OK for a god to be involved, but just if it follows the conventions and boundaries set up under the heading of evolution.

    Originally posted by Toby
    I don't think he said everyone can be right.
    Not in this posting did he say that exactly, but we do have a history of conversation and he has a tendancy (to my eyes) to want to shy away from anything absolute.


    Originally posted by Toby
    Really? How do you know? One would assume you don't really believe this, though, if you're really a religious man.
    Well, I do and I am. I was referring to man and his physical body -both supported by the Bible.

    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Depends on lots of variables which can't always be counted upon.Or you're trying to kill yourself.
    I know, I should have added "... if you want to live.". As I said before, nobodies perfect!
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    The main contention seems to be that given enough time and the right circumstances (enviroment) a lizard could evolve into a bird. All this theory does is ignore mathamatical probability and basic biology.

    ...

    And then the belief is that eventually, given enough time will evolve into a new animal, completely independent of the first animal. There's a big difference between Darwins finches (which colud be bred back into their "original" form) and primate to man.

    ....

    Now you're getting mystical and sloppy. Natural selection? If there were a thing like natural selection it would be comparble to a deaf, dumb, and blind ***** groping in the dark.
    Your view of the theory of evolution is so horribly contorted that - since I consider you a perfectly intelligent and educated person - my only explanation is that some sort of ideology/religion is blocking your understanding (I am not saying acceptance) of at least the basic principles of evolution.

    As if evolution would claim that one species/animal wil "evolve into a new animal, completely independent of the first animal"...

    What is the huge difference between a primate like a chimpanzee
    and modern man? Our brain is bigger, our ability of using tools greater, they have self-knowledge, too, even if our's is much deeper, we can talk and write, the can't talk and only learn a fairly simple form of sign-language when we teach them, apart from their own fairly differentiated non-verbal language... all of these are only gradual differences. Is it so f.... impossible or improbable that we have common ancestors (considering we share more than 98% of our DNA?

    There once was a time when people (members of the church were very prominent among them) would refuse to look through Galileo Galilei's telescope, because they did not want to see the moons of Jupiter circling around the planet. It would have disturbed their view of the universe. Now, a few hundred years later, the Geocentrists are still around (as mentioned earlier), but most people have come to accept that they are not sitting in the middle of the universe - most of them handle it well. Apparently, the theory of evolution seems even more difficult to accept....
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions