OT - Questions about evolution

Share this page

<div><object width="480" height="414"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xms3y_house-of-pain-jump-around_music&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xms3y_house-of-pain-jump-around_music&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="414" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xms3y_house-of-pain-jump-around_music">House of Pain - Jump Around</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/crunk_ship">crunk_ship</a></i></div>
 
CleatMarks said:
There's a creationist museum in Petersburg, Kentucky that shows dinasaurs and children in the same scene as a true representation of that period. That's enough for for me to be turned off. ROFL

They must have watched too much "land of the lost".
Click to expand...

Modern Creationism doesn't lend truth to cavemen and dinosaurs living at the same time. You should do the reading and then you'll know why. The answers aren't that difficult to understand.
 
Stop: jaric time. said:
Ok, one more, just to make sure I've offended everyone.

1196190768115.jpg
Click to expand...

That's one mobile, agile, hostile reptile.
 
tmack said:
Modern Creationism doesn't lend truth to cavemen and dinosaurs living at the same time. You should do the reading and then you'll know why. The answers aren't that difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

Does the museum exist or not? It does and they claim to be a creationist museum. If they are misrepresenting it, someone should change it ....no?

Second, I have no desire to read something that is passing itself off as science when it can't hold up to scientific method. I perfer the shorthand.

Creationism as a belief...sure, I can buy that. Creationism as a science, no need to read about their claims. If it can't hold up to scientific method, it's not science. It's something else.
 
<div><object width="480" height="348"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xpvx5_pearl-jam-do-the-evolution_music&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xpvx5_pearl-jam-do-the-evolution_music&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="348" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpvx5_pearl-jam-do-the-evolution_music">pearl jam - do the evolution</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/steveo_russianspy">steveo_russianspy</a></i></div>
 
CleatMarks said:
Does the museum exist or not? It does and they claim to be a creationist museum. If they are misrepresenting it, someone should change it ....no?

Second, I have no desire to read something that is passing itself off as science when it can't hold up to scientific method. I perfer the shorthand.

Creationism as a belief...sure, I can buy that. Creationism as a science, no need to read about their claims. If it can't hold up to scientific method, it's not science. It's something else.
Click to expand...

I never stated that Creationism was a science, I merely stated that the one example of a museum that you used to represent Creationism isn't an accurate example at all.

I understand your premise, though. I like to laugh at Al Gore and his hockey stick nonsense. :thumb:
 
Did we evolve
YES

Was something pulling the strings?
w-marionette.jpg
 
tmack said:
I never stated that Creationism was a science, I merely stated that the one example of a museum that you used to represent Creationism isn't an accurate example at all.

I understand your premise, though. I like to laugh at Al Gore and his hockey stick nonsense. :thumb:
Click to expand...


I have no problem with creationism except then they disguise it as "Intelligent Design" and try to push it into a science class as a science. I've stated this before, teach it in a another class.
 
God invented evolution, just to screw with people. :coffee:



Seriously, though, ya all are just dumb. There was no "creation" and there was no "evolution". A long time ago, a pregnant woman was pushed through a hole in the ground by her husband, and down she fell from the island in the sky, and after a brave little muskrat gave it's life to bring earth from the bottom of the sea, placing it on a turtles' back with his last gasp, voila! The earth was created and populated by humans.

So There.
 
Claremonster said:
God invented evolution, just to screw with people. :coffee:



Seriously, though, ya all are just dumb. There was no "creation" and there was no "evolution". A long time ago, a pregnant woman was pushed through a hole in the ground by her husband, and down she fell from the island in the sky, and after a brave little muskrat gave it's life to bring earth from the bottom of the sea, placing it on a turtles' back with his last gasp, voila! The earth was created and populated by humans.

So There.
Click to expand...
Well I'm glad to see that someone finally tried to answer the question.

:)
 
CleatMarks said:
They probably grew hostile because the answers are in the books if you read them and are online. ;)

I would take my kids out of any school that taught creationism as a scientific option because I do have a background in science.

You should do the reading and then you'll know why. The answers aren't that difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

I suspect that their hostility came from something else. Perhaps from their discomfort over Flagg's asking the questions for which they had no answers. Questions that their own minds might never have even pondered.

Science isn't just about looking things up in books or online. It seems Flagg had already done that.

Science is supposed to be about asking questions. Somewhere along the line, science devolved into more of a petty turf war. Questions which might actually challenge dearly held notions are met with hostility.

Much like the Global Warming fiasco, "scientists" will exert all possible pressure to stifle questions that would expose the significant gaps in their reasoning. On the other hand, real Scientists will continue to raise the questions.

Do you think Darwin got his ideas from text books (or online)? Or did his observations about the world inspire him to ask brilliant questions?

With your background in science, why don't you explain how a bird wing would evolve by way of random recombinations of DNA sequences.

Consider the thousands of sequential mutations that would need to occur in order to arrive at the finished product. Hollow bones, for example.

You may want to consult with an aeronautical engineer to get idea of how many small tasks are involved in the process of designing and building a functional aircraft wing. Get any one of them wrong, and the plane ain't gonna fly.

And how would each of these incremental mutations given the creature a competitive advantage. Hollow bones, for example. Necessary for a bird to fly. But in the millions of years between the mutation that resulted in hollow bones, and the first pair of functioning wings, wouldn't it be a disadvantage to be breaking your fragile bones every time you tripped over a rock?

Not to mention dragging around those pre-wing appendages for thousands of generations. How would those not-quite-arm-not-quite-leg-not-quite-wing things help those creatures avoid or fight off predators more effectively?

I'd appreciate the link to the website that explains that for me.
 
Creationism = Religious talk = Political talk = people soon yelling and screaming = take it to the Political Forum, kthanxbye.




























:rolleyes:

Besides, you're all clueless idiots.

iGod-FSM.jpg
 
dropKickMurphy said:
I'd appreciate the link to the website that explains that for me.
Click to expand...


A simple google search turned up one from Berkely that I like for a popular population. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

I think this is more an exercise in web searching than it is in science. People have adequately explained it and I think this is just a redudant exercise.

Hollow bones .... look up Theropoda.

As far as the Recombinant DNA subject is concerned, again, plenty of subject matter on the Internet.


If there's an alternate "scientific" theory, let's hear it. Otherwise, I don't plan on spending more time point to information ;)
 
On a more serious note, if people would come to the discussion table with the aknowledgement that there are certain things about the past which cannot be answered by either creationism or evolutionary theories, these discussion would be much more productive.

Until then, I'll keep posting pictures of people riding dinosaurs, because they make me lol.

noah-dino.jpg
 
I haven't even bothered to read all the posts in this thread, because I'm sure everyone here knows my stance.

In the simplest terms, my position is.....

I believe in creationism.

Lots of reasons why, but my biggest argument against evolution is, what did they evolve from? And who or what created that?

Somewhere, sometime, someone HAD to have put the pieces in place.

JMO
 
Suppose our planet was visited by intelligent machines from another world. These entities landed on earth...in a junkyard. They made some observations, took photos and notes, and collected samples. Then they departed.

As they evaluated what they had seen and collected, they might logically arrive at some conclusions. They might discover similarities and differences between the dead earthlings (or, what we would call "junked cars"). In categorizing the remains they might separate them into different species.... Mustang, Taurus, Malibu, Corolla, etc..

Further study might show them that each subspecies "evolved" over time. For example, they would likely note the incremental changes of the "Mustang" each year.

This might lead them to trace the lineage of a 2001 Mustang to a 2000 Mustang; A 2000 Mustang to a 1999 Mustang...all the way back to the 1964 Mustang.

They might also note that various species seemed to disappear at certain points of time; and other, more robust species replaced them. They might infer that competition had something to do with this.

And, in a way, they would have been correct about all of these conclusions.

Now, being machines, they have no experience...or even any concept of...organic living beings. Perhaps they lack the sensory mechanisms and logic circuits required to interface with the world of the living (since, in their environment, there would be no use for such a capability).

So, now they need to come up with a way of understanding how all these things came about. They can conclude that the gears and wheels gave these creatures mobility. They might observe the damage, from minor dents to totalled wrecks, and infer that these creatures led a violent existence. That they rolled around this little planet and randomly crashed into each other at high rates of speed. That most of these crashes damaged or destroyed the creatures...but a small percentage of these random crashes actually improved the creatures; made them better able to survive the competition.

Whereas, if they had the ability to perceive living beings, they might have been able to understand the the Escorts and Malibus had actually been created for a purpose; and that their evolution throughout the years was driven by what might be called intelligent design.

And, even if their sensory mechanisms were unable to detect and quantify living creatures, if their logic circuits were flexible enough to at least consider the possibility of such entities beyond their comprehension, they might be open to the possibilities of an explanation that would in fact be closer to the truth.

That's kind of how I feel about evolution. That we're basically correct in most of our conclusions...but that there's something beyond our understanding that's involved in the process.
 
On a more serious note, if people would come to the discussion table with the aknowledgement that there are certain things about the past which cannot be answered by either creationism or evolutionary theories, these discussion would be much more productive.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what this is about. The problem is when people take a perfectly sound scientiific theory and exploit weaknesses to push an agenda. Let's not pretend that this is really an honest discussion when the questions have been formulated to exploit a weakness in a theory and replace it with something without any scientific merit.

Your computer is based on a scientific theory that can only be proven by indirect testing but nothing you can directly prove. If I said that a semiconductor theory doesn't prove that they work because "electron holes" are a theory that can't be proven, I couldn't then say that it's just as plausible that there are electrons can change their charge and expect to be taken seriously.

It's a question of intellectual honesty. I don't think you'll find any scientest who feels that there aren't unanswered questions. It's a matter of what testing leads you to conclude that makes a scientific theory. You make predictions about a model based on the evidence. Nothing in science leads me to believe that creationism is the answer to those scientific questions and to give them the same status in a science discussion is unreasonable. If the question is faith vs science, then that's a reasonble debate. What is not reasonable is to intruduce an faith based answer to a debate about a scientific theory. When someone comes up with that kind of proof, the debate on that level is reasonable.

Nor should this discussion be taken to mean that I've identified myself as an athiest.
 
cka203 said:
I haven't even bothered to read all the posts in this thread, because I'm sure everyone here knows my stance.

In the simplest terms, my position is.....

I believe in creationism.

Lots of reasons why, but my biggest argument against evolution is, what did they evolve from? And who or what created that?

Somewhere, sometime, someone HAD to have put the pieces in place.

JMO
Click to expand...

That's fine and I do respect that. Do you see it in the arena with science or are your beliefs based on faith? I personally don't see why the two need to compete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top