Log in to check your private messages
Randomt thought on life
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:48 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Queen Padmè Skywalker
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 5144
Location: Sitting in front of a fireplace on Naboo exchanging pathetic dialogue with Anakin

Reepicheep wrote:
Rouge77, about the butterflies. Is that really evolution though? Adapting is one thing, changing into a different species is something else.


I was wondering the same thing. And another question: if evolution is true, why don't aren't we digging up millions of missing links? I'm not being sarcastic, just want to know your opinion.
_________________
All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.

So this is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause.



Those without swords can still die upon them

The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:16 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6771
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Exactly. Humans skin colour change depending on the climate, it doesn't mean we're "evolving".
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:33 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  kurtdc
Master
Master

Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 602
Location: boston

As far as I know there is no way to tell the skin color of any species based on what can be dug up. I didn't know until fairly recently that we have no idea what color any of the dinasaurs were. I just always sort of assumed the pictures were correct, then I read somewhere that the color is unknown.

Illustrators just likely used elephants and reptiles(crocs) as color templates.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:47 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

By the way, the peppered moth example is not a great one for proving evolution. At the time of the experiment, BOTH versions of the moth, black and white, where present. There were never any new species that emerged. The only thing that changed was the population ratio of white moths to black moths. This could be due to a large number of facts, such as the white moths being eaten by predators due to them not blending in as well. Also important to note is that the white months have made a comeback since and are now largely prevalent.

And on separate note. The reason I am so against evolution is not because I feel it intrudes on my religion. Its because it is so completely ridiculous from a scientific viewpoint. It does not follow the rules of a scientific theory, and even when all the evidents points otherwise people do everything they can to justify evolution, even committing forgery in many cases (Archaeoraptor). What kind of "open-minded" ideology is that?

On top of that, why is it the only point of view taught in schools? For crying out loud, they wont even let students know about arguments against certain evolution experiments and such. It is treated as an almost flawless explanation.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:26 am Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2854
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Reepicheep wrote:
Exactly. Humans skin colour change depending on the climate, it doesn't mean we're "evolving".


e·volve (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.

I don't know perhaps it's a POV thing. Adapting is a part of evolving IMO, but then I see evolution as Gods work. Skin change by climate and area is just one small factor in the process.
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

 PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:07 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Jedi Joe
Master
Master

Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 1524

Reepicheep wrote:
Exactly. Humans skin colour change depending on the climate, it doesn't mean we're "evolving".


Yes it does. It's been proven many times that micro-evolution (Changes within a species) is true. We have yet to prove macro-evolution to be true though...
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:46 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6448
Location: Missouri

I think the problem with "Evolution" is that the word itself and the concept that many people put behind it is vague and misleading. Just about everyone in their right mind believes in evolution. Nature is all about survival of the fittest and living organisms can adapt their genes and biology in order to better adapt to their environment.

However, "Evolution" has been evolved, ha ha, into a whole new beast. Now when you say "Evolution" it's about apes transforming into human beings over a large expanse of time in small steps as evidence by these old skeletons they have found.

Now I'm no expert in these matters, so I'm not even going to try and question their conclusions and findings, however, I do know that science is usually a matter of theory and conjecture. In my opinion the best way cover something fairly is to show it from several viewpoints, because most likely the truth is somewhere in between. To show only one viewpoint of anything is simply flawed.

Plus with a timescale reaching back that far, I can't understand how anyone can take their conjectures as facts. The room for error in such assumptions is too vast for anything to be taken too seriously. Bones may tell us a lot, but they can't tell us everything. I think some of the scientist need to accept the fact that they are never going to get the whole picture, and that somethings will forever remain unanswered.
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:57 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6771
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Jedi Joe wrote:
Reepicheep wrote:
Exactly. Humans skin colour change depending on the climate, it doesn't mean we're "evolving".


Yes it does. It's been proven many times that micro-evolution (Changes within a species) is true. We have yet to prove macro-evolution to be true though...

I have no problem with changes like skin tone and such, because they're still the same species. The reason being that the Bible specifically said animals produced their own kind. I've always found it interesting why there would be emphasis on that fact, it certainly does seem like forsight.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Rouge77
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 599

Darth Skuldren wrote:
However, "Evolution" has been evolved, ha ha, into a whole new beast. Now when you say "Evolution" it's about apes transforming into human beings over a large expanse of time in small steps as evidence by these old skeletons they have found.

Now I'm no expert in these matters, so I'm not even going to try and question their conclusions and findings, however, I do know that science is usually a matter of theory and conjecture. In my opinion the best way cover something fairly is to show it from several viewpoints, because most likely the truth is somewhere in between. To show only one viewpoint of anything is simply flawed.


That doesn't usually lead into correct models that fit with reality. In astronomy, Tycho's model (the Sun and the Moon orbit Earth and other then known planets orbit the Sun) was such a compromise between geocentric and heliocentric universes and was widely popular between about 1590 and 1650. It was also utterly wrong.

Theory itself is pretty useless for anything if you can't test it. In the recent case of Ardipithecus the scientists could test two theories - that because our closest living relatives - bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas - knucklewalk, a common ancestor would have too, and that because Australopithecus species appear to have lived mostly on savannahs, walking on two legs would have evolved as a result of this environment, an adaptation to it - and prove them wrong, assuming that Ardipithecus is an ancestor to later hominids, as it is likely to be, as there isn't any contender now that Sahelantropus and Orrorin seem close enough to fit in the same genus.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
Plus with a timescale reaching back that far, I can't understand how anyone can take their conjectures as facts. The room for error in such assumptions is too vast for anything to be taken too seriously. Bones may tell us a lot, but they can't tell us everything.


Time doesn't matter here really - and for example the age of the Ardipithecus remains have been able to be established thanks to those volcanic eruptions before and after their remains ended in the ground - just the condition of the material what is studied. Very old remains might be in a better condition than those of people who perished recently.

Earlier this year was announced the 47 million year old Darwinius masillae find from the time the eventual ape&monkey lineage diverged from the Lemur lineage. It's bones were very well preserved and in fact forensic scientist often have to work with far, far less with even very recent human remains. There wasn't much left of Steve Fossett's remains when they were found, just a few large bones identified to belong to Homo sapiens sapiens, amount of material not unsimilar to usual hominid finds, yet those were enough to identify him. And it was able to be shown that some bone fragments found on the crash site didn't belong to a Human being, but to some (other) animal.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
I think some of the scientist need to accept the fact that they are never going to get the whole picture, and that somethings will forever remain unanswered.


That depends what you mean. If you mean that scientific work should stop and scientists should never dare to say that they are right and non-scientist wrong, then I strongly believe that you are wrong. But if you mean that scientists can never achieve 100 % full and correct picture of some area of study, then I would say that it would be hard for you to in many areas of science to find a scientist who wouldn't agree with you.

What science can do is to get even better and more complete pictures of the universe and Earth, it's inhabitants and geological and historical processes. Some things might forever remain secrets, much of the geological and biological record of Earth history has been destroyed by the early bombardment by asteroids and comets and later by plate tectonics for example, but assuming without evidence that things will remain secret and then not trying to find out all would be a catastrophic mistake. It's like in physics where absolute zero temperature can't be reached but laboratory experiments can get ever closer to it.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:28 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6771
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Rouge77, I like all Christians can't beat you on the scientific field, because science itself has a fatal flaw. Science is based on things you can measure/observe so things like feelings, Providence, assurance, faith and the like can't exist within science. Meaning our most powerful weapons can't work here. So, scientifically, you have me beat but that doesn't mean you are right, because this is only one field of battle. So to conclude I will quote my good friend Puddleglum the marsh-wiggle:
"Suppose we have made all this up, suppose we have... Well then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important then the real ones."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Wink
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:29 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Reepicheep wrote:
Rouge77, I like all Christians can't beat you on the scientific field, because science itself has a fatal flaw


Actually, we can. Evolution has an insane amount of flaws, gaps, and assumptions. In fact its hardly science at all, since it cant follow some of the basic premises of a scientific theory. So yes, it can be proven wrong from a scientific point of view.

And on a further point, the fight against evolution isn't only Christians vs Evolutionists. There are groups that believe in an intelligent design, and others that simply don't believe evolution is true. Evolution is a seriously flawed ideology, that is more an alternative to a intelligent creator then anything.

As a famous scientific philosopher and Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse once said-

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." ( "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post )


Last edited by Autobon on Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:54 pm; edited 4 times in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:37 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6771
Location: Sailing into the unknown

All the better then! Smile
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:54 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Rouge77
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 599

Autobon wrote:
Actually, we can. Evolution has an insane amount of flaws, gaps, and assumptions. In fact its hardly science at all, since it cant follow some of the basic premises of a scientific theory. So yes, it can be proven wrong from a scientific point of view.


It can't, but as you sound so sure, examples please. Smile

Autobon wrote:
And on a further point, the fight against evolution isn't only Christians vs Evolutionists. There are groups that believe in an intelligent design, and others that simply don't believe evolution is true. Evolution is a seriously flawed ideology, that is more an alternative to a intelligent creator then anything.


Evolution isn't about beliefs, it's about facts that can be proven. Creators are about belief, as nobody can prove that it or they exist - and another way, if you believe in some supernatural being, nobody can ever prove you wrong, just show that some of your beliefs don't appear to be correct (we can assume that no heart sacrifices are necessary to continue the world's existence, althought the Aztecs believed so, because we are pretty sure that no heart sacrifices have been done in recent centuries as the 52 year old cycles they used have come to an end - a time when heart sacrifices were seen essential - and started anew).

Science is all about things that can be proven right or wrong, things which are not just matters of opinion.

A good theory is one which can be tested. Evolution has been tested now for 150 years and it's basic premise, species evolve by adapting to their environments over time through sexual reproduction, has been proven correct. Evolution is thus not just a theory, like string theory is still in physics (neat but almost impossible to test), it has become a proven fact.

In similar way by 2012 we will know if another neat theory in physics, inflation, is true or not, as ESA's new Planck probe can finally measure the cosmic microwave background in fine enough detail to find evidence of it if exists or show that it didn't happen. And if thas evidence is found, inflation becomes a fact too and Alan Guth gets a Nobel prize and gets hailed as a figure almost as important as Einstein.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." ( "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post )

That's an opinion among 6.8 billion other opinions. Sounds terribly like postmodern philosophers irritating attacks on history. (They basically claim that there is no historical truth and everybody's opinion is as good as that of historians, myth as much correct as historical knowledge.)

Evolution has no morals, no goal or no meaning beyond what we humans give it. It just is and happens, like fusion reaction in the center of the Sun. It too has no goal, moral or meaning, even when we might think it has some greater meaning, as it's results are so important to us.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:21 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Rouge77 wrote:
It can't, but as you sound so sure, examples please. Smile


Technically, your right. It cant really be proven untrue, like it cant be proven true. However based on the evidence evolutionists put forth by the evidence against it, it certainly does not seem true at all. There are tons of resources to read though, that can better explain things.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

This is a good site, as it has articles written by people with ph.d's and cites its work very well.

Quote:
Evolution isn't about beliefs, it's about facts that can be proven. Creators are about belief, as nobody can prove that it or they exist.


That is a complete lie. Evolution is not about facts that can be proven by science only. In fact, take a look at Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species." They key words there are "on the origin," meaning the beginning or creation of species. This can NEVER be proven, ever. You will never be 100% sure because you were not there and science doesn't leave enough clues. Darwin came up with his own creation theory, minus a higher power. That is what evolution is. Its a way to explain everything without god. Its not a scientific theory, as it breaks many of the rules of a scientific theory. It is an ideology that twists science around to try to explain something with god.


Quote:
If you believe in some supernatural being, nobody can ever prove you wrong.


No, you cant prove it wrong, this is true. However when you look at the complexity of nature, the beauty, the intelligence of it all, you start to wonder if there is a higher power.

Science is a great tool. "Science vs God" is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Science is our way of seeing God's creation and knowing how it works. Science and God are not in conflict with each other.

A huge reason I actually believe in a higher power is because of science. The more I read and study science, the harder and harder it is to doubt the existence of an intelligent creator.

Quote:
Evolution has no morals


EDIT: Its survival of the fittest. Which makes us all hypocrites if you think about it. Why do we set up protection services and regulate business and such? Why do we have rules at all? It makes no sense from a evolutionary point of view. Sure you can say that society creates rules as it evolves and such, but its all complete hypocrisy. I mean, why do we care if someone on Wall Street steals billions of dollars? Why do we want to see them punished so bad? If evolution were true, then those people are actually the best of the human race, because they know how to get ahead. So next time you think something is unfair or wrong, you better just suck it up and move on.

Sorry, but I cant live like a hypocrite. I know why I am here and I have a purpose. I feel sorry for people that want to believe they are just pathetic strands of DNA with no purpose. Each to their own I guess...


Last edited by Autobon on Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:37 pm; edited 2 times in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:33 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2854
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Autobon wrote:

Evolution is a seriously flawed ideology, that is more an alternative to a intelligent creator then anything.



I see it as a proof of his intelligent design. I think things like science help people prove that some things are "too coincidental" But then I also think a large part of the life on our planet evolved from a small number of things. I don't think man and monkey are linked, but that doesn't mean that our ancestors might not have been closely related.

But then, I see things in a "geeks pov"
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 7 of 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield