Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-24-2006, 03:35 PM   #16
Baphomet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
26) Evolution caused slavery.
People's own social ideas, sometimes backed up by religious texts, was the cause of slavery
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 03:37 PM   #17
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.
As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution! :lol:

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word! :D
Does not life create life! :D :D

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! Absolutely priceless! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!" :D :D :D

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 03:52 PM   #18
Down21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.
As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution! :lol:

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word! :D
Does not life create life! :D :D

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! Absolutely priceless! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!" :D :D :D
Can you explain what is wrong with the term "natural selection", as described by Darwin?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 04:06 PM   #19
Down21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
27) Many scientists are now casting doubt on Darwins theory.


Evolution is the central unifying theory in biology and is widely accepted by the scientific community
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 04:15 PM   #20
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 04:49 PM   #21
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 04:50 PM   #22
AndyHolland
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
myst7426 wrote
Quote:
The fact that courts have pronounced you can't even mention it in school gives ID tremendous credibility
...because it has no evidence... Schools are in the business of teaching anything unless it is part of science and ID isn't. Under Behe's definition of science, astrology and alchemy should be taught in schools too!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...miller_342.pdf
-Actually it does have evidence - mathematical proof. Probabilities are easy to compute and prove.

-In automated design pattern analysis and such, hard limits on processing information are reached all the time. We don't even understand gene mechanisms and DNA/RNA well enough to understand what the machinery and feedbacks actually are, or how it works in detail.

-The value of ID isn't in presenting an origin theory but rather in pointing out the weakness of origin theories in general. Math sets hard limits and has hard proofs.

- The Uncertainty Principle occurs everywhere frequency/time domain problems, or statistical fitting, or convolution of Orthonormal functions occur. As such, there ought to be an uncertainty principle for evolution, and Darwin actually apprehended it.

-Historical "science" such as evolution, fits theory after the fact which is exceedingly dangerous.

-Most scientists accepted the caloric theory at one time with one notable exception. Benjamin Thompson was 60 years ahead of his time - but nearly everyone hated his guts so it didn't matter.

The fact that many cannot dispassionately discuss the evidence pro and con in the "scientific" community is really disturbing. It is as if we have an inquisition on our hands - that unless the theory is politically correct and "secular", it cannot be discussed or taught.

andy holland
sinner
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 05:12 PM   #23
Oz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
While not dissing evolution, the truth is that design analysis, pattern analysis, probability theory and other aspects of Intelligent Design ought to be looked at intelligently and rationally...
Here's one:
http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

Excerpt (conclusion):

Quote:
Steven Den Beste wrote
What we have makes perfect sense as the end product of a long sequence of incremental changes. However, it makes no sense at all as a unique design from scratch for this particular application.

If God designed the human eye from scratch for this application, then God is an incompetent engineer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 05:12 PM   #24
Baphomet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Actually it does have evidence - mathematical proof. Probabilities are easy to compute and prove.
Probability! hahahah Like I haven't heard that before. You're kidding, right?

Quote:
-In automated design pattern analysis and such, hard limits on processing information are reached all the time. We don't even understand gene mechanisms and DNA/RNA well enough to understand what the machinery and feedbacks actually are, or how it works in detail.
Wow, we don't actually know exactly how gravity works, either. Maybe we should create a supernatural explanation like ID does, how about "gravity spirits" or "gravi-demons"?

Quote:
-The value of ID isn't in presenting an origin theory but rather in pointing out the weakness of origin theories in general. Math sets hard limits and has hard proofs.
ID should be taught in mythology class, plain and simple.

Quote:
- The Uncertainty Principle occurs everywhere frequency/time domain problems, or statistical fitting, or convolution of Orthonormal functions occur. As such, there ought to be an uncertainty principle for evolution, and Darwin actually apprehended it.
That's right, we can't account for every factor. That doesn't mean we should assume a supernatural one. Ever.
Quote:
-Historical "science" such as evolution, fits theory after the fact which is exceedingly dangerous.
Theories like intelligent design are creation myths revamped. Maybe we should teach about how Ahura Mazda created everything, or explain how Osiris fits into chemistry.
Quote:
-Most scientists accepted the caloric theory at one time with one notable exception. Benjamin Thompson was 60 years ahead of his time - but nearly everyone hated his guts so it didn't matter.
Except most people who want intelligent design to be taught aren't scientists. And also, I should mention how the church hated Galileo because his theories went against what was in the bible.
Quote:
The fact that many cannot dispassionately discuss the evidence pro and con in the "scientific" community is really disturbing. It is as if we have an inquisition on our hands - that unless the theory is politically correct and "secular", it cannot be discussed or taught.
No one debates it because intelligent design is not on level with the theory of evolution any more than the theory "evil spirits cause headaches" is on level with things like neuroscience.

Quote:
andy holland
sinner
Hey, you know what they say: "You want to win, you have to sin"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 05:16 PM   #25
Baphomet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
And Now to go BACK ON TOPIC!

41) If you believe in evolution, then that means you think it's okay to kill, rape, and steal

Belief in evolution is independent of one's moral stances
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 05:41 PM   #26
Down21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D
You havent explained why it's recklessly wrong to say that there is NOT a selector, ie natural selection. Here is an abstract from a review article in june 2006 issue of Science. Seems that the folks at MIT and Harvard think its ok to use natural selection.

"Positive natural selection is the force that drives the increase in prevalence of advantageous traits, and it has played a central role in our development as a species. Until recently, the study of natural selection in humans has largely been restricted to comparing individual candidate genes to theoretical expectations. The advent of genome-wide sequence and polymorphism data brings fundamental new tools to the study of natural selection. It is now possible to identify new candidates for selection and to reevaluate previous claims by comparison with empirical distributions of DNA sequence variation across the human genome and among populations. The flood of data and analytical methods, however, raises many new challenges. Here, we review approaches to detect positive natural selection, describe results from recent analyses of genome-wide data, and discuss the prospects and challenges ahead as we expand our understanding of the role of natural selection in shaping the human genome."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 06:10 PM   #27
AndyHolland
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is an old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Objections to evolutionary theory going to ORIGIN of life is
the objection - and it is sad scientists and lay people mix up species with "life"

As for citations you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Learn to use google - sheesh! There is plenty of information about this stuff on the web, at your library - if you want me to educate you fork over $450/hr and I'll be happy to provide all the citations you want.

andy holland
sinner
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 06:26 PM   #28
Baphomet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
There is an old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Objections to evolutionary theory going to ORIGIN of life is
the objection - and it is sad scientists and lay people mix up species with "life"

As for citations you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Learn to use google - sheesh! There is plenty of information about this stuff on the web, at your library - if you want me to educate you fork over $450/hr and I'll be happy to provide all the citations you want.

andy holland
sinner
:offtopic:


This thread is supposed to be about refutations To Misconceptions about Evolution, and deal with that other thread.

Andy Holland, if you want to talk about this other stuff, please start another thread. Thank you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 10:56 PM   #29
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
There is an old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Objections to evolutionary theory going to ORIGIN of life is
the objection - and it is sad scientists and lay people mix up species with "life"

As for citations you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Learn to use google - sheesh! There is plenty of information about this stuff on the web, at your library - if you want me to educate you fork over $450/hr and I'll be happy to provide all the citations you want.

andy holland
sinner
$450/hr for quoting citations? WTF?

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2006, 11:16 PM   #30
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
$450/hr for quoting citations? WTF?
Weird how the creationists always charge money, but the real scientists cite their sources for free. Anyways :offtopic:

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational