 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 454 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whats a malake? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
HAY GUYS, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS THREAD? :cool: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
internets 8) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is not even a theory. There is no agenda. Evolution is a branch of research, just like anthropology or endocriminology. There is no overriding paradigm, though at certain times one or two major figures may dominate discussion, as often happens. It's a field of study. Now, theories about dates, taxonomies, migrations and so on are subject to revision and peer review. There is no final answer in science - unlike in jewish fairy tales. Calling evolution Darwinism is like calling astronomy Copernicanism. Some people just have telescopes, while others don't. Likewise some people have ethological data, archeological remnants, laboratory biochemistry and microscopes to look at. Others don't. For obvious reasons, those not involved - physically - with the data available to research will be rightfully skeptical. In such cases I recommend putting down the Good Book you've been salivating all over, just for a second, and step out into nature and take a long pensive look at the diversity of our fauna. So that those with eyes can see... So, relax, take a deep breath, focus on your heart chakra, and stop messing around with random superstitious reactionary nonsense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as for evolution and creationism i dont really know which one i believe in but i wish i had evolved from a lizard, preferably komodo dragon or southeast asian tree gecko Do a search for human and lizard DNA. Supposedly we do have traits we share with lizards expecially with genitals. Or so I've heard. Also: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You know, creationism and evolutionism are pretty much as (non)sensical as eachother. Its the same thing. I hear as many evolutionists that are as knowledgable as creationists about their beliefs. Its all people spouting the same rhetoric. I choose not to believe in either, because their both stupid. It doesn't matter where we came from. All that matters is where we are going, which looks to me like a big ass nuclear winter. People need to stop arguing about stupid shit, and work things out, and agree with eachother. At least comming to mutual conclusions on what they don't know first hand. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not going to take either side. I am going to call you all out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was at this talk given by some researcher who believed the difference in voilent behaviour in sexes were results of evolution.. it was the silliest thing I ever attended! She started comparing humans to animals and noting that in gorillas and such there were the same tendencies; men were aggressors and women were not, however when she was going to refute the initial objection (which she raised herself), that you can't compare humans to animals due to the fact that we have a culture and so forth, she did it by stating that gorillas and chimpanzees have cultures and societies too.. now, despite that, she still compared us based on how much DNA we have in common! She didn't really seem to stop to think that maybe the similarities are in the fact that we both have societies and that both societies are patriarchical (is that an english word?). Further, when she was confronted with the fact that black men have a higher crime rate than white men in america.. well, then it was society and not DNA and evolution.. I mean, I basically agree, there is nothing in the DNA that makes it so, but she seemed to just pick and choose what her theory encompassed; certain things were evolution and DNA while others weren't, and the ones that weren't was stuff she just didn't personally approve of being so -- no data or research to back up that there was no difference. her basic argument was that the random mutation strings that had survived in males were the aggressive ones because we were hunters and gathererers, btw.. and even here she didn't seem to offer society any thought; being a hunter and gatherer implicates having been part of a society of sorts in which the male role was hunting and gathering and she just seemed to exclude the notion that this way of thinking had survived until today, but it's not even 50 years ago that this way of thinking was WAY more prominent in our society and believing it to have died out in the last 50 years seems silly |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damned post count thingie that doesn't count right! last line: "just an example of someone trying to push data into their initial presuppositions." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a certain fact is true. that fact is that a universe exists. this universe has an identity. its sole imperative is that it must exist. from there all's fair play, except that this universe also possesses a comprehensive and evolutionary memory infrastructure. i believe that this universe's consciousness is the only one of its kind, and that all products of this universe are evolutions thereof and cannot posses unique identifying consciousnesses that are not inextricably linked to the original fact/identity/consciousness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha, i thought all this would happen. what i wanted was evidence supporting creationism, and noone seems to have any at all. which suits me fine since im a geologist. Whenever you ask a creationist to justify their belief, they either quote from the bible (and unjustifiably assume it to be true) or look for gaps in the fossil record (because they think evolution is based solely on the fossil record, which it isnt. you barely need the fossil record actually) creationism is not justifiable since it needs a "supernatural explanation" (supernatural as in god/the creator). supernatural is synonymous with unexplained, and i doube there is such a thing as an "unexplained explanation" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the reason i keep bringing it up is that creationists always seem to be looking for a fight, and they are always so blissfully ignorant of science in general that you cant argue with them. when i was in canada, and looking around UWO in London i went to the geology stand (open day thing) and was talking to the guy there, and some twat of an evangelist comes up saying "so is it true that science has rejected the grace of god?", and went on about the bible holding all the truths humanity will ever need, and how there are so many gaps in the fossil record that you cannot draw any sonclusions from it (which is all blatant ignorant shite). its a shame this crap seems to be growing, because it really is purely out of ignorance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what did you really expect given the ultra small number of people that would hold to that or have any personal research done for that? I dont bother with these threads because i've been here long enough to know they go nowhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
didn't I say that in my first or second or something post? They use the same basic in data as anyone else; they just interpret it differently as per their own paradigm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and.. a few more points it is justifiable, it just isn't falsifiable. supernatural is NOT the same as unexplained; supernatural explanations are abundant and they're explanations just as any other explanation: "you got cancer because you ate plutonium" and "you got cancer because god wanted it so" are both explanations (though the one is causal and the other intentional-act-thingie). You really can't deny that either is an explanation. "the reason i keep bringing it up is that creationists always seem to be looking for a fight," funny, it seems the other way to me (and especially logical positivists seem militant), but then again I don't live in any place where there are lots of creationists. when you say "science in general," are you referring to the current prevalent scientific paradigms? and stating that the gaps in fossil evidence makes drawing conclusions from it difficult if not impossible is a perfectly valid point which it seems to be you'd be more than ready to accept or at least take seriously if the person proposing it had seemed to be some kind of "regular" scientist. I agree that creationism is growing due to ignorance, but the ignorance lies not in the creationists themselves, but rather, as I said in some other thread, in the way the common mans early education natural science wise is faulty, lacking and one-sided. presenting both theories AND arguments for and against at an earlier stage would better peoples understanding of the issues and most likely not only produce a healthy skepticism towards normal science, but thus also a stronger skepticism towards the creationists due to the fact that skepticism (or criticism), not uncritical acceptance, is what produces knowledge which in many cases, if not all, is the opposite of ignorance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a further note on explanations is that though the one is causal, it doesn't mean it is objectively correct; it is still within some paradigm or other (whether or not eating plutonium is believed to produce cancer, I do not know, but it works for the example) and causality is never observed and never objective. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I fight ignorance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think you may be able to add to these threads.. especially be keeping people civil.. I had a bad day yesterday due to the worst person in the worlds and I apologise for any harshness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and yeah, what is malake anyway? the dictionary gives no results... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"you got cancer because you ate plutonium" and "you got cancer because god wanted it so" but one is provable, the other is not. and stating that the gaps in fossil evidence makes drawing conclusions from it difficult if not impossible is a perfectly valid point which it seems to be you'd be more than ready to accept or at least take seriously if the person proposing it had seemed to be some kind of "regular" scientist. problem is, they never are. look at Harun Yahya, who claims that the fossil record supports creationism because there are so many gaps, and so many living fossils. No it doesnt. And Harun Yahya is actually an artist and doesnt have any scientific qualifications. i work with the fossil record practically every day, there are no such gaps that creationists claim there are. Like with the transition from fish to amphibian, they claim there are no such fossils, whereas i can name three genera off the top of my head (icthyostega, acanthostega, eusthenopteron_ all of which have numerous constituent species that have been discovered. They make the gaps up, and even so, such a gap is always filled by studies of the DNA Molecular Clock (which is often then confirmed by new fossil finds) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Malacky (-Slovak, German: Malatzka, Hungarian: Malac(z)ka) is a town in southwestern Slovakia around 35 km northwest from its capital Bratislava. malarky perhaps? : Exaggerated or foolish talk, usually intended to deceive still doesn't really fit the bill. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, malarky. ive never seen it in writing before! i just say it all the time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
falsifiable, yes, but still explanations. there really is not denying that they are explanations and as it is clear that even the supernatural one is an explanation, it is clear that supernatural isn't synonymous with unexplained. if one had to be an acknowledged scientist to criticise the world would've been at a stand still long ago. I just read an article about a new addition or some shifting or something to the human family tree.. a less complex creature was discovered to be closer to us than some other creature (the less complex one was some sort of worm and the more complex one had at least a few bones or something.. this is way way back, but it gives cladists (I'm just guessing at the translation of that term here) a bit of trouble when describing the class of organisms from there "up"). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so, cygnus is obviously from the fucking bible belt then, yeah? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, it seems like some slang-ish word, so I guess you can spell it pretty much like you say it.. I was just curious because.. well it's better to know what the word is than not knowing what it is.. it'll help in later discussions if it comes up again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's "malarky". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as drunken mastah already pointed out :S |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think he was joking or something... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
drunken mastah, i think you mean the whole cambrian thing with Pikaia, and the more recent jawless fish thingys from china. this is another good example - the molecular clock predicted a convergence between branchiostoma (similar squiggly thing today) and all vertebrates at around 545ma ( i think) and the more recent chinese fossils somply confirm this. cygnus, archeology and paleontology arent just about a pile of bones. you can date them, see what they lie in association with. - tools, other animal bones, evidence of settlement/fire, see evidence of injury on the bones etc. etc. etc. and there are plenty of much more complete skeletons of austolopithecines (for lay people, ape-men) than that pile of bones. just because you are unaware of shedloads of scientific findings and evidence, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would google video allow me to upload an episode of Penn and Teller Bullshit! ? They did an episode on Creationism that had everything perfectly laid out etc. Awesome episode. Anyway, most Creationists argue the laws of Thermodynamics incorrectly. They seem to either choose to ignore the basics of the concept or leave out important sections. I can't really decide which of that it is. Read the Wikipedia article on Creationism. It's pretty much perfect in my uneducated opinion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, yes yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ive read it countless times. look at it, its just the history of the idea. there is no evidence for it within that article. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Redrum: Deadly. Ezkerraldean: Isn't most of Science a theory. It's all a case of what makes sense to you. There's nothing to say that religion and science can't happily co-exist. The problem is that too many people, on both sides, are unwilling to take that step and discuss it in a mature fashion. If both sides sat down and talked through their theories then they'd see how much they actually cross over. Of course when you've got religious mentalists talking bullshit like Then it's very hard. I know that article is NASA saying that didn't happen but the story is there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahahahaha "theory" means "a scientific hypothesis supported by evidence" most people use it as if it means "a possible explanation" which isnt what it means. and yes, of course all of science is a theory, but no one goes around disputing the existance of electricity, gravity or plate tectonics. and science IS compatible with religion - im happy for people to say that god created the universe (especially since science hasnt yet explained it) i think its also fine for people to say that god guided evolution, because at least that respects findings and admits that it happened. by "creationism" im on about "young-earth creationism" which is as far as i know the majority view within creationism, which is basically a literal interpretation if Genesis. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's nothing to say that religion and science can't happily co-exist. The problem is that too many people, on both sides, are unwilling to take that step and discuss it in a mature fashion. If both sides sat down and talked through their theories then they'd see how much they actually cross over. That was the most accurate thing i have ever read regarding any of this. People cant do that because people as a whole are quite stubburn in general. This is just one example. Politics also bring this out in people. Or better yet..... fans of music. Its too bad honestly. I like "gentlemen debates" which i have had often with my friends over some nice drinks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if god created w0rld who created god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Uploading to filefactory. Hopefully be quite quick on this work connection. Failing that I'll get bollocked. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god is empty just like me.... Ok, just kidding. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Estimated time left: 00:05:24 Elapsed time: 00:21:36 Transfer rate: 123 KB/s ( 163363150 of 204203938 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
For some reason the upload is slowing down so it's not actually completing. Gay. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Penn and Teller are fun, but they (well, Penn) swear a bit too much to my liking. Luckily they're right about 95% of the time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, you can get most Bullshit eps as torrents, as I'm sure you know, but that's what I'm urging peeps to do as well... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe a new series has just started. I keep forgetting to look for an episode. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't quite remember. I'll find the article again (it was in this internal newspaper for the natural science part of my university. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we all came out of fish! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw, would the truth make you feel better? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I remember the illustration of the creatures had the one that they previously believed to be below the other, but that they now believe to be over it looked very much like a sperm and the other one looked kind of like a devilfish, but the tail didn't really stand out from the rest of the body and it had something that resembled a rib cage.. it's way way back, I just remember it because I'd just heard about the cladist/phenologist (again, just guessing on the english spelling here) debate because it, like birds, give cladists very weird classes of creatures... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree with "some" of silly lady's lecture. There really isn't much difference between humans and animals. To think we are 'above' them is ignorant. To 'think' about our actions is human. When it comes to explaining stuff like "why do black males commit so much violence" the answer isn't in evolution. It lies in society. No one race is more or less violent than another race. It just seems way to obvious to me that black males are expected to act all tough and hard because of media portrayal and that whole gangsta-rap image bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, the thing is.. if black males commit more crime than white males and this is due to society, why isn't society to blame for all males committing more (violent) crimes than women? She even admitted to women using "soft" violence (like slandering and exclusion) and somehow claimed this to be part of our genes! I mean, the way she was going, we could all run around killing people and go "nah, sorry.. genes" while women who killed people would get triple sentences because they didn't just not call the person up when "the gang" was going out to have some fun. She seemed to claim that social things (like being a hunter/gatherer) was all in the genes and that the genes preceded being selected as a hunter/gatherer while the only reason the hunter/gatherer genes survived is because society wanted these genes.. she fell into some "what came first?" shit but just ignored it and I agree that we have stuff in common with animals, but when she compares us to monkeys first because we share many of the same genes then she mentions the objection that humans are different due to us having society and then refutes it with the fact that gorillas too live in societies and then simply excludes the society part of both rases and still compares us due to genes.. well, it all seems silly.. if we share so many genes why the fuck do we only share the violence and society genes and not the "build a themepark" genes?! She also used the argument that humanity had spent 99% of its existence in the hunter/gatherer societies, but if we could make the transition from hunter/gatherer via farmers and all those middle stages up to todays "modern" society in only 1% of the time and genes are to "blame" for everything and genes take a loooong time to change/evolve, how the fuck does she explain that we did all this in 1% of "our" existance? I may sound like I'm rambling, but you'd probably have the same objections if you'd heard her talk. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
