Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)

Page 6 of 14 First ... 45678 ... Last

  1. Check out the book forbidden archeology by Michael Cremo.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Check out the book forbidden archeology by Michael Cremo.
    I spotted that in a used book store once. Seemed kind of sensational in some of the claims. I wouldn't mind reading it, but I'd do it in the same way I read Robert E. Howards History of the Hyborean Age. I do think it's entirely possible human civilization, on the level of ancient Egypt before the pharos for example, might go back further than currently thought, but not a few million years back. Still, it's a pleasant 'what if' scenario and would likely make some fun reading.

    There's a lot of evidence against it though, like the lack of ruins and, more especially, the speed with which human civilization developed after agriculture was established. It's unlikely such a civilization with agriculture and domesticated animals, if it were widespread enough, would simply disappear without a trace and we'd have to start over again. Even if it did, civilizations tend to build on top of each other, and for good reason. They pick good spots to begin with. So the lack of major finds and ruins is a serious problem.

    Who knows, maybe one day we will find out mankind has been walking the Earth a lot longer than we suspected. It would certainly be a very, very cool thing to know. All the civilzations in prehistory we could learn about, etc. It'd be a new scientific revolution.
    •   
       


  3. CDB is right. Just because math may fall in line with a Theory, it does not mean the theory is free from small or catastrophic error.
    Even math fails. I have heard a story problem (ill post it when i find it) where math fails. It is weird as hell. At the end of the story problem a dollar is unaccouted for. And it is Not a trick.

  4. It is a trick. Math is infallible.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  5. I heard it like a year ago. I cant remeber how it goes but I looked at it for an hour trying to find its flaw and i couldn't.....have you heard this problem before?
    •   
       


  6. Yes, and although I cannot recall exactly what it was I was shown how it was an error in calculation, flawed method if you will.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    Yes, and although I cannot recall exactly what it was I was shown how it was an error in calculation, flawed method if you will.
    hmmm. ill take you word for it. but the other half of my post is still true.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    That's something I always found interesting too. You would think a complete theory of evolution would include the evolution of nonliving matter into living matter, but apparently not. That would seem to me to be a critical step and one that would likely give some serious clues as to how the rest of the process works on all levels as well. I understand the point that evolution deals with preexisting living systems, but those systems weren't always there and an explanation of how they came into being would seem to be necessary.
    It is necessary to prove that we originated from non-living matter, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we've evolved from single celled organisms, very far off from the contrary view of "Adam and Eve".

    And, there are quite a few theories that really have a great network of information working in their favor. The Bubble Theory is working really well, especially because oil based bubble can spontaneously form lipid bilayers.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    It is necessary to prove that we originated from non-living matter, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we've evolved from single celled organisms, very far off from the contrary view of "Adam and Eve".

    And, there are quite a few theories that really have a great network of information working in their favor. The Bubble Theory is working really well, especially because oil based bubble can spontaneously form lipid bilayers.
    no offense,,, but you just side stepped again.
    (how is it a "fact"?)

  10. It is necessary to prove that we originated from non-living matter, but it has nothing to do with the assertion that we've evolved from single celled organisms, very far off from the contrary view of "Adam and Eve".

    And, there are quite a few theories that really have a great network of information working in their favor. The Bubble Theory is working really well, especially because oil based bubble can spontaneously form lipid bilayers.

    ^ Happy? Changed my choice of words. Evolution of all animals from a single celled organims is still theory, that's correct, but there is almost no "real" contrary evidence, aside from religious and mystical (one in the same?) beliefs.

    Now, wtf did I side-step? I dunno wtf you're trying to get it. I said the the birth of a living thing from a non-living thing has NOTHING to do with the evolution of living things after that point. How is that side-stepping anything?

    Refer to post #1 and read it a few times.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Changed my choice of words. Evolution of all animals from a single celled organims is still theory, that's correct, but there is almost no "real" contrary evidence, aside from religious and mystical (one in the same?) beliefs.
    Speaking for myself I would say yes they are one in the same. You say that like it's a bad thing.

    You can discount religion as not being "real" but in a situation like this I dont feel it is appropriate to voice that opinion. Me, and many other members believe beyond doubt that is is "real".
    (I just want all of us to refrain from bashing others beliefs. You keep slipping in words that are intended to make us sound like fools.)
    You can not build a house by tearing your neighbors down. Lets just address evolution.....

  12. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

    Now, wtf did I side-step? I dunno wtf you're trying to get it. I said the the birth of a living thing from a non-living thing has NOTHING to do with the evolution of living things after that point. How is that side-stepping anything?
    Well you either have to believe in God or you dont. If you are a independent then you can have your own opinion on things.....but if not then most religions say that their God created man (not a cell that would become a man). Thats "wtf im trying to get at".

  13. Okie dokie Well, in your case (a traditional believer) can you not believe in God and evolution? IMO you can be a christian and believe in evolution...Even the freggin' pope said to start taking in what science has to offer, lol.

    I'm not "trying" to make anyone sound stupid. Sorry if it comes off that way, could just be my smartass nature....

  14. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Okie dokie Well, in your case (a traditional believer) can you not believe in God and evolution? IMO you can be a christian and believe in evolution...Even the freggin' pope said to start taking in what science has to offer, lol.

    I'm not "trying" to make anyone sound stupid. Sorry if it comes off that way, could just be my smartass nature....
    got ya. For me it is one or the other.
    And the pope does not speak for me and should not be deemed as a spokesperson for Christianity.
    And I would not like to be classified as a "traditional believer"....as you saw in the bible study thread, my beliefs squew far from "traditional" Christianity.


    now ill step out of the way here

  15. Well, traditional to your religion (I come from an LDS family, bud ).

  16. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Well, traditional to your religion (I come from an LDS family, bud ).
    even still. I would not like to be classified with the members. just the churches original doctorine (i feel the church has strayed (and that it will come back))-just my belief

  17. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Now, wtf did I side-step? I dunno wtf you're trying to get it. I said the the birth of a living thing from a non-living thing has NOTHING to do with the evolution of living things after that point. How is that side-stepping anything?

    Refer to post #1 and read it a few times.
    I don't know about side stepping, but here's the way I see it:

    1) Observed evidence suggests some form of evolution took place. The empirical case is very strong. I don't doubt that at all.

    2) I find it weird someone can claim 99.999% certainty for a theory whose main mechanism(s) of action are apparently unknown, when a lot of the evidence that supposedly proves the theory is merely consistent with it.

    3) A theory's certainty is directly related to its testability and its ability to be falsified, and not directly related to the lack of alternative plausible theories. The latter standard denies the fact that it's possible there are alternatives that are also consistent with known evidence that we don't know and/or haven't been considered. Claiming that level of certainty on the latter standard seems to be at odds with the idea of science as inquiry and more in line with science as orthodox fundamentalism.

  18. I didn't make those claims myself, these are leading researchers claims.

    Man, I wish you guys would just read the first post INCLUDING the citations (a couple of the citations are standard school books!).

    There is nothing wrong with what u said CDB, but I'm not pulling these numbers out of my ass.

    And, unless any of you are experts in the field, I find it hard to argue against the issue otherwise and state that their claims are ridiculous.

    Again, the entire first post is full of citations to major publications and studies. Please pay attention to that.

    I'm simply parroting all major research in evolution. And no, I won't take anything seriously that was written by a person with a pre-existing bias against evolution. If you're against it and just looking for bad info on it, that's not a very honest way to make a case.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    I didn't make those claims myself, these are leading researchers claims.

    Man, I wish you guys would just read the first post INCLUDING the citations (a couple of the citations are standard school books!).
    The same standard school books that show guesswork phylogeny trees with little to no evidence to back them up? But, to quote you directly from the first post:

    Evolution HAS been proven. The Theory of Evolution has not yet been proven in regards to the mechanism responsible for our earthly beginnings.

    The Theory of Evolution states that we basically evolved from simple proteins into prokaryotic bacteria, into eukaryotic bacteria, etc, into all the different kingdom's of life that exist today.
    Macro evolution and evolution in general, as most people consider it, is not proven if the mechanism is unkown. An analogy: you see an engine running and feel it and know it's hot. You know it powers a car. ANY theory as to how the engine works that fits those observations is proven, at least according to the standards you apply to evolutionary theory. You could theorize a steam boiler in a gas engine and, so long as the ability to test the theory was outside of possibility, by this standard the theory is proven. Proven and wrong at the same time. That's difference between evidence that's consistent with a theory and evidence that proves a theory. If you could test what was coming out of the tailpipe of this imaginary engine, you'd have a better idea of how it works. A similar test has yet to arise for macro evolution.

    Certain mutations happen over time, that's easy to see even in humans. Founder diseases are good example. These are genetic disorders that, when you have two copies of the gene can **** you up, but when you only have one can give you an advantage. They show up as a mutation in a consistent spot on a string of genetic material called a haplotype that's shared in shortening lengths over time by all descendants of the first person who had that mutation. Sickle cell anemia is one example. It originated in area where malaria was rampant, and having one copy of the founder gene for SCA can help you survive malaria. Two copies and you are screwed. But, it's a long, long throw from something like that and saying an eye or a pancreas or a stomach or a liver or a brain or any other complex organ can develop along similar lines. Or even that a single cell life form can develop into a multi cellular life form. Is it possible? I'd say it's more than possible, it's likely. But likely and 99.999% aren't the same thing.

    As far as adaptation yes, you're right. It's observable, testable, etc. It's not hard to figure out. Founder diseases might fall into this category. I don't think anyone is arguing against the ability to adapt. There are some, I think Dawkins was one, among the Darwinist crowd who think natural selection is all you need to go from a single cell organism to a complex one like ours. Maybe that's an uneducated interpretation of Dawkins' work I've heard, who knows.

    But the bottom line is no matter what the scientific community says 99.999% certainty isn't applicable here. You can't be 99.999% certain about something if you don't know how it works. The scientific community was 99.999% certain of a lot of things considered quaint and archaic at this point in time. There's nothing magical about our day and age that makes us so much more closer to the truth of things, and you can bet in a few hundred years people will look back on the versions of the various theories that were being considered today and consider many of them ridiculous.

    Some form of evolution occurs, of that I have no doubt. But until the specifics are available anyone who claims 99.999% certainty is putting the science aside and speaking from a position of defensiveness against those who simply don't believe them for whatever reason.

    Think about this question: why is it impossible to test the macro theory? Is there any particular reason why single cell lifeforms would stop evolving into multicellular, complex life forms? Why are there no very simple organisms alive today that we can trace to known single cell ancestor that's not precambrian? Assumedly evolution is a continuing process, so there should be such examples. Or, for some reason evolution of single celled life to more complex life stopped for some reason. Anyone know why?

    Maybe those questions have answers, maybe they don't. As long as so many questions remain unanswered 99.999% certainty doesn't exist. And people who express 100% belief in evolution are in effect no different than someone ho expresses 100% belief in God. After all, the latter type of believer sees plenty of untestable 'evidence' that's consistent with the existence of their deity, don't they?

  20. ^ Excellent post, CDB!

  21. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    And no, I won't take anything seriously that was written by a person with a pre-existing bias against evolution. If you're against it and just looking for bad info on it, that's not a very honest way to make a case.
    Well, that's a pretty good way to get nowhere. That sounds like the cry of a religious zealot. A person's negative feelings toward evolution don't preclude their making valid arguments against it.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Okie dokie Well, in your case (a traditional believer) can you not believe in God and evolution? IMO you can be a christian and believe in evolution...Even the freggin' pope said to start taking in what science has to offer, lol.

    I'm not "trying" to make anyone sound stupid. Sorry if it comes off that way, could just be my smartass nature....
    I would not have problems believing in evolution if it would be proved 99.99...9% like you say in every single post, but it's waaaaaa...aaay less than that. And as of today Bible makes more sence to me, than your "theories"

  23. Scientifically and from a biological standpoint its obvious we evolved from a lesser bi-pedal species and that, that species evolved from an aquatic animal. This was all part of God's spectacular plan. We are still evolving, consider the higher incidence of ADD and ADHD diagnosis. Eventually we (as a species) will inhabit space and other planets evolving even more as we breed and adapt to other environs, such as zero gravity. Perhaps all these hormonal type supps that are being discovered, researched and marketed will lead to a product that attenuates the muscular effect of prolonged exposure to zero gravity, disease, and aging, the legendary soma. A true fountain of youth, eternal life!

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Knowbull
    Scientifically and from a biological standpoint its obvious we evolved from a lesser bi-pedal species and that, that species evolved from an aquatic animal. This was all part of God's spectacular plan. We are still evolving, consider the higher incidence of ADD and ADHD diagnosis. Eventually we (as a species) will inhabit space and other planets evolving even more as we breed and adapt to other environs, such as zero gravity. Perhaps all these hormonal type supps that are being discovered, researched and marketed will lead to a product that attenuates the muscular effect of prolonged exposure to zero gravity, disease, and aging, the legendary soma. A true fountain of youth, eternal life!
    If we are going to talk in terms of ID then I doubt (completely) that God would want us to live forever yet still be in a mortal state. I know I would not like to live on earth/be mortal forever. I love my life but if we knew how wonderful heaven was we'd be thinking "get me out of here!"

    and to respond to the beginning of you post. It may seem "obvious" to you but dont profess it as fact. I want whole truths not "probable" ones.


    How can you guys say that evolution is 99% proven? You can't even explain how non living matter turned into living. I would say that part is a hundred percent of the story; and then how we evolved would just be a side note in comparison.

  25. Unfortunately it appears to be a matter of conjecture, we can only attribute the unexplainable to the absolute existance of a supreme creator. Peace
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Not really a powerlifter but heres my max bench video.
    By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/Strongman
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 02:24 AM
  2. is something wrong with this site it says im not logged in but
    By Outside Backer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2005, 05:33 PM
  3. Not an Anabolic, but ?? about Clen vs ECA
    By Guido in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 05:14 PM
  4. Noobie here....well not really.
    By JTrans in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 10:27 PM
  5. M1T not really working??
    By WannaGro in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 04:26 PM
Log in
Log in