The W
Views: 98949446
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 2043
The W - Random - Man believed to be in America 50,000 years ago (Page 2)
This thread has 41 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.19
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(1018 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 376 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.84
    Originally posted by Stilton
    Daddy said it best:

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
    --Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

    "They accuse creationists of taking everything blindly and on faith."

    All faith is blind, by definition.

    (edited by Stilton on 29.11.04 1030)

    (edited by Stilton on 29.11.04 2026)


On the contrary, faith should never be blind or seperate from the brain. Faith should consist of taking the available evidence, seeing where it leads, then taking those steps beyond the inevitable end line of the evidence. Faith completes your belief, but evidence starts it, forms the basis.

Evidence concerning creation theories (evolution, God, both), will always be far lacking of a mandate for a particular theory. Some people see vesitigal wings in land animals and hypothesize that points to a common evolutionary thread between land and air species. But this IS taking a leap of faith. There is more one then possibility the evidence could lead to, and scientists are simply believing the evidence points to one possibility and forming a belief system beyond where the evidence actually leads.

The belief is supported by evidence, but finished with faith.

I look at the evidence and see plenty of evidence for evolution, but the evidence also ends far in front of what is needed to get a truly clear idea of what actually happened. I also see plenty of scientific evidence for the Bible (and there is a lot of it), and truly think there is enough to satisfy my mental belief in the Bible, but realize there is a point the evidence ends. And, as I said, I cannot discount the evidence in favor of evolution.

So, since there is evidence for both sides, for me that points to truth in both sides. And nowhere can I see any evidence pointing to the impossbility of this.

For me, God using the evolutionary process shows His abiding and close love of this Earth he created. He is staying involved in all processes throughout time, not simply winding up the clock and letting it tick.



Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3147 days
Last activity: 3147 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.26
    Originally posted by messenoir
    I also see plenty of scientific evidence for the Bible (and there is a lot of it). . . For me, God using the evolutionary process shows His abiding and close love of this Earth he created. He is staying involved in all processes throughout time, not simply winding up the clock and letting it tick.


Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?

Where is the scientific evidence for biblical creationism? I mean real imperical scientific evidence.

I hate to break it to you, but renaming it with some psuedo-scientific BS label like "The Theory of Intelligent Design" doesn't actually make it scientific. It makes it "spin". Real science requires imperical observation. So where is the imperical evidence of which you speak?

(edited by Stilton on 30.11.04 1719)


The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3556 days
Last activity: 3505 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.58
A question that's bugged me. Forget about debunking Creationism for a moment.

How exactly do dinosaur bones help improve the argument for Darwinism?



It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3521 days
Last activity: 3521 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.54
The theory currently is that dinosaurs evolved into birds, as its commonly known as the Jurassic Park theory. I would assume its easier to argue that animals were here before us, which is true from said dinosaurs. Its just to completely understand how the dinosaurs evolved you have to probably go back into the millions of years department which we have not perfected, yet. I just think dinosaurs do more to debunk Creationism than anything else. Unless, you believe a God that would destroy and entire species just to start over with another, if so one has to ask the question then when is it our time?



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 20 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
    Originally posted by A Fan
    Unless, you believe a God that would destroy and entire species just to start over with another, if so one has to ask the question then when is it our time?


Well, God did tell Noah to build an ark and gather two of each animal and take them aboard so he could flood the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. It's certainly within the realm of possibility.



Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
Y!:
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by Whitebacon
      Originally posted by A Fan
      Unless, you believe a God that would destroy and entire species just to start over with another, if so one has to ask the question then when is it our time?


    Well, God did tell Noah to build an ark and gather two of each animal and take them aboard so he could flood the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. It's certainly within the realm of possibility.

I never did understand how two Great White Sharks, for example, made it on the ark.

Frankly, if a Creationist ever told me that God created fossils, not dinosaurs, I think my only response would be 'Doesn't that amount to the same thing?'



DONATE
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 20 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
There's gotta be a Carl Everett joke in there somewhere.



Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3147 days
Last activity: 3147 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.26
    Originally posted by A Fan
    The theory currently is that dinosaurs evolved into birds, as its commonly known as the Jurassic Park theory. I would assume its easier to argue that animals were here before us, which is true from said dinosaurs. Its just to completely understand how the dinosaurs evolved you have to probably go back into the millions of years department which we have not perfected, yet. I just think dinosaurs do more to debunk Creationism than anything else. Unless, you believe a God that would destroy and entire species just to start over with another, if so one has to ask the question then when is it our time?


Also, paleontologists have monitored changes within species of dinosaurs that existed for many millions of years. Tyrannosaurus rex, for example, existed for millions of years into the late Cretaceous period, and marked differences (for example the width and length of certain bones, etc.) in extant specimens have been noted in those dating from each extreme. Specimens that fall at various points in the middle of that time line show an actual arc of these changes slowly occurring, or, in other words, they show the T-rex evolving over time.

Also, where large numbers of specimens from a given family (in the taxonomic sense, eg. Sauropods, things like Bracchiosaurs, Brontosaurs, etc.) have been collected and studied, there is evidence of certain species of dinosaurs evolving from a common ancestor, or set of common ancestors. Its evolution at work, and the its written in rock 200 million years old. Actually, there have recently been some interesting discoveries in the field of sauropod evolotion research. Link here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0529_020529_sauropods.html

Some further reading on dinosaur evolution:
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/boulton/evolution.html
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/boulton/evolution.html#anchor6

[edited for typo]

(edited by Stilton on 1.12.04 0330)


The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3556 days
Last activity: 3505 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.58
So there is no proof for things switching species? (Or why are we having to look at dinosaurs for proof?)

Was the ice age in between the age of dinosaur and man? (Sounds like it from Stilton's link, btw the bottom two (other than the way they were anchored, go to the same place))

And if man evolved from apes (and apes evolved from something) since the time of dinosaurs and we've found all these dinosaur bones why haven't we found the same proof when it comes to man evolving from apes. The bones *should* be more recent and therefore more easy to find shouldn't they?



It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3147 days
Last activity: 3147 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.26
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    So there is no proof for things switching species? (Or why are we having to look at dinosaurs for proof?)


There is plenty evidence. Have you even read The Origin of Species? There is plenty of evidence right there, but it doesn't stop there. Scientists are making new discoveries all the time. They have been for over a hundred years. But there is no "switching" species. Velocaraptor didn't become the red-tailed hawk over night. It took millions upon millions of years. Modern humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years, which isn't much time, relatively. Also, mammal bones are much smaller and more fragile than dinosaur bones, so finding good specimens of early hominids (which were also less abundant than dinosaurs) is more difficult.

    Originally posted by SirBubNorm


    Was the ice age in between the age of dinosaur and man? (Sounds like it from Stilton's link, btw the bottom two (other than the way they were anchored, go to the same place))


There is no such thing as "The Ice Age". There have been many ice ages. The last one was about 20,000 years ago, after which the last Neanderthals went extinct. The next ice age will probably follow the global warming trend, after the ice caps melt and the planet is flooded with cold water.


    Originally posted by SirBubNorm


    And if man evolved from apes (and apes evolved from something) since the time of dinosaurs and we've found all these dinosaur bones why haven't we found the same proof when it comes to man evolving from apes. The bones *should* be more recent and therefore more easy to find shouldn't they?


Again, modern humans (us) haven't been around that long, and mammal bones are much smaller and more fragile than dinosaur bones, so finding good specimens is more difficult. But they are there, and as this thread attests, new discoveries are constantly being made. When, say, only a fraction of insect species from the Amazon rainforest have been identified, how can we expect to have found all the bones hidden in the rock of Africa and Asia? The evidence, the proof if you like, is there, and it is being found, piece by piece, every day.

In that time we have changed considerably. We have grown taller, smarter, more dexterous. Just extrapolate back. Think of what the earliest possible modern human would have been like. Shorter than us, less intelligent, less dexterous.... well, then what were his great, great, great, great, great, great (etc. to the 100th power) grandparents like? It's a very gradual process. Homo Erectus didn't become Homo Sapiens over night. It took hundreds of thousands of years of small changes, small developments, all compounding on themselves to arrive at a recognizably different species.

Also, this is important. Humans did not evolve from apes. Human and apes evolved from a common ancenstor that existed millions of years ago. The family tree (primates) branched in several directions. As our ancestors became hunters, they started spending more time on two legs, looking to the horizon for prey.... over time, we just ended staying on two legs. Fairly impressive, I think.



The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3556 days
Last activity: 3505 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.58
    Originally posted by Stilton
    We have grown taller, smarter, more dexterous. Just extrapolate back. Think of what the earliest possible modern human would have been like. Shorter than us, less intelligent, less dexterous.... well, then what were his great, great, great, great, great, great (etc. to the 100th power) grandparents like?


This is the crux of the problem. If it's proven, I *shouldn't* have to extrapolate back.

BTW, in order to believe Darwinism we have to accept the fact that at *some* point all species came from a single cell (creature, whatever) right? Where did that evolve/come from?



It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
OndaGrande
Kolbasz








Since: 1.5.03
From: California, Home of THE LAKERS!

Since last post: 61 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.84

When certain elements collide with each other at very high velocities, amino acids form that become living matter. from there,as cell division increases, the organism adapts to it's surroundings and over time develops new characteristics. given 100's of millions of years, that life becomes the various species we know today.

Domestic dogs are an example of evolution at work. They started out as Wolves (Canis Lupus.) Certain wolves found it more advantageous to follow humans and eat there discards than have to hunt prey. The more timid wolves, over time, developed close relationships with humans. The timidity triggered changes in the wolves DNA that accentuated certain traits while burying others. Various breeds began to develop as certain characteristics were more valued in specific breeds. this happened both by a kind of natural selection as well as purposeful breeding. When the wolf switched from obtaining it's food through hunting it and killing it to receiving it's food from humans, they went from being categorized as Canis Lupus to Canis Familiaris.



LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT!
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3147 days
Last activity: 3147 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.26
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
      Originally posted by Stilton
      We have grown taller, smarter, more dexterous. Just extrapolate back. Think of what the earliest possible modern human would have been like. Shorter than us, less intelligent, less dexterous.... well, then what were his great, great, great, great, great, great (etc. to the 100th power) grandparents like?


    This is the crux of the problem. If it's proven, I *shouldn't* have to extrapolate back.

    BTW, in order to believe Darwinism we have to accept the fact that at *some* point all species came from a single cell (creature, whatever) right? Where did that evolve/come from?


Well, essentially, what your asking me to do is to do your homework for you. I'd love to sit here all day and explain scientific history, but I haven't the time.

There's no need to go into great detail about the theology, either. I already know it. It's not that difficult an idea to grasp, which probably explains it's popularity, though there's no where else in the developed world where this is even an issue. Knowing both arguments, and being a rational thinker, it's clear which one I must accept.

If you're sincerely interested in learning more about the scientific understanding of the origins of life, there are books you can read, other then the Bible, books written more recently than 2000 years ago, written by people who don't think the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth. You know, smart people.

Or, if you're happy enough with the various (and conflicting) Biblical accounts, whether you read them yourself or just heard about them in chruch, then I don't suppose there's any reason to learn about anything.

Cheers.



The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3439 days
Last activity: 3433 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.27
"When certain elements collide with each other at very high velocities, amino acids form that become living matter. from there,as cell division increases, the organism adapts to it's surroundings and over time develops new characteristics. given 100's of millions of years, that life becomes the various species we know today."

The problem with this answer is that, as others have been trying to show, it's really only going to convince someone who already believes that a God/creator absolutely had no business creating/guiding anything. The fact is that until evolutionary science can come up with a *likely* instead of just a *philosophically possible* scenario for the origin of life, it still counts as a point for intelligent design and creationism. Say all you want about ID not being "science" or labeling it "spin," it doesn't make the facts go away. Where did the extreme amounts of information in one living cell come from? Why should we believe that things like this "just happen" given the correct environmental conditions? Why can't we believe intelligence had something to do with it?

Until the answer is more than "Because we said that's not science!" you can forget about open-mindedness, objectivity, empiricism, and "science."

DMC




"The president is doing exactly the right thing. And that is why we need THIS PRESIDENT, THIS TIME!" -Ron Silver, Republican National Convention
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 415 days
Last activity: 375 days
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
    Originally posted by SirBubNorm
    A question that's bugged me. Forget about debunking Creationism for a moment.

    How exactly do dinosaur bones help improve the argument for Darwinism?

Well, as I see it, at the very least they work against a literal interpretation of the Bible.

IIRC, a literal interpretation leads to the conclusion that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9 am. Obviously, if we have dinosaur bones dating back millions of years, then that contradicts that. But of course (to use the creationist argument), God could have put all those dinosaur bones in the earth when he created it. Or he could make us believe that they are from 4004 BC when they're really not. I guess God must be a trickster like that.

However, I don't know if that really "helps Darwinism" per se.



NOTE: The above post makes no sense. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.77
Or, if you're happy enough with the various (and conflicting) Biblical accounts...then I don't suppose there's any reason to learn about anything.

If you cleaned up the grammar in that stateement, changed Biblical accounts to theoretical foundations of physics*, then you'd have some pretty stout ammunition against the Big Bang theory as well.

*I'm referring to the fact that quantum mechanics (how physics explains things on a micro level) and general relatively (how physics explains things on a time and space level) cannot co-exist because they contradict each other.

And, to hopefully illustrate my point a little more clearly, I would just like to point out that the group who believes in all science and no possible religious explanation are guilty of the exact same thing they find so exasperating in the religious group.

As Einstein put it: But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
    Originally posted by DMC
    "When certain elements collide with each other at very high velocities, amino acids form that become living matter. from there,as cell division increases, the organism adapts to it's surroundings and over time develops new characteristics. given 100's of millions of years, that life becomes the various species we know today."

    The problem with this answer is that, as others have been trying to show, it's really only going to convince someone who already believes that a God/creator absolutely had no business creating/guiding anything. The fact is that until evolutionary science can come up with a *likely* instead of just a *philosophically possible* scenario for the origin of life, it still counts as a point for intelligent design and creationism. Say all you want about ID not being "science" or labeling it "spin," it doesn't make the facts go away. Where did the extreme amounts of information in one living cell come from? Why should we believe that things like this "just happen" given the correct environmental conditions? Why can't we believe intelligence had something to do with it?

    Until the answer is more than "Because we said that's not science!" you can forget about open-mindedness, objectivity, empiricism, and "science."

    DMC



You can believe whatever you want. I find that the Native American belief that the world exists on the back of a turtle is a truly interesting belief. If you want to pick things that aren't backup up by facts, why not pick a truly interesting theory rather than something so mundane as ID?

I'm being snide - I admit it. Look, I have no problem with YOU believing it. My problem comes when you insist that other people be taught it. The standard for teaching something should be that it is true. Can we at least agree on that point? If we can, then it comes down to an argument of who can prove their points.

ID can't back up it's arguments. I'm not going to argue this with DMC because he chooses to remain ignorant to any argument that does not fit his world view. I don't know if you've seen my signature over the last year or so - but it was spawned as a result of the last time that Evolution was discussed on the board.

Believe whatever you want to believe. You have the freedom to do so. The standard for posting something here is that it be scientifically sound. Hold to that standard and don't bleat psuedoscience crap here or face my wrath.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 3410 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.17
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    If you cleaned up the grammar in that stateement, changed Biblical accounts to theoretical foundations of physics*, then you'd have some pretty stout ammunition against the Big Bang theory as well.

    *I'm referring to the fact that quantum mechanics (how physics explains things on a micro level) and general relatively (how physics explains things on a time and space level) cannot co-exist because they contradict each other.


These are two separate topics of discussion that are, at some point, going to be reconciled with one another. Obviously there are deficencies in the theories, as both do exist; science has a plan to research both and explain how they co-exist. The end goal will be to further understand the reality we live in. As it stands neither theory has to validate the other and it is entirely possible that the anomalies of quantum mechanics are the chaos upon which general relativity exists, demonstrated by a mathematical formula that has more letters and odd symbols than numbers.


    And, to hopefully illustrate my point a little more clearly, I would just like to point out that the group who believes in all science and no possible religious explanation are guilty of the exact same thing they find so exasperating in the religious group.


That's an incredible generalization that can be countered by with the incredible generalization that if someone is exasperated by viewpoints based in the sound logic that we agree upon in determining the order of our existence, they're probably not as exasperated by the viewpoints as by an inability to understand them.

Is it appropriate that the title track from Green Day's new album starts playing when I open the thread?



Lunatic Fringe
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3147 days
Last activity: 3147 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.26
Hey guys, just wait a minute.

Maybe, just maybe, ancient tribal superstitious fairy tales about invisable superhuman characters are more rational and believable than emprirical, scientific data.

Wait. Wait a minute. Okay. Nope. They aren't.

Cheers,
Randy

[edited for spelling.. yes.. I have dyslexia... what of it?]

(edited by Stilton on 5.12.04 0317)


The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.02
    Originally posted by Stilton
    Hey guys, just wait a minute.

    Maybe, just maybe, ancient tribal superstitious fairy tales about invisable superhuman characters are more rational and believable than emprirical, scientific data.

    Wait. Wait a minute. Okay. Nope. They aren't.

    Cheers,
    Randy
You have now posted nine times in this thread. You get more condescending each time despite the fact that essentially you're repeating yourself. While I'm inclined to believe God is finding you hilarious, please be advised that all I'M deriving from you is annoyance.



CRZ
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.19
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Shin-Yokohama Ramen Museum
Next thread: A UFO in my local paper ...
Previous thread: Talk Radio and Sports Talk ......
(1018 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Brick -- really good posts & great information. Thanks. That's very interesting about overworking abs -- doing less ab work is an idea I like very much! :-)
- emma, Weiner Weightlifters! (2002)
The W - Random - Man believed to be in America 50,000 years ago (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.177 seconds.