Results 51 to 60 of 77
-
08-19-2007, 04:37 PM #51Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
Please post them, Delta9uk. Now I'm going to get in my time machine and see what was going on in 10 MILLION BC! O wait, that's science fiction. Sorry guys I can't bring you a report on dinosaurs.
You know you\'re high when you wonder why moms everywhere choose Lysol when to normal squares it\'s no wonder. And if a Woolite Pod commercial somehow makes you think of sex.
-
08-19-2007, 04:55 PM #52Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
<sigh> OK then......
Minds are like parachutes, they both work best when open.
[SIZE=\"1\"]Thomas R. Dewar[/SIZE]
-
08-19-2007, 05:03 PM #53Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real.
Man I hope you were high when you wrote that.
Creationism is built upon the Genesis, and Genesis is nonsense. Hell, I personally know pastors who have conceded this! Only a vocal fringe group really takes young earth creationism seriously.
Evolution, via natural selection, IS real - the evidence is overwhelming and denying it makes you look brainwashed. Plain and simple.
If evolution were false, then pesticide companies like Orkin and pharmaceutical firms like Phizer wouldn't have the business they do today. Care to guess why?
I feel bad for many christians, as I know they're sensible people in general but they allow they're feelings to lull them into believing the weak talking points so en vogue with their vocal and closeminded brethren. In my experience the most vehement anti-evolution types are in fact the ones who are ignorant of even the most basic evolutionary principles. Case in point the people who made this museum. I can't help but feel sad when dogma wins over reality.
And people wonder why the US is losing it's global dominance in science.... *sigh*
When people say no creation science should not be discussed in schools, they're showing the same kind of attitude that they would not want to have pushed on them.
People don't want creationism taught in science class - there is a huge difference. If you want the christian literary tradition covered in public schools, then it belongs in a Comparative Religion class, many high schools already have syllabuses to that effect. Creationism should not be taught, and is not taught in a science curriculum for the exact same reasons we don't dispense astrology in astronomy class.
Parents who have a problem with that should either enroll their kids in a private school more in line with their religious sensitivities, or look to Bible School at their prefered church for the additional tutelage. Pretty straight forward really...
-
08-19-2007, 06:44 PM #54Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
The problem with Creationism, aside from there being no evidence of any kind to support it, is that if there is a God, Creationism necessitates him being a conniving and purposeful liar. Hiding dinosaur bones all over the planet, along with the humanoid bones of what appear to be our ancestors, in minute detail, just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist? That's pretty hard to swallow.
What did Sherlock Holmes say? "The most obvious answer is most often the correct one." Something like that. The simplest explanation for there being dinosaur bones all around the planet that carbon date to many millions of years ago in time is that there were dinosaurs many millions of years ago. The simplest explanation for the fossil record showing increasing complexity in lifeforms over time is that lifeforms grow more complex over time.
There's no reason to inject religion into this other than that the material facts don't match this or that piece of religious writing. That's the problem with religion mixing with science: religion tries to make the facts fit the religion. Science doesn't try to make the facts fit anything; scientific theories are refined constantly to reflect the available evidence. Most scientists are willing to accept that God created everything, even a mere 6,000 years ago or whatever, provided that that is what the evidence shows. But it doesn't. Creationists are not nearly that flexible. If the facts don't fit their beliefs then either the facts must be wrong, or God did it all just to trick us.
-
08-19-2007, 07:52 PM #55Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
Quote:
Creationism does not contradict very many things. Evolution is one of the few things it contradicts. We cannot prove that evolution is real.
Man I hope you were high when you wrote that.
Evolution, via natural selection, IS real - the evidence is overwhelming and denying it makes you look brainwashed. Plain and simple.
If evolution were false, then pesticide companies like Orkin and pharmaceutical firms like Phizer wouldn't have the business they do today. Care to guess why?
You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the opposition here, odd behavior if you're indeed confident in your sides position.
People don't want creationism taught in science class - there is a huge difference. If you want the christian literary tradition covered in public schools, then it belongs in a Comparative Religion class, many high schools already have syllabuses to that effect. Creationism should not be taught, and is not taught in a science curriculum for the exact same reasons we don't dispense astrology in astronomy class.
Parents who have a problem with that should either enroll their kids in a private school more in line with their religious sensitivities, or look to Bible School at their prefered church for the additional tutelage. Pretty straight forward really...
Where do you get this idea that simply because a concept involves God or inteligent design it instantly becomes religion? That's not true.
Jamstigator said:
The problem with Creationism, aside from there being no evidence of any kind to support it,
Go ahead check it out : Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics (there are lots of other sites besides that one as well)
Creationism necessitates him being a conniving and purposeful liar. Hiding dinosaur bones all over the planet, along with the humanoid bones of what appear to be our ancestors, in minute detail, just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist? That's pretty hard to swallow.
Heres more:
Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
FOSSILS AND ROCKS: CIRCULAR REASONING
Noah's Flood Q&A
What did Sherlock Holmes say? "The most obvious answer is most often the correct one." Something like that.
Science doesn't try to make the facts fit anything;
Feedback: Are scientists really biased by their presuppositions? - Answers in Genesis
I think that there's just too much ignorance in this world. As it says in the Word, If you are wise, you are wise for yourself and if you are a fool you alone will bear it.And God said... I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. ..And to every beast of the earth.. I have given every green herb for meat... \" Genesis 1:29-30
it is a plant, grows in the ground
bears seed, and green.
When God\'s law and man\'s law contradict, God\'s law prevails.Man is judging God\'s law.Thank God for cannabis.
-
08-19-2007, 08:10 PM #56Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
-
08-19-2007, 08:26 PM #57Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
Heh, 'intelligent design' is such a joke. Rabbits have to eat their food, crap it out, and then eat their crap, in order to properly absorb the nutrients. That's intelligent design, eating your own poop? There are lots of similar examples where evolution didn't quite work out very well and produced 'an inferior product'. If there is a God doing this designing, he's a retard and not worth worshipping.
-
08-19-2007, 09:07 PM #58Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
I hope you're not talking to me because I didn't type that.
Anyways...I got as far as..
This is just an opinionated comment with no scientific examples to back it up.
*buzzzer sound* Ugh, wrong! Evolution via natural selection is a fact, there are mountains of evidence to back this up - sorry! Is my belief in gravity just an opinionated comment too? Why don't you jump out the window and prove me wrong?Sweet jeebus, you might as well have said there's no proof the sun is yellow.
You'll have to forgive me, I don't feel your brand of indoctrination warrants the effort required on my part to illustrate just how wrong you are. Been down this road before; provide all manner of verified proof and what I get is backpeddling, diversions, then nothing but crickets. If you've made it this far knowing absolutely nothing about Darwin's Natural Selection yet still continue to rail against it, I hold no illusions that an anonymous poster on this forum is going to change your mind. Likewise, it kinda strikes the rest of your replies not worth responding to, no matter the number of strawmen and downright falsehoods you post. I learned a long time ago not to debate with those wearing earplugs and blinders. Mea culpa.
Is there anyone else here who would like to discuss this without resorting to talking points that were shot down a long time ago?
For the lazy folks (not a slam, I'm kinda lazy myself!) National Geographic did a pretty good article on this topic not too long ago, it was called 'Was Darwin Wrong?' I'm sure you can find it online, some of you might even have the issue it's in.
-
08-19-2007, 09:18 PM #59Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
Aha! Found it! An excerpt from the article I mentioned:
Today the same four branches of biological science from which Darwin drewâ??biogeography, paleontology, embryology, morphologyâ??embrace an ever growing body of supporting data. In addition to those categories we now have others: population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and, most recently, the whiz-bang field of machine-driven genetic sequencing known as genomics. These new forms of knowledge overlap one another seamlessly and intersect with the older forms, strengthening the whole edifice, contributing further to the certainty that Darwin was right.
He was right about evolution, that is. He wasn't right about everything. Being a restless explainer, Darwin floated a number of theoretical notions during his long working life, some of which were mistaken and illusory. He was wrong about what causes variation within a species. He was wrong about a famous geologic mystery, the parallel shelves along a Scottish valley called Glen Roy. Most notably, his theory of inheritanceâ??which he labeled pangenesis and cherished despite its poor reception among his biologist colleaguesâ??turned out to be dead wrong. Fortunately for Darwin, the correctness of his most famous good idea stood independent of that particular bad idea. Evolution by natural selection represented Darwin at his bestâ??which is to say, scientific observation and careful thinking at its best.
Douglas Futuyma is a highly respected evolutionary biologist, author of textbooks as well as influential research papers. His office, at the University of Michigan, is a long narrow room in the natural sciences building, well stocked with journals and books, including volumes about the conflict between creationism and evolution. I arrived carrying a well-thumbed copy of his own book on that subject, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Killing time in the corridor before our appointment, I noticed a blue flyer on a departmental bulletin board, seeming oddly placed there amid the announcements of career opportunities for graduate students. "Creation vs. evolution," it said. "A series of messages challenging popular thought with Biblical truth and scientific evidences." A traveling lecturer from something called the Origins Research Association would deliver these messages at a local Baptist church. Beside the lecturer's photo was a drawing of a dinosaur. "Free pizza following the evening service," said a small line at the bottom. Dinosaurs, biblical truth, and pizza: something for everybody.
In response to my questions about evidence, Dr. Futuyma moved quickly through the traditional categoriesâ??paleontology, biogeographyâ??and talked mostly about modern genetics. He pulled out his heavily marked copy of the journal Nature for February 15, 2001, a historic issue, fat with articles reporting and analyzing the results of the Human Genome Project. Beside it he slapped down a more recent issue of Nature, this one devoted to the sequenced genome of the house mouse, Mus musculus. The headline of the lead editorial announced: "HUMAN BIOLOGY BY PROXY." The mouse genome effort, according to Nature's editors, had revealed "about 30,000 genes, with 99% having direct counterparts in humans."
The resemblance between our 30,000 human genes and those 30,000 mousy counterparts, Futuyma explained, represents another form of homology, like the resemblance between a five-fingered hand and a five-toed paw. Such genetic homology is what gives meaning to biomedical research using mice and other animals, including chimpanzees, which (to their sad misfortune) are our closest living relatives.
No aspect of biomedical research seems more urgent today than the study of microbial diseases. And the dynamics of those microbes within human bodies, within human populations, can only be understood in terms of evolution.
Nightmarish illnesses caused by microbes include both the infectious sort (AIDS, Ebola, SARS) that spread directly from person to person and the sort (malaria, West Nile fever) delivered to us by biting insects or other intermediaries. The capacity for quick change among disease-causing microbes is what makes them so dangerous to large numbers of people and so difficult and expensive to treat. They leap from wildlife or domestic animals into humans, adapting to new circumstances as they go. Their inherent variability allows them to find new ways of evading and defeating human immune systems. By natural selection they acquire resistance to drugs that should kill them. They evolve. There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs.
Take the common bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, which lurks in hospitals and causes serious infections, especially among surgery patients. Penicillin, becoming available in 1943, proved almost miraculously effective in fighting staphylococcus infections. Its deployment marked a new phase in the old war between humans and disease microbes, a phase in which humans invent new killer drugs and microbes find new ways to be unkillable. The supreme potency of penicillin didn't last long. The first resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus were reported in 1947. A newer staph-killing drug, methicillin, came into use during the 1960s, but methicillin-resistant strains appeared soon, and by the 1980s those strains were widespread. Vancomycin became the next great weapon against staph, and the first vancomycin-resistant strain emerged in 2002. These antibiotic-resistant strains represent an evolutionary series, not much different in principle from the fossil series tracing horse evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus. They make evolution a very practical problem by adding expense, as well as misery and danger, to the challenge of coping with staph.
The biologist Stephen Palumbi has calculated the cost of treating penicillin-resistant and methicillin-resistant staph infections, just in the United States, at 30 billion dollars a year. "Antibiotics exert a powerful evolutionary force," he wrote last year, "driving infectious bacteria to evolve powerful defenses against all but the most recently invented drugs." As reflected in their DNA, which uses the same genetic code found in humans and horses and hagfish and honeysuckle, bacteria are part of the continuum of life, all shaped and diversified by evolutionary forces.
Even viruses belong to that continuum. Some viruses evolve quickly, some slowly. Among the fastest is HIV, because its method of replicating itself involves a high rate of mutation, and those mutations allow the virus to assume new forms. After just a few years of infection and drug treatment, each HIV patient carries a unique version of the virus. Isolation within one infected person, plus differing conditions and the struggle to survive, forces each version of HIV to evolve independently. It's nothing but a speeded up and microscopic case of what Darwin saw in the Galápagosâ??except that each human body is an island, and the newly evolved forms aren't so charming as finches or mockingbirds.
Understanding how quickly HIV acquires resistance to antiviral drugs, such as AZT, has been crucial to improving treatment by way of multiple drug cocktails. "This approach has reduced deaths due to HIV by severalfold since 1996," according to Palumbi, "and it has greatly slowed the evolution of this disease within patients."
Insects and weeds acquire resistance to our insecticides and herbicides through the same process. As we humans try to poison them, evolution by natural selection transforms the population of a mosquito or thistle into a new sort of creature, less vulnerable to that particular poison. So we invent another poison, then another. It's a futile effort. Even DDT, with its ferocious and long-lasting effects throughout ecosystems, produced resistant house flies within a decade of its discovery in 1939. By 1990 more than 500 species (including 114 kinds of mosquitoes) had acquired resistance to at least one pesticide. Based on these undesired results, Stephen Palumbi has commented glumly, "humans may be the world's dominant evolutionary force."
Among most forms of living creatures, evolution proceeds slowlyâ??too slowly to be observed by a single scientist within a research lifetime. But science functions by inference, not just by direct observation, and the inferential sorts of evidence such as paleontology and biogeography are no less cogent simply because they're indirect. Still, skeptics of evolutionary theory ask: Can we see evolution in action? Can it be observed in the wild? Can it be measured in the laboratory?
The answer is yes. Peter and Rosemary Grant, two British-born researchers who have spent decades where Charles Darwin spent weeks, have captured a glimpse of evolution with their long-term studies of beak size among Galápagos finches. William R. Rice and George W. Salt achieved something similar in their lab, through an experiment involving 35 generations of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Richard E. Lenski and his colleagues at Michigan State University have done it too, tracking 20,000 generations of evolution in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Such field studies and lab experiments document anagenesisâ??that is, slow evolutionary change within a single, unsplit lineage. With patience it can be seen, like the movement of a minute hand on a clock.
Btw, Jams, in regards to the Sherlock thing, are you sure you ain't thinking about Occam's Razor?
-
08-19-2007, 09:30 PM #60Senior Member
Creationism Museum...WTF
I was thinking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes, but his was a paraphrase of Occam's Razor. Snippet via Wiki:
"The fictional friar, William of Baskerville, alludes both to the fictional sleuth Sherlock Holmes and to William of Ockham. The name itself is derived from William of Ockham and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book The Hound of the Baskervilles. William of Ockham, who lived during the time of the novel, first put forward the principle known as "Ockham's Razor": often summarised as the dictum that one should always accept as most likely the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts (a method used by William of Baskerville in the novel), similar to Sherlock Holmes' familiar assertion that when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains â?? however improbable â?? must be the truth."
I like the Sherlock Holmes quote the best, but they say basically the same thing, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle obviously did get it from William of Ockham.
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
Creationism conspiracy
By bhouncy in forum SpiritualityReplies: 28Last Post: 05-13-2010, 07:04 PM -
creationism
By MastaChronic in forum SpiritualityReplies: 2Last Post: 10-19-2006, 10:20 PM -
Best museum/zoo in NY while high?
By Pride in forum ExperiencesReplies: 4Last Post: 09-11-2006, 11:36 PM -
evolution or creationism?
By juggalo420 in forum SpiritualityReplies: 134Last Post: 10-15-2005, 08:32 PM -
Creationism Museum...WTF
By in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 0Last Post: 01-01-1970, 12:00 AM