Rorty
|
 posted on 10/11/04 at 02:32 AM |
|
|
Questioning evolution.
This from today's Ney York Times:
CLICK HERE
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
|
|
The Shootist
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 03:02 AM |
|
|
Yeah, that's Georgia for you!
The Georgia state line is just 20 mile south from here..... scarey folks down there.
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 04:48 AM |
|
|
Whaddya expect from folks who were on the side that invented the rebel yell?
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 10:08 AM |
|
|
well, the world ends not far from where I live. (see the clubs and events section)
If you go there you fall off the edge of the world.
I want stickers for that too. The pictures of earth from space are all a put up job by nasa, produced by computer.
They want us not to fall of the edge of the world, cos its only a short drop to a land of naked horny women, and the powers that be want them all to
themselves.
I think this stands up pretty well against other crap consipracy theories.
[Edited on 10/11/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
type r1
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 10:46 AM |
|
|
peeps,
evolution is a theory.
believing that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet is just as much an act of faith as believing that god created everything.
granted, there is a fossil record of what happened before any of us were around, but there are no reliable dating methods. it is just speculation that
life in all it's complexity originated from single cell organisms millions of years ago. to a creationist, there is plenty of evidence to
support a belief in intelligent design and a young earth.
if the separation of church and state means that faiths cannot be taught in schools, then that must include the teaching that evolution explains our
origins, as that is also a belief system.
you can't have your cake and eat it!
regards,
dom.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 10:58 AM |
|
|
there is a hell of a lot of evidence for evolution (not least that you can see it happening in a test tube...) but it is still a theory. Theories can
only be disproven, never proven. If after many years of trying no on ehas disproved it, people accept it. but it is still unproven, even after the
theory has predicted testable things.
the problem isnt with evolution, it is with origin. Many of the elements of evolution (gene copying by transposons, mutation, survival of the fittest
etc) are nothing to do with the origin of life, which is a far more basic idea. They talk about RNA catalysts, as a precursor to DNA and proteins, and
stuff like that, with lots of nice ideas but no cohesive postulation.
dont they teach religion in schools anymore?
if you want to see evolution happen, get a colony of bacteria that cant metabolise a specific sugar, eg fructose, and grow them on an agar plate with
glucose in it. Gradually reduce the glucose content, add some fructose, and a mutagen to speed things up, and after some time you will find bacteria
that can live off both. genetic analysis will show that these bacteria have mutuated a spare gene and have developed a new metabolic pathway. with
harsh conditions you can select a more able bacteria.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
tom_loughlin
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 10:59 AM |
|
|
i thought half-life dating (or whatever its called) is about the most reliable dating method going. not too accurate for short-term, but over a long
time, its supposed to be very good.
but what do i know
tom
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
IIRC carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years. i seem to remember that you need a fossilised tree to compare it to, but i might be wrong.
aging is usually related the surrounding layers of soil. Like on a cliff face when you see the layers of sedament. These layers have been linked up in
different cliffs around the world.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
many of the stories in the bible are tosh to explain away things that people 1000s of years ago wanted answers for, and the establishment needed to
provide answers for.
when gallileo said that the earth wasnt the centre of the universe, he was threatned with excomunication and eternal hell. The establishment didnt
like the teopry cos it didnt fit.
Did god make the world in seven days? Nope. But it was convenient to give this answer a long time ago.
did the arc exists, and for insance, contain the 10,000's of thousands of different cockroach species?
If you really want to believe and follow the bible, you will have an interesting lifestyle.
The old testament says that womens periods hurt as its revenge for eve and the apple. That women must leave town for 6 weeks after childbirth while
they bleed. That you must marry your brothers wife if he dies.
These probably stem from hygiene reasons in a 45 degrees C palestine, and lack of a social security system.
There is way too much scientific theory to support the bibles descriptions of things. Why did god go on to create venus, mars, and an infinate
universe, and dinosaurs and the like.
Take the bible as a historical document, written by human beings in a primative civilisation, without the benefit of modern science and social
programs.
If you want to take it literally you may as well join the taleban
atb
steve
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 11:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
These layers have been linked up in different cliffs around the world.
Cliff Richard, Cliff Thorburn, Cliff................
Enjoy
73 Days & Counting
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
mackie
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
Well said Steve.
The stuborness of people that refuse to even consider the scientific evidence and make their own mind up infuriates me.
As a rough moral guide the Bible may be ok (if riddled with contradictions and largely out of date) but as an account of what really happened
it's tosh.
I have no problem with people that do believe in a higher power, there is so much yet to explain that it's easy to see why people do (even if
not religious). Taking 2000 year old stories literally just beggars belief in my opinion.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 12:16 PM |
|
|
From the very first RI class at boarding school, where I had christianity hammered into me, I couldn't understand how anyone could believe such
a load of tripe, let alone admit publically that they believed in it. It's akin to Tony Blair anouncing he has fairies living at the bottom of
his garden, or the chairman of the Bank of England admitting he was abducted by aliens.
I spent a very confused childhood growing up amongst some extremely inteligent people whom I largely admired for their intellect, yet they fervently
believed (and would have me believe in) a god who nobody could prove to me ever existed.
I have never seen, nor know of anyone who has seen, any example or evidence of god or his son.
At least there is an ever increasing bank of evidence to support the very believable theory of evolution.
I once saw Santa Clause tip-toeing out of my bedroom, but I soon worked that one out.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
yeah , when i was at loughborough doing my HND - there was a chap from kenya who had a strict christian upbringing - he was studying biology ,
chemistry and physics as A levels , he was a really clever chap . Now i started a conversation about evolution , and basically it was monkeys , half
apes etc etc - the guy was completely taken aback - God created us , theres no way we developed from monkeys etc .
I completely pissed myself laughing , he didnt have a clue LOL , but was studying biology and physics etc .
His old man was well to do i kenyas political system - so hes probably running something important right now LOL
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
I don't believe it !!!!
You lot will be telling me the earth's not flat next. Stop this blasphemy now or you'll all be turned into pillars of salt or burn forever
in the fires of damnation. At least it'll be warm though.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
tom_loughlin
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
to me, the whole point of people having some sort of faith/religion is to give them something wo work and live for - if it keeps them happy then
fine.
as it happens, im trying to read stephen hawkings brief history of time (well over my head) after watching donny darko the other day, but at the end
of the day, a theory is only there to be proved wrong.
everytime an experiment goes along with the theory, it just strengthens the arguement until someone comes along and proives with a different view.
tom
|
|
|
MikeP
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 04:27 PM |
|
|
I've seen many worse cases of attempts to suppress scientific theories coming out of the states - very sad IMO - there's quite a bit of
scientific ignorance in the general population there according to studies (the same here too I bet).
There's certainly much more supporting evidence of the theory evolution that I can examine personally than there is for creationism (i.e. none).
That's important to me, my strongest held belief is in the scientific method  .
Ignoring the insidious intent of the sticker in the article, I actually like it - put it everywhere but math textbooks. I still remember, many
decades ago, when my science teacher would not accept my answer "because it says so in the text book" as proof something was true - he
taught us to think for ourselves.
It's pretty rare to hear of an athiest who would kill or die for their beliefs, I wish religious zealots felt the same way  .
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeP
I've seen many worse cases of attempts to suppress scientific theories coming out of the states - very sad IMO - there's quite a bit of
scientific ignorance in the general population there according to studies (the same here too I bet).
Like the pseudo-scientific survey they did a while ago - interviewers asked people in the street whether they were concerned about the very high
levels of oxygen di-hydride* in the atmosphere. Many people replied that the government should do something about it...
David
* I think that's what they called it... an other way of saying "H2O".
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 05:21 PM |
|
|
Ok so my last reply on this subject was an attempt at humour that failed, so here goes, ( & I shall probably be condemned to rot in what ever
version is applicable to any/all religious types that might read this {esp islamics}).
Religion (IMHO) has, is, and always will be a matter of personal belief. Whether you believe in a supreme being or not then that is YOUR religion. A
religious faith is where a group of people gather and worship to a similar rite/god/being. Now then these groups are nearly always (in this day and
age IMHO ALLEGEDLY) control/ruled by a head who has supreme power. These people are only really in that possition because it suits thier craving for
absolute power because of the respect or money that it imparts to them. If you look at all the worlds religious tomes you will find that they all say
or preach broadly the same thing. Our bibles have all been corrupted by religious leaders to a greater or lesser extent to suit their needs at that
time.
I believe that the bible was originally written by some very clever people the FIRST WRITTEN record of a verbal history of what had gone before. To
whit there are translation errors that are to this day continued because it suits the church rather that he history. IE the parting of the red sea
should be the parting of the REED sea. If the errors in the bible were to be admitted then the church would loose its power base and therby the
prelates/heirachy their power/income.
Even science has some pretty big answers that we cannot come up with.
What was there before the big bang.?
What caused the big Bang?
If you could travel to the end of the vaccuum that is space, What would there be beyond it?
But most of all Do I Really CARE!......... Not when I have been dead for 20 000 000 years.
Enjoy 73 Days To Go
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
ceebmoj
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 08:50 PM |
|
|
Hi,
I think of my self as an atheist.
However it occurred to me that many regions subscribe to the idea that it is your belief in something that can not be proven that show you have faith
and hence for there god to prove its existence would prove that it was not a god.
After this thourt I realised the similarity between since and religion in fact to most since is a religion in which they believe. Siting supposed
proofs of this or that witch are only really a circumstantial evidence at best which supports a tower of other interlined theories which is there
church of since.
When I think back to every level of education I have been through the first thing I have been told is to forget what when before as it was a lie and
what I will learn in this year is what really happens. I feal that the bibe should be taken in this light a bunch of stores written by reasonably
clever people to try and explain a variaty of events and actinon for good or bad. Much like the fist since text book I had it is mainly lies but it
hopes to take you a place where you ca learn more.
On a slightly different note I have just read “angles and demons” and “The Da vinci code” by dan brown bot very good books and that reasonably
informative for fiction giving a brief description of how the Christian church twisted the meanings of many simbols and systems of the sientists of
the day in to being related to the deval and hence a bad thing wort a read in my opnyon.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 08:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
... there are translation errors that are to this day continued because it suits the church rather that he history. IE the parting of the red sea
should be the parting of the REED sea.
I don't think they spoke English back then (let alone in that part of the world), so that typo can't really apply.
I believe the only reason any religion exists is because of superstition and ignorance. The more light science sheds on our planet, the less relevant
and credible religions become, though there is currently a strong christian/rock music youth movement which I don't understand. Some of the
highest music record sales are christian rock titles.
It's human nature to want an emotional and psychological crutch, but scientific explanations go along way to appease this.
Then there are the fundalmentalists whose religions are so deeply interwoven with their daily lives that they can be a threat to more rational
peoples.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
MikeP
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 11:00 PM |
|
|
I'll say this - you need to be brave to declare yourself an athiest on a public forum in this (not so new) era of religious intolerance. While
many of them hate each other, it seems like there's one thing the various religions of the world all agree on - athiests are evil and must be
eliminated ... I guess athiests and science are scary 'cause they keep kicking at the religious crutches .
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
Even science has some pretty big answers that we cannot come up with.
What was there before the big bang.?
What caused the big Bang?
If you could travel to the end of the vaccuum that is space, What would there be beyond it?
ooh i love this one! cos i can answer them...
as the big bang allegedly heralded the begining of both space and time, there was nothing before the big bang, not cos there was nothing there then,
but cos there was no then either. and beyond the vacuum, is nothing, because there is no space for it to exist in!
not a clue what caused the big bang though... sorry.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 12:46 AM |
|
|
The evolution of sex
The place where evolution theory fails me is the point in history at which single sex organisms became separate sex organisms. Consider, for
example:
1) Using the logic of "survival of the fittest," what set of conditions would favor two sexes over self-replication?
2) If the first single-sex organisms were mutations, how likely is it that one could find an opposite-sex mutant within its lifetime with which to
reproduce?
3) If your "nature" is to reproduce without any other organism, what would be your reaction to some queer (in the non-gay sense)
organism wanting to "sex you up?"
Good thing the two sex model emerged before people were invented - I don't think most would go for it if it weren't already the norm.
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 11:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
ooh i love this one! cos i can answer them...
as the big bang allegedly heralded the begining of both space and time, there was nothing before the big bang, not cos there was nothing there then,
but cos there was no then either. and beyond the vacuum, is nothing, because there is no space for it to exist in!
not a clue what caused the big bang though... sorry.
If there was nothing, then there was nothing to go bang. Ergo there must have been something, thence what was that?.
Personally I reckon that there was this pair of gas fitters looking for a gas leak with a faglighter!!!!
Enjoy. 72 Days to Go
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 11:39 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by carcentric
The place where evolution theory fails me is the point in history at which single sex organisms became separate sex organisms. Consider, for
example:
1) Using the logic of "survival of the fittest," what set of conditions would favor two sexes over self-replication?
2) If the first single-sex organisms were mutations, how likely is it that one could find an opposite-sex mutant within its lifetime with which to
reproduce?
3) If your "nature" is to reproduce without any other organism, what would be your reaction to some queer (in the non-gay sense)
organism wanting to "sex you up?"
Good thing the two sex model emerged before people were invented - I don't think most would go for it if it weren't already the norm.
If you can answer these babies then you know which came first, The Chicken OR The Egg?
Enjoy. 72 Days to Go.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
