dang another thread in a hand basket on its way to hell (figuratively speaking for the atheist).
Yeah, I think the title pretty much took care of that…
vroom and Pookie,
But what made these emotions and behaviors happen?
I’m not trying to prove that God exists this way. I’m just trying to give you examples of the things in life that I personally think about.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Again, macro-evolution CANNOT be proven and is NOT fact.[/quote]
There’s really no such thing as “proven” in science. Proofs are used in math. In science, you have “the best theory” which is the one who stands up the best to the most tests.
We used to have “Laws,” like Newton’s Law of Gravity; but that law was shown to be wrong in some case and improved upon by Einstein’s Relativity. So science tend to avoid “laws” now.
In the 20th century, 2 major theories appeared in science: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No experiments done to date have succeeded in invalidating either Relativity or QM. Yet, you can’t reconcile those two theories together.
So one of them, or both are wrong or incomplete. Yet both work extremely well in application. Without QM, we wouldn’t have lasers, transistors, computers, etc. and without taking into account Relativity, GPS satellites would “drift.” and required constant recalibrating.
Newton’s Law of Gravity is still used by NASA when planning the trajectory of rockets and satellites because, while it’s not perfect, it’s close enough for many purposes. It’s wrong, but it still explains a lot. In fact, calling it “wrong” is a bit unfair. “Not entirely right” might be more appropriate.
The Big Bang theory is not the only theory about how the universe began. But it is the one that explains the most evidence and has the least problems. Nonetheless, it will probably be revised or adjusted as our knowledge about the universe grows.
Evolution is in a similar place. While is doesn’t explain 100% of the available evidence perfectly, it explains enough that we know the gist of it is right.
Whatever better theory some one could come up with to explain the “problems” of evolution would most probably bear an enormous resemblance to the current theory (which is actually a collection of various theories about biological processes.)
I won’t argue that nature and the universe are quite amazing. It simply doesn’t satisfy some of us to simply explain it with “God did it.” We want to understand the various mechanisms involved in getting the universe to it’s present form.
Why? If it’s just a gut feeling, it’s not much to go on. In my gut, I feel there is no god at all…
If you’ve got a better theory that explains the biodiversity, write up a paper and submit it for peer review and/or publishing in a scientific journal. It’s got to be better than “God did it” though.
No, we don’t have it all figured out. I do think we’ve got the “big picture” part right. To say we’ve figured out all the myriads of little details over billions of years would be presumptuous.
It is interesting though, that modern findings, such as the discovery of DNA, lend support to Darwin’s work. Many discoveries, made after Darwin, tend to explain or show the mechanisms through which natural selection can occur. If evolution was all wrong, you’d think that some modern research would’ve shown something completely incongruous to it.
As above, you claim evolution is “wrong” because it’s not “entirely right.” You’re looking for black and white in a world of shades of gray.
Science is a never ending process toward truth. And while current theories about various phenomenas don’t explain all, I feel it is intellectually dishonest to simply dismiss them outright as soon as a problem pops up. The correct approach toward those problems is to figure out what part of the theory doesn’t fit with the observation and to come up with a better theory that accounts for both the currently supported evidence and the new, non-fitting one.
I think it’s easy to get beyond what we currently know.
Sure, you can fire up your home brain scanning laboratory and see different centers of the brain activate during different activities or emotional states, but that doesn’t answer your question.
However, I think it is easy to see that parents with a strong bond to their young, and vice-versa, are much more likely to have young that survive.
The more “expensive” having children is the more important it is, biologically, that the children survive. Some species, such as turtles, just drop a bunch of eggs and forget about it. Many of the young hatchlings die quickly.
None of what I’m talking about is either for or against the existence of God. They are just facts that we can observe or theories based on those facts that seem to make sense.
It seems to me that the religious seem to fight against the non-deification of things that were previously held to be the domain of God alone. As we learn more about birth, conception and life, it loses it’s mystery and therefor it can lose it’s ability to inspire faith.
This shrinks the domain of God, and I think perhaps many religious people find that frightening or threatening in some way.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The idea that the world was flat was a scientific fact of that day, like evolution today, until proven wrong by someone sailing around what was considered the end of the world.
[/quote]
could you please tell me the names of the scientists that claimed the earth was flat…I’d really like to know…
could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…
I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…
I asked you this once before and you never replied…
your help would be appreciated…thanks!
[quote]could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…
I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…[/quote]
If you go back far enough, it gets difficult to find instruments (peer reviewed journals for example) of science as we know them today.
However, there were heresy trials for scientists that found positions other than those supported by the religious powers of the time.
I’m not sure if any psuedo-scientific work was ever done to “prove” the earth was flat.
Similarly, I’m not sure there was ever any scientific evidence that women were inferior to men and should not be allowed to vote.
Believe it or not, there have been times and domains of knowledge where science did not hold sway. Witch burnings, for example, were not a scientific endeavor either.
JOB 38-15, 16, 17 & 18:
The Lord spoke:
"The wicked are denied their light and their upraised arm is broken.
Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?
Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this."
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Pookie,
When you’re children were just infants, and you sat and played with them, did you ever wonder why when you were making a funny sound or making a funny face, they laughed?
I can sit there with my daughter and make her laugh over and over again with a big smile on her face. Why does she do that? Where does that come from? I never taught her how to laugh. I never taught her what was funny.
Why don’t animals sit there with their babies and make them laugh? Why do their babies not understand humor?
How does she just know? [/quote]
There is probably a couple of reasons.
Play is associated with refining cerebral architechture. Play also assist in bond affirmation, and is generally found in social animals than their less friendly cousins.
Play also assists in bond formation with you. Laughing is an easily understood emotional/physical form of communication (you could be from differen tpats of the world, but a laugh is unmistakeably a good thing).
Dont you find her laughing appealing. yes, undoubtedly (even though she must laugh all the time if she is looking at your face!). This way offspring assures their continued survival with you as their parent, after all, infanticide is not uncommon is many animal species, including our own
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
pookie wrote:
FlyingMumuOfDumb wrote:
I grew up being taught evolution and the earth is billions of years old. That was what was being called fact. That is what was thrown in my face in the class room. I believed it through junior high school, then after that, I no longer believed it based on my newly acquired “critical thinking”.
I grew up.
Science does not require you to accept anything on faith. You can read the studies, the theories and evaluate all the evidence there is for them. But you don’t do that; you’ve never even tried.
It is obvious from what you post here that you are uneducated and poorly read. Had you taken the time to properly research and understand what was presented to you, you might be able to properly question some of the weaker points of various theories.
Instead, you prefer to claim that both science and religion are “beliefs” only supported by “faith” which is simply retarded. Even when arguing the religious side, you are obviously unable to think by yourself, preferring to simply regurgitate whatever “facts” creationist web sites have told you to believe.
News flash: Those sites will reject theories as soon as 0.01% of the evidence doesn’t fit; ignoring the 99.99% that does. Even if 100% of the evidence fit; they’d still make up “facts” to reject it. They also fail to account for new findings or revisions made to various theories, often repeating hundred year old arguments that have been discredited for years.
It is intellectual dishonesty; especially since the Bible is not held to the same scrutiny, being the “Word of God” and all. Any fact not fitting the Bible must be distorted until it fits. Theories contradicting scripture must be rejected no matter the amount of empirical evidence supporting them.
Science, on the other hand, revises and adjusts its theories around new evidence; and invites criticism. Finding better explanation for physical phenomena is how progress is made. Which method appears honest to you?
Quit telling me what I have read and what I haven’t read.
I have seen both sides. Yes, I do go off of faith. To me, it doesn’t even seem like faith sometimes because when I look at the world around me and when I’m holding my 8 month old daughter, I can see what it’s all about. You go off of faith. Yes, there are scientific methods. Still, macroevolution is NOT FACT and CANNOT be proven, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself or others.
Just looking at everything in life and the universe tells me that there is a God. There is a reason we are here.
I don’t believe something exploded with a “big bang” unless there was a God who made it happen. I don’t believe that it is possible AT ALL for everything on this planet to have come out of a “primordial ooze” and I don’t believe that human beings evolved from “ape men”.
I don’t think you are stupid. I just think that you can’t see what I can. Hopefully you will find God. I hope you do. All in all, I hope everyone who posts here does if they haven’t. All the people who have said angry, hatefull, insulting things about me and the other people who believe in God - I hope the best for all of you and that’s sincere.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Please explain why the God you speak of could not have created the universe through a Big-Bang type event, and allowed evolution to take place? Do you claim to know his motives and reasons for making the universe the way it is?
I have said this before and I’ll say it again: I work with many physicists and astronomers who are devout Christians (and Jews and Muslims), and they have no problem reconciling their faith with their science. The more we examine Nature, the more fascinating it gets, which should enhance your faith instead of challenging it.
Anyhow, if you don’t like the Big Bang model, you will have to explain why we see a nearly homogeneous background spectrum everywhere in the sky (which is radiation from the early universe). In fact, you will have to explain quite a few things…
And while you are claiming to know everything on faith, there are scientists who are as religious as you actually working on the problems instead of ignoring or evading them.
I do believe in “selective hearing”.
Read what I wrote again and tell me how I said a big bang never happened. I said that I don’t beleive it happened UNLESS God made it happen.
You guys really need to stop twisting words around and leaving things out.
[/quote]
Surely selective reading…
But if you take it that god made the big bang then it conflicts creationism and eveything that springs forth from that.
This is yet another example of the gap god, the puniest of all gods.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Surely selective reading…
But if you take it that god made the big bang then it conflicts creationism and eveything that springs forth from that.
This is yet another example of the gap god, the puniest of all gods.[/quote]
Either way, the big bang is an idea, not fact. It will never be proven…
[quote]vroom wrote:
could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…
I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…
If you go back far enough, it gets difficult to find instruments (peer reviewed journals for example) of science as we know them today.
However, there were heresy trials for scientists that found positions other than those supported by the religious powers of the time.
I’m not sure if any psuedo-scientific work was ever done to “prove” the earth was flat.
Similarly, I’m not sure there was ever any scientific evidence that women were inferior to men and should not be allowed to vote.
Believe it or not, there have been times and domains of knowledge where science did not hold sway. Witch burnings, for example, were not a scientific endeavor either.[/quote]
I have read that “scientists used to say the earth was flat” dozens and dozens of times and not once has a fundamentalist given an example of a scientist that has made this claim…
I’m beginning to think that the fundamentalists are making this shit up…
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
miniross wrote:
Surely selective reading…
But if you take it that god made the big bang then it conflicts creationism and eveything that springs forth from that.
This is yet another example of the gap god, the puniest of all gods.
Either way, the big bang is an idea, not fact. It will never be proven…
[/quote]
No, it is a theory based on numerous pieces of evidence, made by seperate individuals, that lead in a direction.
You may be right that it may never be proven, but what does that have to do with it.
[quote]DPH wrote:
vroom wrote:
could you give references to the peer reviewed scientific studies that these scientists did that show they concluded the earth was flat…
I’ve searched on the internet for a list of scientists that concluded the earth was flat and haven’t been able to find any…
If you go back far enough, it gets difficult to find instruments (peer reviewed journals for example) of science as we know them today.
However, there were heresy trials for scientists that found positions other than those supported by the religious powers of the time.
I’m not sure if any psuedo-scientific work was ever done to “prove” the earth was flat.
Similarly, I’m not sure there was ever any scientific evidence that women were inferior to men and should not be allowed to vote.
Believe it or not, there have been times and domains of knowledge where science did not hold sway. Witch burnings, for example, were not a scientific endeavor either.
I have read that “scientists used to say the earth was flat” dozens and dozens of times and not once has a fundamentalist given an example of a scientist that has made this claim…
I’m beginning to think that the fundamentalists are making this shit up…[/quote]
never!
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
miniross wrote:
Surely selective reading…
But if you take it that god made the big bang then it conflicts creationism and eveything that springs forth from that.
This is yet another example of the gap god, the puniest of all gods.
Either way, the big bang is an idea, not fact. It will never be proven…
[/quote]
No shit. Nothing physical can be proven. You can’t prove that every time you drop a rock it will fall.
This has been said so many times on these forums, that I can’t believe we are still having the “proof” debate. Science DOES NOT offer proofs, it offers theories which make predictions. Mathematicians and theorists have proofs because they work off of a set of axioms which describe the rules of logic.
Evolution is never presented as fact by competent scientists. Just like physics, chemistry, etc are not presented as facts. A fact in the scientific sense is a statement like “at time t the object was at position x with a velocity v.” Thats a fact. There is no theory involved. Theories have to describe how the object got there, and what it will do next, etc.
If you point out a flaw in evolution, then the scientists will say, “Yes, that is a problem and we are working on that.” Just because a theory can’t explain everything doesn’t mean its not useful. As was stated twenty times already, all of our scientific theories break down at some point, which is why we still have scientists. But the important thing is the process and the methodology: science doesn’t accept supernatural explanations, and you should be happy about that the next time you need some cutting-edge medical procedure to save your life. Or, you could just have someone pray for you…
And in response to your butterfly question, please explain to me the purpose of flightless birds. Or the spleen. Or the defective configuration of our eyes. For every example of intricacy in biology, there is another example of evolutionary dead-ends. Viruses anyone?
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
And in response to your butterfly question, please explain to me the purpose of flightless birds. Or the spleen. Or the defective configuration of our eyes. For every example of intricacy in biology, there is another example of evolutionary dead-ends. Viruses anyone?[/quote]
Answer a question with a question, huh?
Flightless birds are still birds. They adapted to their environment. It’s called microevolution. They didn’t evolve from a fish.
Why do you think that we have such a huge range of different kinds of dogs? Do you ask “what species of dog do you have”, or “what breed of dog do you have”?
Why are there dark people, light people, short people, tall people? We adapted to our enviornments. We are all still humans!
A little on Monarch Butterflies -
Scientists have discovered the monarch butterfly to have a built-in magnetic compass and use it as a means for navigation in their annual migrations from fall breeding grounds in Canada to their winter havens in Mexico; over 2,500 miles one way.
The amazing aspect of this navigational feat is that these butterflies are flying to a destination none of them have ever seen before yet they return to the same nesting area their ancestors used.
It has long been known that Monarchs can navigate themselves by the sun, however this is the first direct evidence that they can also sense directions from the earth’s magnetic field. It is important to note that this discovery is only a small step towards explaining how monarchs navigate. “What the butterflies are doing is very complicated”. “They use things we can’t perceive, maybe even things we can’t conceive.”
References:
Monarch Butterflies, Science News, November 27, 1999, p. 343
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Flightless birds are still birds. They adapted to their environment. It’s called microevolution. They didn’t evolve from a fish.[/quote]
there are different species of birds…not all birds can mate and produce offspring…
an ostrich and an eagle are different spiecies…just like a lion and a zebra are different spiecies even though they are both mammels…
flightless birds would show an example of ‘macro’ evolution…
Emu, did any of that have a point? Yeah, nature is pretty amazing at times, I doubt anyone cares to argue that.
However, that doesn’t mean that it requires a God to exist.
Billions of years is a long time. Long enough to make micro-evolution look like macro-evolution perhaps.
Considering that mankind has only had several hundred years of competent science, why not give him a bit of time before deciding what is or is not knowable?
The things we know today, things that are routine today, would have been amazing magic not too far in the past. Hell, to people like our grandparents, many of the things today are simply flabbergasting.
I remember when the first computers came out, they were pretty damned amazing. Now we take them for granted. I remember when we went from a rotary phone to our first touch tone phone. I remember when cell phones were big honking beasts that cost a fortune. I remember when 100Mb networks were the next big thing.
Now, we have artificial limbs, artificial hearts, transplants, cloning, the potential of stem cells which will eventually be examined seriously, the ability to freeze and revive tissues, electron microscopes, the vestiges of nanotechnology.
I don’t claim to understand much of these things, but I certainly know it was all magic a few short years ago.
Imagine humankind with another thousand years of technological advancement behind us. None of us have any clue what is or is not realistically possible in terms of science and technology.
The fact something is not yet explained or known, says nothing about the future and our ability to do so.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
If you point out a flaw in evolution, then the scientists will say, “Yes, that is a problem and we are working on that.” Just because a theory can’t explain everything doesn’t mean its not useful. As was stated twenty times already, all of our scientific theories break down at some point, which is why we still have scientists. But the important thing is the process and the methodology: science doesn’t accept supernatural explanations, and you should be happy about that the next time you need some cutting-edge medical procedure to save your life. Or, you could just have someone pray for you…
[/quote]
So because I don’t believe in a certain theory in science, that means that I’m automatically not thankful for medical care and anything else that is related to science in any way?
I had a major operation when I was 17. My surgeon said “it is a miracle that you survived”. I prayed on the way to the ER when I was in the worst pain that I have ever endured.
I am thankful for what science had to offer, none of which had anything to do with the origins of man and the universe.
You make some horrible points. Actually you don’t even make points.
here you go flyingemu (just a side question - emus don’t fly, nor are they harebringers of doom - so what gives?)
you said
Why do you think that we have such a huge range of different kinds of dogs? Do you ask “what species of dog do you have”, or “what breed of dog do you have”?
i won’t say this is evidence of evolution - but it’s cool nonetheless ? and in my opinion only ? pretty close to observable evolution
http://abc.net.au/animals/program1/factsheet5.htm
The Fox Farm Experiment
A research station in Novosibirsk, Siberia, is home to an extraordinary group of foxes Border Collie-coloured foxes; foxes with blue eyes; foxes that whimper and compete for human attention; foxes that answer to their names. They are all the result of a remarkable 50 year-long experiment in domestication. The ambitious project was the brainchild of Russian geneticist, Dmitry Belyaev. As a young man, he was intrigued by the fact that all domestic animals seem to show strikingly similar changes from the ancestral wild type. Be they goat or ferret, dog or cow, they all display new coat colours and sizes, altered sexual cycles, modified skull shape, and many even have floppy ears or curly tails.
Could it be, Belyaev wondered, that one special feature of the domestication process could account for all those changes?Belyaev’s great insight was to suspect that the key factor was not size or reproduction, but behaviour. Tameness, he reasoned, was the single trait most likely to determine how well an animal adapted to living with humans. And because behaviour is influenced by an animal’s neurochemistry, then selecting for tameness would over generations alter the balance of the body?s hormones and neurotransmitters. This in turn could lead to a host of other seemingly unrelated consequences.To test the hypothesis, Belyaev and his team at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics set about domesticating the wild fox.
From a founding group of 130 foxes, for generations they allowed only the tamest animals to breed. Selection was strict ? only 5% of males and 20% of females could contribute to the next generation’s gene pool. Now, 40 years later and 45,000 foxes after Belayaev began, his hypothesis has been well and truly proven right. The behavioural changes are dramatic. The current crop of “elite” foxes are friendly, playful and eager to please, they compete for the attention of humans and show very little aggression.
Physical changes mirror those in other domestic animals like dogs. The foxes display a variety of coat colours, many have floppy ears, and they all have a foreshortened head with a short nose and rounded skull.Most telling are the changes in biochemistry. Corticosteroid levels, which are involved with the fear and stress responses, have halved and then halved again. Serotonin, the neurotransmitter associated with “calmness”, has risen substantially compared with the wild fox.
So what has happened? Hormones and neurotransmitters not only determine behaviour, but are also involved in the regulation of how an animal grows up it’s ontogeny. Belyaev and his followers concluded that by selecting each generation for a certain behavioural and biochemical profile, they had affected the master genes that control development through to adulthood. They had changed the conductor of the orchestra. Other findings bear this theory out.
On average, the domestic foxes respond to sounds two days earlier and open their eyes one day earlier than their non-domesticated cousins. More striking is that their socialisation period has greatly increased. (See Program 3). Instead of developing a fear response at 6 weeks of age, the domesticated foxes don’t show it until 9 weeks of age or later. The whimpering and tail wagging is a holdover from puppyhood, as are the foreshoretened face and muzzle. Even the new coat colours can be explained by the altered timing of development. One researcher found that the migration of certain melanocytes (which determine colour) was delayed, resulting in a black and white “star” pattern.
All in all, it’s a remarkable expose of the power and simplicity of the domestication process.References: Trut, L.N. (1999). Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment, American Scientist, 87: 160-169.