Evolution
- Thread starter pezenfuego
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
I'm defending what I believe and the reason behind that belief. I have said it more times than one, this is a debate meaning that neither side can be determined true to the full extent.
Maybe I can't express myself as well as you would like. I need to keep reminding myself who I am talking with.
Stdreb, you may call my reading comprehension poor if you'd like, but again I am not the appointed spokesperson for evolution or teenagers. You may not use my poor reading comprehension to jump to the conclusion that all teenagers have poor reading comprehension.
It's funny how I get blamed for being the jerk in this debate. I could bring this debate to almost any other forum on the internet and the discussion would be civilized.
Make sure you cover your ears and make the na-na noises simultaneously, it is more effective that way.
What EXACTLY have I said to you that was uncivilized or a personal attack? You have yet to specifically point this out. And once again, pez pulls the victim card.
See this is the problem. You have stated that neither can be absolutely proven and in fact are unproven. Yet when someone comments on the unproven parts of science you immediately jumped to the defense of science and started speaking how science was correct in their dating system and so on and so forth. If you believe neither is proven...then how come you a vehemothly defend and placing your support behind one and b elittling the other based off the data from one....do I need to requote every statement you have made.
Seriously kid...............
Darth (M.I.B) Tang
Editted to apologize to beth, was typing during your reponse.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Lets get back to the topic gentlemen, rather than trying to make each other extinct!
Teenagers think they know everything....and so do old men, and all women. Peace, plez.
I was extinct once.....then evolution took hold and realized it had erred.
Darth (the dinosaur) Tang
mantisman51
Active Member
It's not a scientific fact or it would be called the LAW of evolution. And I think it takes more religious faith and zealotry to believe infinite accidents caused all of what is in existence. So where did all that stuff that made the big bang come from? Something from nothing? That is GREAT science. And you might wait until you at least have a degree of some kind before you start the condescending "Can you believe there are so many idiots out there" routine. At least the pointy-headed lefties who are speaking out their @$$ have a little education. Yup, it's just us stooped religious nuts who believe in God and creation.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Blank...double post
darthtang aw
Active Member
Lets call it even then. Unless you all want to close this one up? I can always start talking about my snakes (that should clear the room).
I didnt think snake talk was appropriate for this forum.
Darth (compensating) Tang
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375072
It's not a scientific fact or it would be called the LAW of evolution. And I think it takes more religious faith and zealotry to believe infinite accidents caused all of what is in existence. So where did all that stuff that made the big bang come from? Something from nothing? That is GREAT science. And you might wait until you at least have a degree of some kind before you start the condescending "Can you believe there are so many idiots out there" routine. At least the pointy-headed lefties who are speaking out their @$$ have a little education. Yup, it's just us stooped religious nuts who believe in God and creation.
I think the thing I hate most about this forum is that I type a bunch on the first page and then nobody reads it and cause me to quote myself...
But I'll do it.
Quote:
The other common misconception you hold is that there is something above or better than theory. This is not true. Even scientific laws are not above (so to speak) scientific theories. A law explains a phenomenon, but does not explain the reason for its occurrence. Think about Newton's laws. They outline how something will happen, but not why. We need the THEORY of gravitation to explain the why.
I'll even include Newton's laws for completion:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
That's it! That's all there is to it. That's a law. In order to explain why this is so you need a (you guessed it) theory.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Psssssst....it is called Newtons law of universal gravitation.
Darth (helping out) tang
Darth (helping out) tang
pezenfuego
Active Member
Darth, even that does not explain what gravity is aside from an attractive force. For that you need the Universal Theory of Gravitation.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Feel free to look it up. I don't know how that misconception became so prominent but a theory will never "evolve" into a law.
If no one reads it, in all honesty, it is because the posts are long, with a lot of quotes from other sources.
This usually makes for dull conversation, not that you are stupid, or don't have good points. Its the delivery.
Forums are more on the level of conversations among acquaintance and friends--fast reads are nearly a must.
This usually makes for dull conversation, not that you are stupid, or don't have good points. Its the delivery.
Forums are more on the level of conversations among acquaintance and friends--fast reads are nearly a must.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Like this...consider the source though.
Scientific law. An idea or belief that can be repeatedly continuously. Throwing a ball in the air it will fall down. Has never been otherwise.
Theory....and idea that is unable to be totally proven due to certain unremovable factrs. Multiple theories are a collection of ideas that have been studied to degree to become consensus explaining the functions behind the law. Theory or relativity...would be in conjunction the with newtons law of gravity.
Hypothesis...the beginning stages of theory...unstudied thus holding little shred of provable data.
See....simple...informative...and not trying to flaunt ones intelligence over another (not that I would do that).
My question is this...what law is the theory of evolution a part of based off the previous scientific definitions......or is evolution a theory in the common sense of the word if there is no law to bed a part of.
Darth (einstein) Tang
Scientific law. An idea or belief that can be repeatedly continuously. Throwing a ball in the air it will fall down. Has never been otherwise.
Theory....and idea that is unable to be totally proven due to certain unremovable factrs. Multiple theories are a collection of ideas that have been studied to degree to become consensus explaining the functions behind the law. Theory or relativity...would be in conjunction the with newtons law of gravity.
Hypothesis...the beginning stages of theory...unstudied thus holding little shred of provable data.
See....simple...informative...and not trying to flaunt ones intelligence over another (not that I would do that).
My question is this...what law is the theory of evolution a part of based off the previous scientific definitions......or is evolution a theory in the common sense of the word if there is no law to bed a part of.
Darth (einstein) Tang
pezenfuego
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375105
Like this...consider the source though.
Scientific law. An idea or belief that can be repeatedly continuously. Throwing a ball in the air it will fall down. Has never been otherwise.
Theory....and idea that is unable to be totally proven due to certain unremovable factrs. Multiple theories are a collection of ideas that have been studied to degree to become consensus explaining the functions behind the law. Theory or relativity...would be in conjunction the with newtons law of gravity.
Hypothesis...the beginning stages of theory...unstudied thus holding little shred of provable data.
See....simple...informative...and not trying to flaunt ones intelligence over another (not that I would do that).
My question is this...what law is the theory of evolution a part of based off the previous scientific definitions......or is evolution a theory in the common sense of the word if there is no law to bed a part of.
Darth (einstein) Tang
That's a good question. One that I cannot answer, but will look for. I assumed that evolution was a theory that stood without a law. I had no reason to not think that, but of course that doesn't make me correct.
My guess (for what it's worth) is that we cannot see natural selection (at least not well) and therefore could not create a law for it. It made sense for people to assume that all animals (which are very different) were a part of a design and did not share common ancestors.
If there was a reason that we had to believe that all animals had the same origin just by looking at them (much like we have to believe that something causes a ball to fall to the Earth) then there would probably be a law for it.
That's a thought provoking question. I wish I knew someone I could ask. That sort of question is difficult to just google.
I hope my poor writing skills don't cause you to take this out of context because I'm sure what I said and what I meant are not equivalent. Hopefully you take it the correct way, but if you don't I will admit that it is my fault on this one.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375105
Like this...consider the source though.
Scientific law. An idea or belief that can be repeatedly continuously. Throwing a ball in the air it will fall down. Has never been otherwise.
Theory....and idea that is unable to be totally proven due to certain unremovable factrs. Multiple theories are a collection of ideas that have been studied to degree to become consensus explaining the functions behind the law. Theory or relativity...would be in conjunction the with newtons law of gravity.
Hypothesis...the beginning stages of theory...unstudied thus holding little shred of provable data.
See....simple...informative...and not trying to flaunt ones intelligence over another (not that I would do that).
My question is this...what law is the theory of evolution a part of based off the previous scientific definitions......or is evolution a theory in the common sense of the word if there is no law to bed a part of.
Darth (einstein) Tang
That's a good question. One that I cannot answer, but will look for. I assumed that evolution was a theory that stood without a law. I had no reason to not think that, but of course that doesn't make me correct.
My guess (for what it's worth) is that we cannot see natural selection (at least not well) and therefore could not create a law for it. It made sense for people to assume that all animals (which are very different) were a part of a design and did not share common ancestors.
If there was a reason that we had to believe that all animals had the same origin just by looking at them (much like we have to believe that something causes a ball to fall to the Earth) then there would probably be a law for it.
That's a thought provoking question. I wish I knew someone I could ask. That sort of question is difficult to just google.
I hope my poor writing skills don't cause you to take this out of context because I'm sure what I said and what I meant are not equivalent. Hopefully you take it the correct way, but if you don't I will admit that it is my fault on this one.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/40#post_3375058
My theory is that the reason we see so many civilizations springing up all around the same time in history is because, just previous to that, there was an ice age....thus, very little civilization building.
We have been quite lucky over the past several thousand years to have experienced a warming trend on this planet. When that ends, and we go back to ice covering 50% of the Northern Hemisphere, then we will see some serious changes on this planet.
Then we will see what species dies off and which survives.
If you believe in evolution, and in Neanderthal humanoids, the last ice age is the likely culprit for their demise. And we were not so different then they--except we breed better
I thought that the neanderthals lived for nearly 300,000 years and survived several ice ages. They apeared to have dissapeared from the archeological record right around 30,000 years ago. The last ice age ended right around 12,500 years ago. I wonder what happened between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago to spur on all the growth. Especially to move and erect ginormous stones into masive buildings and temples dedicated to their 'gods'.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/40#post_3375058
My theory is that the reason we see so many civilizations springing up all around the same time in history is because, just previous to that, there was an ice age....thus, very little civilization building.
We have been quite lucky over the past several thousand years to have experienced a warming trend on this planet. When that ends, and we go back to ice covering 50% of the Northern Hemisphere, then we will see some serious changes on this planet.
Then we will see what species dies off and which survives.
If you believe in evolution, and in Neanderthal humanoids, the last ice age is the likely culprit for their demise. And we were not so different then they--except we breed better
I thought that the neanderthals lived for nearly 300,000 years and survived several ice ages. They apeared to have dissapeared from the archeological record right around 30,000 years ago. The last ice age ended right around 12,500 years ago. I wonder what happened between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago to spur on all the growth. Especially to move and erect ginormous stones into masive buildings and temples dedicated to their 'gods'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375126
I thought that the neanderthals lived for nearly 300,000 years and survived several ice ages. They appeared to have disappeared from the archaeological record right around 30,000 years ago. The last ice age ended right around 12,500 years ago. I wonder what happened between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago to spur on all the growth. Especially to move and erect ginormous stones into massive buildings and temples dedicated to their 'gods'.
Yes, you are right. My big blunder. The Neanderthals and humans were likely neck and neck, though, and temperature changes (not the most recent one) is likely to have been a big factor in killing them off. Our species took center stage from thereafter, and here we are.
I do think that we have had fairly temperate weather since 12000 years ago, and that gave us the chance to do great things. Modern humans are only about 50000. Babies we are really.
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375126
I thought that the neanderthals lived for nearly 300,000 years and survived several ice ages. They appeared to have disappeared from the archaeological record right around 30,000 years ago. The last ice age ended right around 12,500 years ago. I wonder what happened between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago to spur on all the growth. Especially to move and erect ginormous stones into massive buildings and temples dedicated to their 'gods'.
Yes, you are right. My big blunder. The Neanderthals and humans were likely neck and neck, though, and temperature changes (not the most recent one) is likely to have been a big factor in killing them off. Our species took center stage from thereafter, and here we are.
I do think that we have had fairly temperate weather since 12000 years ago, and that gave us the chance to do great things. Modern humans are only about 50000. Babies we are really.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375139
Yes, you are right. My big blunder. The Neanderthals and humans were likely neck and neck, though, and temperature changes (not the most recent one) is likely to have been a big factor in killing them off. Our species took center stage from thereafter, and here we are.
I do think that we have had fairly temperate weather since 12000 years ago, and that gave us the chance to do great things. Modern humans are only about 50000. Babies we are really.
Indeed. And that may very well be accurate. Warmer weather and steady temperatures would be more conducive for farming and thus settling into co-operative groups as apposed to living the hunter gatherer lifestyle. And once you know where your next meal will be coming from then this could have given people more time to build and create. I can see that.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375139
Yes, you are right. My big blunder. The Neanderthals and humans were likely neck and neck, though, and temperature changes (not the most recent one) is likely to have been a big factor in killing them off. Our species took center stage from thereafter, and here we are.
I do think that we have had fairly temperate weather since 12000 years ago, and that gave us the chance to do great things. Modern humans are only about 50000. Babies we are really.
Indeed. And that may very well be accurate. Warmer weather and steady temperatures would be more conducive for farming and thus settling into co-operative groups as apposed to living the hunter gatherer lifestyle. And once you know where your next meal will be coming from then this could have given people more time to build and create. I can see that.
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/40#post_3375054
Stdreb, you may call my reading comprehension poor if you'd like, but again I am not the appointed spokesperson for evolution or teenagers. You may not use my poor reading comprehension to jump to the conclusion that all teenagers have poor reading comprehension.
It's funny how I get blamed for being the jerk in this debate. I could bring this debate to almost any other forum on the internet and the discussion would be civilized.
Make sure you cover your ears and make the na-na noises simultaneously, it is more effective that way.
My statement, was a political science / propaganda point. Darth Explained how it works. I was just pointing out that he forgot the lack of reading comprehension...
It is standard operating procedure. Teach someone an unproven idea as fact (or at least "scientific consensus"), castigate anyone who thinks otherwise as an extremist, kook, fringe nut. Then when the ideas are challenged, make them ask why the personal attacks. (he never has to defend his position) Reading comprehension makes this really hard to do. So they make sure you can't understand what you read....
You've done that here. They've done it since Galleleo and Heliocentricity, till now and global "warming." (at least now they don't literally kill you for disagreeing with their scientific theories)
Did you know that Google is launching a Global Warming propaganda machine (well website). And this is a quote from one of their guys who decides what to do.
“If Google included people who challenged that debate, they would be wrong to do so,” said Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor for the School of Communication at American University and one of the 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.
“As to whether climate change is happening, humans are a cause and it is a problem -- there is no scientific debate over that," Nisbet told FoxNews.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/05/google-wades-global-warming-debate/#ixzz1IpzeoXc7
idden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">
It is a classic king with no clothes situation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375091
Feel free to look it up. I don't know how that misconception became so prominent but a theory will never "evolve" into a law.
Read your own post. You can't comprehend how anybody would disagree with it.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374570
I read a statistic today that absolutely blew my mind. I fact checked it too. More than 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution and furthermore believe that the earth's age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years. I don't understand how, with the incredible amount of evidence that has been found for the theory of evolution, 40% can deny its verity. Do we have any deniers out there? If so could you please explain to me why almost half of Americans agree with you?
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/40#post_3375054
Stdreb, you may call my reading comprehension poor if you'd like, but again I am not the appointed spokesperson for evolution or teenagers. You may not use my poor reading comprehension to jump to the conclusion that all teenagers have poor reading comprehension.
It's funny how I get blamed for being the jerk in this debate. I could bring this debate to almost any other forum on the internet and the discussion would be civilized.
Make sure you cover your ears and make the na-na noises simultaneously, it is more effective that way.
My statement, was a political science / propaganda point. Darth Explained how it works. I was just pointing out that he forgot the lack of reading comprehension...
It is standard operating procedure. Teach someone an unproven idea as fact (or at least "scientific consensus"), castigate anyone who thinks otherwise as an extremist, kook, fringe nut. Then when the ideas are challenged, make them ask why the personal attacks. (he never has to defend his position) Reading comprehension makes this really hard to do. So they make sure you can't understand what you read....
You've done that here. They've done it since Galleleo and Heliocentricity, till now and global "warming." (at least now they don't literally kill you for disagreeing with their scientific theories)
Did you know that Google is launching a Global Warming propaganda machine (well website). And this is a quote from one of their guys who decides what to do.
“If Google included people who challenged that debate, they would be wrong to do so,” said Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor for the School of Communication at American University and one of the 21 Google Science Communication Fellows.
“As to whether climate change is happening, humans are a cause and it is a problem -- there is no scientific debate over that," Nisbet told FoxNews.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/05/google-wades-global-warming-debate/#ixzz1IpzeoXc7
idden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">
It is a classic king with no clothes situation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375091
Feel free to look it up. I don't know how that misconception became so prominent but a theory will never "evolve" into a law.
Read your own post. You can't comprehend how anybody would disagree with it.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374570
I read a statistic today that absolutely blew my mind. I fact checked it too. More than 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution and furthermore believe that the earth's age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years. I don't understand how, with the incredible amount of evidence that has been found for the theory of evolution, 40% can deny its verity. Do we have any deniers out there? If so could you please explain to me why almost half of Americans agree with you?
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375061
Lets get back to the topic gentlemen, rather than trying to make each other extinct!
Teenagers think they know everything....and so do old men, and all women. Peace, plez.
So true, old men and teenagers THINK they know everything, men are old before they think at all, and women do know everything, be it a mom or a wife or girlfriend, ask any guy....LOL...LOL
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/60#post_3375061
Lets get back to the topic gentlemen, rather than trying to make each other extinct!
Teenagers think they know everything....and so do old men, and all women. Peace, plez.
So true, old men and teenagers THINK they know everything, men are old before they think at all, and women do know everything, be it a mom or a wife or girlfriend, ask any guy....LOL...LOL
cipher43
Member
I must say that the above was really fun to read and also gave me proof that flower is right. My mom was right when she said dont talk about politics or religion (including scientist because no matter what you say a religion is something you believe in and that is what scientist do) with anyone but family cause all you will do is make someone mad. with that said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374570
I don't understand how, with the incredible amount of evidence that has been found for the theory of evolution, 40% can deny its verity.
I Think that the majority of people when they hear evolution think of lightning striking a pool and a bug crawls out that turns into a lizard that turns into a bird that turns into a cat that turns into a dog that turns into a monkey that becomes us and then we kill all that came before us. The problem is that there is another type of evolution (instead of large scale that is) and that is small scale which is a new type of bird that comes from 2 other types of birds. Usually Scientist believe in both and creatist usually believe in the latter.
The best thing to do is to zip the pants back up and put the rulers away cause everyone wins that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374570
I don't understand how, with the incredible amount of evidence that has been found for the theory of evolution, 40% can deny its verity.
I Think that the majority of people when they hear evolution think of lightning striking a pool and a bug crawls out that turns into a lizard that turns into a bird that turns into a cat that turns into a dog that turns into a monkey that becomes us and then we kill all that came before us. The problem is that there is another type of evolution (instead of large scale that is) and that is small scale which is a new type of bird that comes from 2 other types of birds. Usually Scientist believe in both and creatist usually believe in the latter.
The best thing to do is to zip the pants back up and put the rulers away cause everyone wins that way.