Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 91
  1. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Townsvill, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    369
    I was not defending his theory I was defending Him. Because he's not a Nazi.
    He's an Archaelogist and he deserves to be heard not shunned. I feel people are directing their anger at the wrong guy.
    He says himself It's just a theory and it could possibly be wrong, but it could be right too. Anythings possible.
    I was only persisting because people were asking me questions and I thought it would be rude not to answer.
    If you wanna stop this conversation just say so, and it's gone, i'm not out to offend anyone, I just like dicussing controversial topics.

    My next theory: evolution is full of crap!
    what do you reckon?

  2. #47
    Challenge Assumptions Pluvious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons
    Posts
    745
    I was just reading a book on Arid Lands. In the desert animals and plants evolve to survive in these inhospitable environment. Its pretty amazing. And this is only one small example of evolution.

  3. #48
    well, it's fine to say evolution is full of crap. But you need to say why you think so...You need to use scientific evidence that would be capable of surviving peer review in order to sway me. According to the creation scientists, they've already done so. Of course, all of the peer reviews performed on their work were done by *ahem* more creation scientists.

    Evolution has several flaws, but the presence of these flaws, even including the infamous "bad biochemistry" argument, aren't anything that seems to actually punch a hole in evolutionary thought. This is unlike the "aether" theory which Einstein dispeled by creating special relativity. The concept of the aether was never shown to work by anyone, and there was never any proof of it's existence in the first place. It was, unfortunately, a bad theory.

    evolution, meanwhile, has bags and bags of evidence to back it up. Some parts of it are being seen to not hold up to the light of scrutiny, but although any new theory will compensate for these mistakes, it will not change the over all theory in a sweeping way

    Excellent material is out there for you if you are more interested in the subject, notably works by steven jay gould and richard dawson.

    I am studying to be a biologist, and I routinely work in the Natural History museum...I've seen so many things that would indicate some form of punctuated change going on in various species that it will take some doing to convince me otherwise.

    One thing that pops up quite often is that people assume I have been "brainwashed" by the system because I believe (yes believe) in evolution. This isn't the case...I was fortunate enough to have a very special class my freshman year, in which we were taught the power of critical thinking based upon observation and analysis...

    In that class we were taught that Evolution wasn't true...or at least, we had to look at the evidence before us, with the professors watching, and see if it was true with our own eyes (we were also told that the sun revolves around the earth, the geocentric view of the universe...) The profs did everything they could think of to convince us that the major tenents of science were false. There was a time when they had done such a good job that I actually doubted them (it was harder to disprove the geocentric view of the universe than it sounds. We couldn't reference anything on it, although we had been assigned copernicus and tycho brahne in other classes)...you should sometime listen to something like that, because it forces you to really think about the accepted truths of the day, without the filter of the establishment to look through. It was perhaps my all time favorite class, because it succedded in showing me a better way of looking at the world.

    Anyway, i've rambled on long enough about this. If you want to e-mail me to talk this over, feel free. I've got scads of stuff I can mention, but this board isn't the place for it.

  4. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Townsvill, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    369
    I just finished reading this book(writen by a creationist) where the author took both sides. He was kinda Biased towards creation because he was religious, but I thought he did a good job representing both.
    He said he was unsure either way because no-one can prove anything, but it was his hope that there was a god.
    Because their is no way of testing evolution he said it should be dismissed as a scientific theory just like creation is dismissed. I thought that sounded reasonable. But the way school teachers ram it down my throat you'd think it was a full blown scientific fact. That's my reason for saying it's full of crap.
    But it is possible, anythings possible.

  5. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    269
    I tend to belive that evolution by nature was the way the human race got to where it is now.But evolution by nature is no longer the way humans will evolve.I think we are now evolving ourselves.If its cold outside we go inside and turn the heater on, if its hot we turn on the Air conditioner.Before our body be it, hair,skin,brain or anything would slowly change over a hell of a lot of years to suit our world.We now change the world to suit us,and we do it a lot quicker.

    The sun is now giving us cancer if we go to the beach alot our bodies do not like to get burnt.It kills us but do we stop no.We invent a cream we rub on us and we have almost the perfect skin to stay in the sun all day and not get burnt.

    I am only 23 and I belive if not my kids(I have none yet)but my kids kids have a real chance of living forever what with the way science is going with cloning and the way we can even pick the sex of our children,which will have a huge impact on the human race.

    I hope this made some sense to you all because I did to me. I think


  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    269
    sorry one more thing just about space and all that. It is well known now that when Reagan wanted to do the whole "Star Wars" project,he got a heap of SiFi writers to make this up and make it sound real and possible,sorry I can only remember one guys name and its Larry Niven author of Known Sace.But the author of 2001, Arthur C Clarke was also invited to do this but when he found out what it was He told them he would have no part in it and left.
    The reason for this was because it was in the time of the cold war and the soviet union was keeping up with the Americans and some one had to get a bigger advantage to win. So when Reagan told the world about a super space age weapon that could defend all of America from space he knew that the Soviet union could never afford to do the same and thus gave the Americans a huge if not real advantage in winning the cold war.

    Yet it is said that this is all a lie and infact it is up there waiting to be used.....

    [This message has been edited by Rupert Avery (edited January 22, 2001).]

  7. #52
    A servant of Lord Arioch FitzChivalry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,354
    Well, of course evolution is just a theory, no theory is 100% sure.
    But you must inspect the evidence and see which theory is more probable and i think evolution is more probable than creation.
    It's certainly more probable than the big bang theory and other cosmic physical theories that some people blindly believe in.

  8. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Townsvill, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    369
    Actually the big bang theory has alot more testable evidence than the theory of evolution. Einstein was so upset when he thought he'd prove that the universe started at a singularity that he spent the rest of his life trying to prove his theory wrong.

  9. #54
    uh, no. Einstein wasn't upset at all by that. Or if he was, he never tried to disprove his own theory because of it.
    Why would he? He got it all right, so he tries to disprove it all because he doesn't like what some of the calculations indicate?

    Where did you get that from? Things like this you can reference, you know.

    I believe you are talking about his very real distain for quantum mechanics. He didn't exactly try and disprove QM, but he sure didn't like some of the things it said about reality, hence the famous
    God does not play dice
    The sheer number of myths about what Einstein said or did is astounding. I've heard dozens of them over the net, but they never give any references. It's always anecdotal. Except for JFK and elvis, Einstein has more urban legends than anyone.

  10. #55
    A servant of Lord Arioch FitzChivalry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,354
    For the big bang there are many findings that don't settle in right with the theory. Observations showed parts of the universe that seem to be moving not in the right direction or speed, the density of the universe seems to be 5 times less than the density needed for the big bang to happen according to the theory and there are stars that seem to be older than the universe which is impossible.

    That's some of the problems in the big bang theory that i remembered right now, i'm not saying that the big bang didn't happen, it is more probable than any other theory, but there are more problems with it than with evolution.

  11. #56
    immer noch dabei Ntschotschi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    545
    Do you really think evolution or big bang are conspiracy theories?
    They are scientific hypothesis which have to be fallible by definition. They are just used in day to day science because they are useful to explain things. Whenever a new theory will explain any given phenomenons better they will be dropped.
    A lot of "scientific" events can be equally well explained with a mythological set of beliefs. It's only our "belief" in science which makes us feel superior to such mythological explanations.
    But there is and never will be a final theory. Don't you think that in a few hundred years time from now people will be amused about our "theories"? Much the same like we nowadays smile patronizingly at the idea that earth should be a disc?

  12. #57
    Uh, Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,605
    Sorry FitzChivlary, but the current mass of the universe has nothing to do with how much is needed for the big bang to happen. There is currently not enough detectable mass for it to revert in a big crunch however. i suggest you all read A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking, I have just finished it and it has answered a lot of questions I previously had. It dispelled a lot of myths as well.

  13. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Townsvill, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    369
    My teachers at school told me (they were probably lying, typical) that little einstein myth thing. They said that he was so upset that he thought he'd proven that god didn't exist that he wanted to put his mind at ease before he died.
    Here's another thing I learnt from my Physics teacher: Isaac Newton died a virgin.
    great physics class eh.

  14. #59
    the thing about Newton is probably true. Read a book called "Mathematical Conspiracies" for more on that one...Newton, from all accounts, was a real asshole, and there is real evidence that he was gay. Nothing wrong with that, you understand, but being that he was alive in the late 1600's England it makes since that he would be so damn bitter and evil towards people.

    Reading his books and things by people who knew him, I've come to the conclusion that Einstein never believed in God. Not defending or attacking his position on that, just stating what I think is true. He used God as a convieniant metaphor for physics, though, the same as many other physicists.

    Here recently interesting developments have been taking place in cosmology. I'll be watching it unfold month after month...it really is fascinating to behold. I haven't decided anything on that stuff...

  15. #60
    Senior Member Giarc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA. ex New Zealand
    Posts
    252
    Hi,
    Well thoughtcriminal I too have something of an interest in biology and the creation evolution debate. Suffice it to say that science works by falsifiability and not by 'weight of evidence'. Let me demonstrate. For centuries biologists 'knew' that all swans were white. They could go out and see millions of white swans wherever they went. The obvious truth of the evidence led to this becoming established fact. Then some bright spark discovered Australia and New Zealand and overturned this 'fact' upon observing one black swan. In fact, there are thousands of black swans. In summary, a theory cannot be held to be true if one piece of evidence contradicts it. Does this mean the theory can't be revised to accomodate the new evidence? Of course not. But weight of evidence isn't accepted scientific method in any science except evolutionary biology. I have heard many physics lecturers assign evolutionary biology the same status as astrology (ie pseudoscience) for that reason (even though they believe we did evolve).

    Now I'll state outright that I think evolutionists are as guilty of believing by faith that we evolved, as creationists believe by faith that we were created. My reasons are spelled out in a book called 'Not Proven' by a philosopher named Rolf Gruner. He doesn't actually mention creation except for comparisons of the logic employed by both sides of the debate.

    I'm not out to convince anyone of anything....I personally think that this forum is not a suitable place for a debate on this topic. I really do reccommend that you read that book thoughtcrim....it might surprise you. I too have debated with professors of biology on the topic and it was not I that walked away because I couldn't answer him. In my experience evolutionary biologists tend to become too narrow in their approach to this debate and don't understand that tautological arguments don't prove a point. *shrug*

    Besides which, was someone suggesting that evolution is a conspiracy? If so, I've heard some urban myths about geologists in australia not getting to publish because their results directly contradict the theory of evolution. Perhaps there is a conspiracy of evolutionist editors ?
    *grin* Please don't razz me on that....I did say urban myth
    Cheers,
    G.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •