"NOOOOOOOOOOO" - Judge

dont you mean "YESSSSSSSSSSS"?

I certainly do ..less baby jesus, more facts please
 
This reminds me of something I was reading the other day. Its pretty long, but a good read, even if you don't agree with it.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story1.html


So... go ahead and read it.


Yet, there has always been scientific opposition to Darwin. In fact, by the 50th anniversary of the Origin in 1909, the theory was in deep trouble. Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup writes that "during the first third of our century, biologists did not believe in Darwin." Hans Driesch in Germany, Lucien Cuenot in France, and the American T. H. Morgan (winner of a Nobel in genetics) were among the many biologists with international reputations who rejected Darwin during this period.

Thomas Dwight, Parkman Professor of Anatomy at Harvard, summed up the situation at the time: "We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are all agreed . . . that on the whole [Darwin's theory] is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as fundamental fact."
Click to expand...
 
Good. Kids already have religion shoved down their throat from an early age, we don't need the public school system to start doing it too. Besides, if they were going to teach "intelligent design", they'd have to include all the other religious beliefs too; not just the Christian view.

The judge made the right ruling.

People are so quick to dismiss Darwin just because they were taught to hate it from an early age. If people happened to read about him, they'd know that he was actually a religious man himself. I believe at one point he studied to be part of the clergy. His theory remains so because it has stood the test of time and hasn't been seriously refuted by the scientific community. If it handn't it'd be a hypothesis, not a theory. I suspect that in time, it will become a law.

Raziaar, that was from 1909. Science has developed quite a bit since then and even through modern technology, the theory remains.
 
Raziaar said:
This reminds me of something I was reading the other day. Its pretty long, but a good read, even if you don't agree with it.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story1.html


So... go ahead and read it.
Click to expand...


scientific opposition is ok ...smoke and mirrors masquerading as fact isnt ..ID has about as much basis in fact as the tooth fairy, santa claus and the stork
 
Hooray!

I like how they argue that life is too complicated to not have been created by an invisible guy...too complicated for who? Science has no problem with facts...
 
CptStern said:
scientific opposition is ok ...smoke and mirrors masquerading as fact isnt ..ID has about as much basis in fact as the tooth fairy, santa claus and the stork
Click to expand...


Well go ahead and read that entire article, and tell me what you think okay?

I think it has VERY interesting things to say about the lack of gradual evolution fact. Its not really related to this thread, so go ahead and PM me your thoughts or something.
 
I will, just dont have time now ..just remember that I did when I ask you the same :)
 
CptStern said:
I will, just dont have time now ..just remember that I did when I ask you the same :)
Click to expand...

You'd have the time if you stopped posting about ancient internet relics. :cheese:
 
satch919 said:
Good. Kids already have religion shoved down their throat from an early age, we don't need the public school system to start doing it too. Besides, if they were going to teach "intelligent design", they'd have to include all the other religious beliefs too; not just the Christian view.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstand the concept, but I thought ID was the concept of a "hidden hand behind creation", not necessarily "God" in the Christian sense. But if ID were to be inserted into the mainstream cirriculum, it should be more focused about exploring the holes of the Darwin theory, as the above article said, and it should not focus on ANY religion at all. Also, there have been scientists who have outrightly rejected the Darwin theory.

But, I would rather ID have some scientific foundation before it made its way into schools.
 
Raziaar said:
This reminds me of something I was reading the other day. Its pretty long, but a good read, even if you don't agree with it.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story1.html


So... go ahead and read it.
Click to expand...


k I read it and it offers nothing more than the usual "Darwin was wrong" theories ..even if there's a shred of proof here (and admittedly I'm no scientist) it's still better than the rediculous account of creation in genesis
 
CptStern said:
k I read it and it offers nothing more than the usual "Darwin was wrong" theories ..even if there's a shred of proof here (and admittedly I'm no scientist) it's still better than the rediculous account of creation in genesis
Click to expand...

Show me how you can disprove the holes that it claims are in the darwin theory.
 
like I said I'm no scientist. It is beyond me as I havent studied it to any great detail ..but I know of a few who can ..here read this

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92711&highlight=Intelligent+design

and

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92437&highlight=Intelligent+design

I'm sure you'll find your answers :)


still ANYTHING is better than:

"1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light...."
 
And if you have any specific questions about evolution, I'd be happy to answer them!

I should note that the BBC article has it a little wrong. The rulnig doesn't exactly ban teaching ID: it bans the school _requiring_ teachers to include statements supporting ID and challenging evolution as a fact or as "just a theory." Individual teachers who mention ID outside of the official curriculum is and probably should remain a grey area.
 
ohhh I was just about to call the calvary and lo and behold there he is ...sick him Apos ;)
 
Since I'm boerd:

If Darwin's theory is correct, then the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms linking past and present species. Darwin was aware the fossils of his day showed nothing of the sort. In fact, there were no transitional forms.
Click to expand...

This is mostly true inasmuch as we are talking about Darwin's time. But then, Darwin (in Origin) doesn't much concern himself with them either in making his case. For him, the sparse number of fossils actually proved some different points in his argument: that species go extinct all the time, and that the morphology of extinct creatures also fit the geographic patterns of distribution we see in modern life: a pattern that is characteristic of an evolutionary descent over time. The concept of one day finding transitional fossils was not patr of his proof, but rather one of the predictions of his theory. To this we should add that Darwin did not, in fact, think it likely that we'd find many more fossils in the first place: in his day they were thought to be even rarer and harder to come by they turned out to be (though they are STILL very very rare).

The following discussion in the article is just plain false, and nothing particularly new in the field of creationist canards. The quotes are taken grossly out of context (oftentimes they are rhetorical statements that start off paragraphs that DO explain things, rather than leave them unexplained), the scientific claims simply false. The evolution of horses, for instance, has plenty of fossils illustrating the transition, not just artist conjectures. The criticism cited is from 1905: isn't that a tipoff that we're dealing here with a pretty pathetic and desperate attempt to find some source that will agree?
 
Hahaha, it would be incredibly hilarious if Intelligent Design was actually true :LOL:

God would come down from the skies and yell:
God: "OH FOR MY SAKE! LOOK, DARWIN IS WRONG. I MADE ALL THE ANIMALS. I MADE THE UNIVERSE. STERN, YOU'RE WRONG. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS THE TRUTH."
Stern: ":|..."
God: "NO, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BLOODY STAY! NOW ACCEPT IT AND DON'T BOTHER ME WITH THE SUBJECT AGAIN!"
Stern: "...Ok."



*God leaves*






ID People: "Told you so."
 
good, anything we dont actually know factually shouldnt be in school's.

Although I wont denie im always curious about how evolution came to be.
 
Everyone browsing this thread should read Bill Bryson's book, A Short History of Nearly Everything. Besides being vastly entertaining and interesting, it sheds great light on all sorts of branches of science, and cleared up much of my confusion regarding evolution.

Having said that... Apos is right. The fossil argument is flawed, because fossils are so exceedingly rare. Also, part of the problem with ID is that its proponents, while advocating it as a scientific theory, aren't treating it like one. Real theories are passed around the scientific community, updated, contemplated, tested, updated, argued for and against, updated again, all over a long span of time (often upwards of twenty years). What the advocates of ID are attempting to do is push it straight into the textbooks, with no feedback from the scientific community.
There are a range of reasons for this- most likely, they fully understand that ID is essentially impossible to prove or update, yet ignore that knowledge. ID is bogus in more ways than one.
 
clarky003 said:
good, anything we dont actually know factually shouldnt be in school's.

Although I wont denie im always curious about how evolution came to be.
Click to expand...
For the last time; god invented evolution to mess with our heads ! Got it ?
Now stop being so bloody curious and get back to reading your bible ! :hmph:
 
SAJ said:
For the last time; god invented evolution to mess with our heads ! Got it ?
Now stop being so bloody curious and get back to reading your bible ! :hmph:
Click to expand...
lol :LOL:
You're good at sarcasm :D
 
You know, this thread makes me wonder. I was in a Catholic school for K4, then my parents pulled me out and put me in normal school. What would I have been like if not for that? I shudder to think...
 
JNightshade said:
You know, this thread makes me wonder. I was in a Catholic school for K4, then my parents pulled me out and put me in normal school. What would I have been like if not for that? I shudder to think...
Click to expand...


A normal person?
 
Hard to say. I'm just glad I don't have to study the bible in school.
 
thomas edison is the devil! I INVENTED ELECTRICITY.
 
SAJ said:
For the last time; god invented evolution to mess with our heads ! Got it ?
Now stop being so bloody curious and get back to reading your bible ! :hmph:
Click to expand...

lol, i dont have a religion, i dont even own a bible. you stereotyping monkey

from an objective point of view it doesnt really make sense to say in finality evolution just exist's because 'it does', Thats quite poor 21st century scientific objective, but at present we stick to what we know so far.
 
Fossils are exceedingly rare... but not as rare or uncollected as they were in Darwin's time. Since his time, his prediction has come true: we've found that the fossil record indeed conforms to his general predictions about distribution and descent, and we've found countless examples of speices that are, at least, cousins of the ancestors of modern animals as well as descendents of even earlier life.

The confusion often arises over not understanding the difference between general morphological transitions and specific DIRECT ancestors. Because most species that ever come to be go extinct, it's is EXTREMELY unlikely that any given fossil is the direct descendant of a modern animal. Scientists are very scrupulous in these details, because many aspects of lineage demand that level of exactitude and debate (for instance, the arguments over whether "Lucy" is one of our ancestors or simply related to our ancestors). And so you can often find statements saying "this species has no known ancestors" or "I don't think this species is really related to this or that" and so on.

But in terms of the case of for evolution, such directness on the species to species level is not required. Instead, fossils allow us to get a sense of what sorts of animals lived at a certain time and place, and what their general overall morphological features were. It is among those that we see plenty of examples of all the grand transitions: from the common ancestors of hippos and antelope to whales, from lobed fish to tetrapods to lizards, and so on. All of these proceed in fashion, in time, in precisely the patterns Darwin's theory of common descent predicted. And that alone nails shut the case for common descent in evolution. But of course, on top of that, we have genetic evidence which not only represents a completely different way of seeing ancestry, but we can also use to cross check the fossil record and see if they agree. They do. But why would they agree unless the ancestral patterns they purport to show were true? And why would there be OTHER lines of checks we can do to this theory (like geographical distribution based on geological events like continents separating and so forth). None of that should all work out... unless it was all true.
 
Great posts Apos! Informative. I took biology this past semester and the topic of evolution was the most interesting. I need to bury my head in a book about it some day.

Viruses evolve right in front of us every year. Why is this so hard to believe on a larger scale?
 
Well, I believe it's different... virii don't follow the rules we all do. They're nothing more than RNA bundled in various proteins. In fact, there's a strong debate going on in the scientific community over whether virii are actually alive. But anyway, I'm pretty sure what you're referring to is mutation, not evolution- something entirely different.
 
JNightshade said:
You know, this thread makes me wonder. I was in a Catholic school for K4, then my parents pulled me out and put me in normal school. What would I have been like if not for that? I shudder to think...
Click to expand...

more like me? I went to catholic school till I was 18 .........and look how I turned out :O
 
CptStern said:
more like me? I went to catholic school till I was 18 .........and look how I turned out :O
Click to expand...

Be very thankful you didn't turn out like stern!!

:cheese:
 
JNightshade said:
Well, I believe it's different... virii don't follow the rules we all do. They're nothing more than RNA bundled in various proteins. In fact, there's a strong debate going on in the scientific community over whether virii are actually alive. But anyway, I'm pretty sure what you're referring to is mutation, not evolution- something entirely different.
Click to expand...

I remember my professor in a Sexually Transmitted Diseases class that I took brought up the same topic of whether or not a virus is alive. Interesting subject. However, evolutionary changes are due to the interplay of genetic variability and natural selection, often during the transmission phase. http://gsbs.utmb.edu/microbook/ch048.htm That's what I remember hearing in class as well. I could very well be wrong about the whole thing though as microbiology is not my forte. :p
 
Virii mutate at a much higher rate than things like bacteria (in part because they lack the sorts of correction methods DNA based life has), but they aren't necessarily so different because of that. All sorts of creatures have different rates of mutation (for all sorts of different reasons).

Mutation is what drives the increase in variation amongst a breeding population. Mere mutation alone is as near random as anything and so really only does just increase differences. It's the selection seive of the environment that pushes the gene pool in one dierction or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tollbooth Willie
[BUILDING DRONING MUSIC]
Replies
0
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
F
Staff members please contact me
Replies
8
Views
3K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Thumbnails of new private Team Fortress 2 videos
Replies
1
Views
73K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
P
Earth Liberation coming soon!
Replies
1
Views
4K
PoRovoz
P
Omnomnick
The International 2015 Qualifiers Conclude
Replies
0
Views
2K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top