Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 75
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    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.
    Does the genomic similarity between said animals count? How about layering on top of that natural selection's observation on a shorter time-scale (clearly documented with moths, bacteria, etc)?
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    To make it simple, how about a small rodent-like mammal and man.
    If you're seeking evidence for a mouse turning into man, then obviously we wouldn't have enough time in our lifetime for that to be a possibility, and we don't have a few hundred million years to experiment.
    That's the theory of evolution at work.
    Not exactly.
    You can say what you want about not having photographic evidence, I'd just like any definite proof.
    Antibiotic resistant bacteria is one of the best examples which can be observed in our lifetimes.
    instead i get nothing but conjecture about "natuaral selection". What is that? A mystical force?
    No. Quite the opposite. It's 'natural', just like breathing. It's the aggregate result of individual 'trials' in reproduction.
    Next you'll be saying aliens seeded our world.
    Umm...no, but I find that theory about as plausible as the 6-day theory...well, maybe slightly moreso.
    I understand it quite well Toby,
    Then what's this gobbledegook about aliens?
    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,
    No evidence that you'll buy into does not equal no evidence.
    [...] The main contention seems to be that given enough time and the right circumstances (enviroment) a lizard could evolve into a bird.
    No, that's not what evolution says at all. More accurate would be that somewhere back in time, lizards and birds had a common ancestry which because of environmental factors forked, and over time they became quite different creatures which could no longer interbreed. There's no guarantee that starting today the same course of events would take place and produce the same result. AAMOF, it's improbable that they would.
    All this theory does is ignore mathamatical probability and basic biology.
    I think your grasp of mathematical probability and basic biology may not be a strong as you think.
    And then the belief is that eventually, given enough time will evolve into a new animal, completely independent of the first animal.
    This is not a foregone conclusion.
    There's a big difference between Darwins finches (which colud be bred back into their "original" form) and primate to man.
    Maybe, but science and evolutionary theory is not bound to Darwin. That's why I'm saying you either don't understand science or are intentionally misrepresenting it. One of the basic tenets of science is that everything we think now may be proven inaccurate tomorrow, but the new 'knowledge' will be integrated (or replace the old 'knowledge') going forward. Einstein's Theory of Relativity may be total hogwash at a quantum level, but science goes on. Science is an epistemology, not a religion.
    Now you're getting mystical and sloppy.
    No, I was getting humorous there.
    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 much worse than an insane, prankster God which can get involved in the day-to-day affairs of life in Biblical times, but has decided to go laissez-faire since then.
    Not exactly my best choice for creating life.
    That's the best thing about it. It doesn't care if you believe in it or not.
    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.
    Actually, I'm saying more that evolution is demonstrated on a micro level on a daily basis, so it's not that hard to extrapolate it to a larger level over time by aggregation. If you want to attribute that to some 'higher power' or 'intelligence' like a God or whatever, that doesn't bother me.
    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.
    I don't see that as being any better or worse than your tendency to run to absolutes.
    Well, I do and I am. I was referring to man and his physical body -both supported by the Bible. [...]
    So, a physical body is what makes man?
    ‎"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...
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by clulup
    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).
    May want to rephrase that. You seem to (judging by your example) think it strange that people take advantage of modern science while trying to disprove (or generally rail against) the tenets that led to the developments being taken advantage of. I think it very 'scientific' that some aspects can be selectively rejected.

    Either way, is it not more 'scientific' to question those tenets than to let them lie simply becuase they seem to work? When my mother loses something, she says a short invocation to Saint Anthony. Everytime I have heard her say that invocation, I have known her to find whatever item she was looking for. I did it when I was a kid, but the success rate was **** poor. I just tried it recently when my 4 y/o son lost a lense from his glasses, and sure as ____ it worked. There are many explanations for why. Maybe my subconscious mind only allows me to remember that invocation when the odds of finding X are very good. Maybe Saint Anthony (or God) wishes to teach children that they don't always get what they ask for.

    And to redress some things that have not been clarified to my satisfaction:
    ...in the most religiose country in the Western world...
    Religiose and Religious are not interchangeable. They are pronounced differently, and depending on one's definition of 'religious', may be completely contradictory. Either way, it's an asinine claim. I'm getting tired of people trying to define an attitude of a 'country'. It's rather like saying that the cells in my body are reproducing to keep me alive.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 09/11/2003 at 12:03 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by clulup
    ...To be honest, I find that slightly disgusting.
    This statement is hilarious. The glaring hypocricy inherent within makes me think it can only be a joke.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    This statement is hilarious. The glaring hypocricy inherent within makes me think it can only be a joke.
    I found my statement rather unfriendly after I had written it, but it was not really meant funny.

    What do you find glaringly hypocritical about it?

    Fact is: the number of children dying from measles in the US is close to zero because the vast majority of parents vaccinate their children against it. The risk inherent to the vaccination is not zero, however, it is sevral orders of magnitude smaller than the risk associated with the disease (about 2 in 100 reported cases of measles die according to CDC results).

    The high percentage of people who are vaccinated (like my kids) makes sure that no epidemic (widespread occurrence of the disease) can take place. This protects also the children that are not vaccinated.

    They (or better their parents who have the responsibility) are freeloaders: people who obtained a benefit without the usual cost, effort or risk. Personally, I don't like freeloaders too much (you don't care?). If one of them then even stresses the superb health of his children, a health they at least partly enjoy because their neighbors take the risk of vaccination (against measles, but there are of course lots of even worse diseases they are protected from thanks to the vaccination of others), then I find that... well, not very nice, to say the least.
  6. #46  
    That's interesting. I'd not thought of the communal aspect of vaccination. Guess that's why the guvment more or less mandates it (whether by decree of just really really really wanting you to).
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    [...] Either way, is it not more 'scientific' to question those tenets than to let them lie simply becuase they seem to work?
    That depends on the level of inquiry.
    When my mother loses something, she says a short invocation to Saint Anthony. Everytime I have heard her say that invocation, I have known her to find whatever item she was looking for.
    Then experiment to prove your hypothesis. Remove an item completely from her home and see if St. Anthony will find it for her.
    I did it when I was a kid, but the success rate was **** poor. I just tried it recently when my 4 y/o son lost a lense from his glasses, and sure as ____ it worked. There are many explanations for why.
    The most likely is that you weren't really careful and concentrated as a child, but since glass lenses can be expensive, you were much more dedicated to the search as an adult.
    Maybe my subconscious mind only allows me to remember that invocation when the odds of finding X are very good. Maybe Saint Anthony (or God) wishes to teach children that they don't always get what they ask for.
    And maybe pink unicorns really rule the Earth.
    And to redress some things that have not been clarified to my satisfaction:

    Religiose and Religious are not interchangeable. They are pronounced differently, and depending on one's definition of 'religious', may be completely contradictory. Either way, it's an asinine claim. I'm getting tired of people trying to define an attitude of a 'country'.
    Oops, more sloppy weekend reading. I read it as religious. Going by Webster's definition of religiose, I'd agree. In aggregate the US is really good at fervent or sentimental attachment to religion, but is terrible at actually 'walking the walk' where most religions are concerned. I _do_ consider those two terms contradictory (well, maybe not polar opposites, but at least bizarro world complements).
    It's rather like saying that the cells in my body are reproducing to keep me alive.
    In aggregate they are. They're likely not consciously doing it for that purpose, but if they stopped, your body would surely die.
    ‎"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...
  8. #48  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    You seem to (judging by your example) think it strange that people take advantage of modern science while trying to disprove (or generally rail against) the tenets that led to the developments being taken advantage of.
    Slightly so, yes. Science is a method, a method that has proven tremendously successful. Enjoying the fruits of this method (like medicine, Visors, Treos, etc.) and at the same time not accepting other results that have been achieved by the very same method seems a bit inconsistent to me.

    Some may claim that there is also scientific evidence for Creationism, or scientific proof that Evolution does not work. That may be true to some extent, but when you look at the whole picture and weigh the evidence fairly, the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming.
  9. #49  
    Originally posted by clulup
    What do you find glaringly hypocritical about it?
    Fact is, the components that make that computer you seem to enjoy using is made for pennies by people that will never enjoy the luxuries you are. That is one example of how you are directly taking advantage of other people. We can delve deeper and look at the clothes you wear, the utilities you use, etc. The fact that you find it slightly disgusting when someone else takes advantage of other people to live life the way they want while doing the exact same thing is hypocritical.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  10. #50  
    Why is it taking advantage of them? Is it because we wouldn't do it?

    The fact of the matter is, the computer was built by a line of people making voluntary decisions all attempting to better themselves.
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by Toby
    That depends on the level of inquiry.
    Good point.
    Then experiment to prove your hypothesis. Remove an item completely from her home and see if St. Anthony will find it for her.
    There's no point to do so. In fact, doing so would only be seen as proof toward either camp again - which is my point.

    To clarify that point: there are a lot of people who make science their religion. They scare me as much or more than people who believe in an organized religion. At least organized religion tries to make allowances for morality, whereas science does (or should) do no such thing. Study morality, yes. Define morality, no.

    The most likely is that you weren't really careful and concentrated as a child, but since glass lenses can be expensive, you were much more dedicated to the search as an adult.
    Very possible.
    And maybe pink unicorns really rule the Earth.
    True, but there are less people that believe that than believe either of my proposals, or yours for that matter.

    The flip side of that coin: we all drink kool-aid.

    In aggregate they are. They're likely not consciously doing it for that purpose, but if they stopped, your body would surely die.
    True, I was just pointing out that cells do not reproduce to keep me alive. They're reproducing because they want/need to for their own benefit, which becomes evident in the case of cancer. It was the closest analogy I could think of to saying 'Country X believes Y'.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Slightly so, yes. Science is a method, a method that has proven tremendously successful. Enjoying the fruits of this method (like medicine, Visors, Treos, etc.) and at the same time not accepting other results that have been achieved by the very same method seems a bit inconsistent to me.
    How is it inconsistent? IMO, it's entirely the point. The scientific method is not infallible. You seem to be claiming that it is. That designation is reserved for the Pope. Just ask him.

    Some may claim that there is also scientific evidence for Creationism, or scientific proof that Evolution does not work. That may be true to some extent, but when you look at the whole picture and weigh the evidence fairly, the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming.
    I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I find it much more plausible than the theory of creationism. Personally, I find the story of creation interesting if interpreted as the Dawning of Human Consciousness. Not that humans gained self-awareness over a 6 day span, but it may have seemed that way to someone becoming self-aware - someone who passed stories on to his/her self-aware children. Stories that get altered until written down, which would correspond in the Bible with the level of detail that explodes in the later books.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  13. #53  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Why is it taking advantage of them? Is it because we wouldn't do it?

    The fact of the matter is, the computer was built by a line of people making voluntary decisions all attempting to better themselves.
    It's not because we wouldn't do it, it's because we wouldn't do it for that price. You seriously believe they're trying to better themselves? I'm sure the only reason they took that job is for self betterment and has nothing to do with hunger. That's why I work at the cable company: to help people and to better myself. That's why everyone loves America. We're benefactors, allowing 3rd world countries the opportunity to better themselves. In fact, we're friggin' martyrs, giving up all that betterment to sit on our ***, drink liquor and watch the ballgame.

    Bill Gates is the next Jesus Christ!

    At any rate, the point I was making was every one of us lives at the expense of others. The best we can ask for is trying to cover those expenses as best we can.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  14. #54  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    There's no point to do so. In fact, doing so would only be seen as proof toward either camp again - which is my point.
    Nah...that's why repeated, controlled experiments would be in order. They would also have to be documented and published in a manner to make them independently verifiable (or debunkable).
    To clarify that point: there are a lot of people who make science their religion.
    Methinks we've trod upon this ground before. I've never met one of these people personally.
    [...] True, but there are less people that believe that than believe either of my proposals, or yours for that matter.
    Numbers are really irrelevant.
    The flip side of that coin: we all drink kool-aid.
    I never liked Kool-Aid.
    ‎"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. #55  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    [...] Bill Gates is the next Jesus Christ! [...]
    Let's experiment. Crucify him.
    ‎"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...
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    In fact, we're friggin' martyrs, giving up all that betterment to sit on our ***, drink liquor and watch the ballgame.
    There is the flaw in your argument. Just because someone gains something doesn't mean someone else has lost it.
  17. #57  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Nah...that's why repeated, controlled experiments would be in order. They would also have to be documented and published in a manner to make them independently verifiable (or debunkable).
    A God with free will may not jump through hoops to satisfy curiosity. That's why experimentation isn't proof.

    To expound: If I take something my mother would notice and say her invocation for, it's not going to be something I'd want to keep indefinitely. The act of giving it back after the experiment could easily be seen as 'proof' that the invocation worked. And if I never returned it, she'd see proof that God doesn't interfere with free will, etc.

    To stop playing devil's advocate for a moment, even with purely scientific experimentation results don't necessarily proove a hypothesis. The goal (obviously) is to get as conclusive as possible.

    Methinks we've trod upon this ground before. I've never met one of these people personally.
    Mayhap. I'm not remembering the conversation. I have. Clulup was coming close.

    Numbers are really irrelevant.
    The less of them there are, the better.

    I never liked Kool-Aid.
    It's alright, I like anti-freeze much better.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  18. #58  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    There is the flaw in your argument. Just because someone gains something doesn't mean someone else has lost it.
    I love truisms.

    <nods sagely>
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  19. #59  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Let's experiment. Crucify him.
    I'm trying to think of a reference toward the security holes in his OS's, but coming up short.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    A God with free will may not jump through hoops to satisfy curiosity.
    Pish-tosh. A God that can't reliably come through for his believers can't be trusted to come through for much of anything else.
    That's why experimentation isn't proof.
    I never said experimentation was necessarily proof, but rather that it was a more reliable predictor than anecdote.
    To expound: If I take something my mother would notice and say her invocation for, it's not going to be something I'd want to keep indefinitely. The act of giving it back after the experiment could easily be seen as 'proof' that the invocation worked. And if I never returned it, she'd see proof that God doesn't interfere with free will, etc.
    Neither of your proofs hold up to logic, though. Pray to Joe Pesci for guidance.
    To stop playing devil's advocate for a moment, even with purely scientific experimentation results don't necessarily proove a hypothesis. The goal (obviously) is to get as conclusive as possible. [...]
    Well, we can obviously dismiss the scientific method then. We'll just rely on superstition and tribal elders.
    ‎"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...
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions