Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Seven Misunderstandings of Evolution from a Creationist POV

  1. #1 Seven Misunderstandings of Evolution from a Creationist POV 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    In another subforum, there exists a topic which considers itself to be a list of "7 fatal flaws" in evolution, which are actually seven undereducated but, perhaps, common misunderstandings about evolution from the creationist point of view.

    I list them here and invite commentary. I'll comment at a later time, addressing each, and I know others have already. Feel free to restate/refine comments previously made as well as introduce other common misconceptions, misunderstandings, and fallacies of thinking when it comes to evolution by creationists.

    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.

    With no answers to these important issues, they havenothing to offer the world

    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?

    Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.

    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.

    Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same. Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.

    Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.

    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

    This is perpetuating the idea of ‘something from nothing’ as ‘the process’ has nothing yet it was able to produce everything from preferred diets, down to different colors.

    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
    At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.
    At its most basic, this is an argument from ignorance. There are, actually, many very good ideas on where the “process of evolution” came from, depending on what is meant by this. If the creationist means “what caused life to begin,” then several very good and viable hypotheses exist to suggest how this might have occurred. Many of the superstitious who hold on creation myths attempt, fallaciously, to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge to promote their superstitions over reality. B

    But to highlight several hypotheses, each with considerable merit and plausibility (unlike the superstitious/paranormal model of creation), life may have emerged from: 1) organic molecules found in rock, trapped within hydrocarbons during the formative stages of planetary development. The early amino acids forming protein strings that went on to become early replicating cells of RNA. 2) organic molecules present near black smokers deep within the oceanic crust. 3) organic molecules present in stratospheric water droplets (up to 50% of water droplets there are organic matter trapped in sea water). In these droplets are greasy matter covering the surface -the droplets fall and impact a similar greasy surface of an early ocean, forming a tiny cell-membrane. The most stable suspended droplets in the stratosphere are the same size as prokaryotes...


    With no answers to these important issues, they havenothing to offer the world
    This is, again, a fallacious argument since it implies that because scientists haven't answered all questions regarding the origins of life, how it emerged, and why, that science must, therefore, have nothing to offer. In spite of everything science has provided, the ignorant an superstitious creationist will choose instead to compartmentalize his willingness to accept scientific discovery and advancement: fossil fuels for cars are fine until he has to understand that the science which points to the locations of more petroleum deposits does so because the mechanism for deposition is understood. A mechanism which took place millions of years ago, inconsistent with the creationist's superstitions. Yet the creationist's car is just as polluting as the realist's.

    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?
    Why earth, indeed? Again, this is a fallacious argument, but one that is a little less intuitive. It ignores the overwhelming difficulty of investigating the rest of the universe for life, which may very well be abundant or could be very rare. It also relies on the anthropic principle, which basically states that “if things were different, they wouldn't be the way things are.” In other words, if life hadn't emerged on our planet, we couldn't observe life.

    Evolution didn't “form.” It isn't a thing or object. It's a mechanism. A result. A population of life forms exists; some are able to procreate, others are not; the ones able to procreate are those best suited for their current environment. This isn't something that “formed,” rather a form of ordering and sorting. Something already present in nature. Anthropomorphizing the mechanism of evolution suggesting it got “involved in life” demonstrates an ignorance not an enlightenment.

    Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.
    The interesting thing is that very few creationists actually investigate biology, geology and chemistry beyond the surface (these are, after all, the foundations of evolutionary theory). Nor do they bother obtaining educations (as evident in misunderstandings and mischaracterizations like the ones listed here) in the mechanisms behind evolution and life. Perhaps its because they already “know” (inverted commas required) through their superstitions.

    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.

    Even cats know to find warmth when it gets cold and one would think that early man would have done the same. Yet evolutionists want us to think that we descended from complete dolts.
    Well, perhaps the complete dolts did. But that's another thread. This point is so unbelievably fouled up and ignorant I'm not sure it's even intentional. Many animals (as the the creationist above acknowledges) manage to find warmth without command of fire. If the creationist isn't simply having a go at us and pulling our collective legs, then the fallacy committed is one of weak analogy since it presumes that H. erectus physiology is equivalent to that of H. sapiens sapiens and that H. sapiens sapiens do not live in societies where clothing is not worn. It also assumes that H. erectus were not subsisting in climates similar to modern H. sapiens sapiens cultures that do not (at least until recent colonial and missionary influences) wear clothing.

    In other words, the argument is ignorant beyond repair.

    Finally, science cannot tell us what we did last week let alone 2,000 years ago. How do they expect that they can say what took place 100,000,000 years ago or more/less? It is just ridiculous.
    An additional argument from ignorance. The arguer pre-supposes that, because he can't figure out what someone did last week or understand the science involved in doing so, that, therefore, no one else can either. Ignorant.

    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.
    Yawn. Argument from ignorance. Again.

    Here, the arguer attempts to apply anthropomorphic principles to a process in some weird and undereducated effort to animate “evolution” into a supernatural force. This is, perhaps, to be expected form someone apparently deluded by a superstition and cult doctrines that dictate how he is to think and not allow for personal thoughts and innovations in thought. But evolution isn't some “force” that “guides all species” nor are any biologists, chemists, geologists, or anthropologists that I know suggesting such a ludicrous thing. As a straw man, however, it is effective since such an argument would be silly and nutty and even a creationist should be able to whack it aside. Good thing no rational person is actually making such a claim.

    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    A clear indication that the arguer is undereducated and ignorant. Please note that these characterizations are not pejorative but, rather, observations based upon the method which the arguer presents his assertions and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of even basic biology. I'll leave references below, at least one of which will be able to provide an education for the price of a library card, though our ignorant friend will likely chose, instead, the superstition route and avoid knowledge that contradicts this at all costs. We must keep in mind that he is already told how and what to think by his cult doctrines.

    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    I don't know of anyone who asserts morality came from a “gene.” Morality is a product of human experience and consensus. This is yet another straw man erected by our creationist friend which no one appears to be arguing or positing.

    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
    More utter and complete ignorance (this time I mean it pejoratively). “Survival of the fittest” is a very misunderstood phrase. Fitness brings to mind the strong and the best, but what it truly means is the best suited for the environment at the time. This could be small or it could be large. It could be sharp beaks or short. It could be red feathers or blue gills. And so on. It's whatever gives the organism the best opportunity to survive long enough to procreate. There's nothing being “instilled” or “known.” Its simply a set of conditions which make it right to reach reproductive age and actually reproduce. Period.

    At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
    It isn't clear what is meant by this assertion, but it clearly has nothing to do with evolution. If that was the arguer's intent, then clearly he is very undereducated when it comes to science, evolution, and biology in general.

    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.
    And here is where the core of the arguer's problem lies. He's so wrapped up in a superstition that he realizes that evolution threatens that superstition and his way of thinking. If evolution is right, then clearly biblical mythology is the work of ignorant men. If biblical mythology is the work of ignorant men, then it wasn't divinely written or even inspired. If it wasn't divinely written or inspired, then it is simply mythology and, when provided as prescriptive information, a lie. Since, to the arguer, biblical mythology “must be truth” and cannot be a lie, evolution, therefore must be wrong.

    There may be a god out there somewhere, I would never rule it out. I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that if such a god exists, it isn't this guy's. Nor do I truly believe a god is either sufficient or necessary to explain the existence of the cosmos.

    Archy isn't just saying 'goddidit.' And he isn't just saying his 'goddidit.'

    He's saying his god is so limited and so impotent that something as grand and wondrous as evolution couldn't possibly have been the way life on Earth was created. He's just blasphemous that way I guess.

    References

    Baross, J A and Hoffman, S E (1985) “Submarine hydrothermal vents and associated gradient environments as sites for the origin and evolution of life,” Origins of Life 15, 327-345.

    Cairns-Smith, A G (1985) Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rev. ed.,
    1989

    Gesteland, R F and Atkins, J F (eds.) (1993) The RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

    Russell, M J and Hall, A (1997) “The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front,” J Geolog Soc 154, 377-402.

    Sober, Elliot (2008). Evidence and Evolution: the Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge University Press.

    Page, R. and Holmes, E. (1998) Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach,
    Oxford: Blackwell.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, how did this end up in pseudo-science? Evolution has nowhere else to be discussed? Or is it because it's trying to deal with the #1 problem it faces (religious opposition).



    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.
    At its most basic, this is an argument from ignorance. There are, actually, many very good ideas on where the “process of evolution” came from, depending on what is meant by this. If the creationist means “what caused life to begin,” then several very good and viable hypotheses exist to suggest how this might have occurred. Many of the superstitious who hold on creation myths attempt, fallaciously, to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge to promote their superstitions over reality. B

    But to highlight several hypotheses, each with considerable merit and plausibility (unlike the superstitious/paranormal model of creation), life may have emerged from: 1) organic molecules found in rock, trapped within hydrocarbons during the formative stages of planetary development. The early amino acids forming protein strings that went on to become early replicating cells of RNA. 2) organic molecules present near black smokers deep within the oceanic crust. 3) organic molecules present in stratospheric water droplets (up to 50% of water droplets there are organic matter trapped in sea water). In these droplets are greasy matter covering the surface -the droplets fall and impact a similar greasy surface of an early ocean, forming a tiny cell-membrane. The most stable suspended droplets in the stratosphere are the same size as prokaryotes...
    When dealing with religions, you have to get used to the idea that arguments from ignorance dominate their entire reasoning process. Their role is to give answers, and those answers need not always be correct. Religious people will demand that the burden of evidence be slanted in their favor, as though your accusations were part of a criminal trial against them. (Innocent until proven guilty)

    And, to that list of possibilities, I'd like to add the possibility that the first life form perhaps had no amino acids, or proteins. All the criteria the first life form needs to fill are that:

    1) - It self replicates
    2) - It dies
    3) - Its means of reproduction allows a small amount of mutation
    4) - It has a means of surviving bad mutations

    If a crystal structure growing in quartz rock, or a salt formation at the edge of a tide pool somewhere, or etc.... had these traits, it could evolve into life, because the ability to evolve is not necessarily limited to chemical events that have amino acids, or proteins.

    The first proto-life form might have survived only a few days before evolving into something better.





    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?
    Why earth, indeed? Again, this is a fallacious argument, but one that is a little less intuitive. It ignores the overwhelming difficulty of investigating the rest of the universe for life, which may very well be abundant or could be very rare. It also relies on the anthropic principle, which basically states that “if things were different, they wouldn't be the way things are.” In other words, if life hadn't emerged on our planet, we couldn't observe life.

    Evolution didn't “form.” It isn't a thing or object. It's a mechanism. A result. A population of life forms exists; some are able to procreate, others are not; the ones able to procreate are those best suited for their current environment. This isn't something that “formed,” rather a form of ordering and sorting. Something already present in nature. Anthropomorphizing the mechanism of evolution suggesting it got “involved in life” demonstrates an ignorance not an enlightenment.

    Yeah. There's really no saying Earth is special. We haven't proven life to exist anywhere else in the Solar system, but that really doesn't say very much. It's still reasonable to imagine that life forms everywhere that it can. (Everywhere water is found in a consistently liquid state)

    Just too many unanswered questions and it seems evolutionists are left with little more than ‘just because’ or ‘why not’. They complain about Christians saying ‘God did it’ but they are in the same boat when evolution is investigated beyond the surface.
    The interesting thing is that very few creationists actually investigate biology, geology and chemistry beyond the surface (these are, after all, the foundations of evolutionary theory). Nor do they bother obtaining educations (as evident in misunderstandings and mischaracterizations like the ones listed here) in the mechanisms behind evolution and life. Perhaps its because they already “know” (inverted commas required) through their superstitions.
    The main advertising point for religion is that it gives answers, and guarantees them with the proof "God said". They're not comfortable with things that openly admit they're speculations. (Only things willing to lie and claim not to be speculations, even though they are speculations.)

    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.
    Yawn. Argument from ignorance. Again.
    It would be fair to argue that evolution has no predictive intelligence, but it's retrospective intelligence is perfect. It works exclusively off of accumulated experience.

    It's about as intelligent as if you wrote an AI for a computer that was designed to do the same thing. It would be a very very simple AI, hardly worthy to be called "intelligence", but it would be very effective over time.


    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    A clear indication that the arguer is undereducated and ignorant. Please note that these characterizations are not pejorative but, rather, observations based upon the method which the arguer presents his assertions and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of even basic biology. I'll leave references below, at least one of which will be able to provide an education for the price of a library card, though our ignorant friend will likely chose, instead, the superstition route and avoid knowledge that contradicts this at all costs. We must keep in mind that he is already told how and what to think by his cult doctrines.
    Yeah, those things are fully explained, and not hard to support. Reproduction is the foundation stone of evolution. It's the most important starting condition to get the whole thing moving. Men need more release because they have more uncertainty as to the likelihood of being able to get enough sex to reproduce themselves. (Most women have a pretty easy time getting sex if they really want it enough to lower their standards)


    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    I don't know of anyone who asserts morality came from a “gene.” Morality is a product of human experience and consensus. This is yet another straw man erected by our creationist friend which no one appears to be arguing or positing.
    Accumulated experience would have demonstrated that the species that learned to work as a team was more successful at survival than a species that didn't. Individuals within those groups who were better at contributing to the team were valued by that team more than individuals would didn't contribute.

    And.. pretty much all notions of morality are just based off of that.

    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.

    Riiiight.... because the anarchist win the wars.... don't they? The highly organized societies don't like.... ya know.... form armies..... and massacre the disorganized savages....

    You just have to understand that the concept of being "fit" can apply to the group level instead of the individual level. If a pack of veloceraptors attacks a tyranasaurus rex, the pack of veloceraptors will win that fight any day of the week. T rexes don't know how to form good packs. So, they lose.

    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.
    And here is where the core of the arguer's problem lies. He's so wrapped up in a superstition that he realizes that evolution threatens that superstition and his way of thinking. If evolution is right, then clearly biblical mythology is the work of ignorant men. If biblical mythology is the work of ignorant men, then it wasn't divinely written or even inspired. If it wasn't divinely written or inspired, then it is simply mythology and, when provided as prescriptive information, a lie. Since, to the arguer, biblical mythology “must be truth” and cannot be a lie, evolution, therefore must be wrong.

    There may be a god out there somewhere, I would never rule it out. I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that if such a god exists, it isn't this guy's. Nor do I truly believe a god is either sufficient or necessary to explain the existence of the cosmos.

    Archy isn't just saying 'goddidit.' And he isn't just saying his 'goddidit.'

    He's saying his god is so limited and so impotent that something as grand and wondrous as evolution couldn't possibly have been the way life on Earth was created. He's just blasphemous that way I guess.
    The key to defeating creationism is to try and restrain yourself from hurling insults. If you do that, they'll come back and call you a "poopy head" or something, because they're not going to be able to see the justification for it, especially if you're accusing them of committing an error like "blasphemy", which falls outside of *your* area of expertise. (You probably aren't a highly trained/educated christian adherent who really knows what accusations like that one mean)


    What the above creationist arguments show me is that the creationists are reluctant to allow that religion itself might have been no more than a tool of evolution, rather than the prime cause of everything.

    Religion has a remarkable ability to mobilize under educated people in a way so that they are able to contribute constructively to society without needing to first gain literacy and then study philosophy. Not everyone understands Aristotle, or Plato, or Kant, but they can do what some supremely powerful being has supposedly instructed them to do.

    I'm convinced religion probably is just a bluff, but it has a useful result, and I'm not going to go around berating people of lower intelligence just because they've chosen to adapt to their condition by seeking out a tool of understanding that they can identify with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    It was added to this section because it was originally posted under religion as the original post as quoted here...is about the misunderstandings of evolution

    and the view here is that the original post is pseudoscience and the goal of the thread is to discuss why it is pseudoscience? or made up and how the religious view looks at these facts of evolution
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax



    Riiiight.... because the anarchist win the wars.... don't they? The highly organized societies don't like.... ya know.... form armies..... and massacre the disorganized savages....

    You just have to understand that the concept of being "fit" can apply to the group level instead of the individual level. If a pack of veloceraptors attacks a tyranasaurus rex, the pack of veloceraptors will win that fight any day of the week. T rexes don't know how to form good packs. So, they lose.
    I just want to point out the problem with this post.

    1. There is actually very very little evidence of pack hunting in Dromaeosauridae, the family Velociraptor belongs too, and no evidence of group behavior in Velociraptors themselves. All specimens so far have been found as isolated individuals.

    2.Velociraptors were an Asian dinosaur while Tyrannosaurus is a Western North American genus (we will substitute Tarbosaurus, a related genus of tyrannosaurid from Asia, for the next point.

    3. Hypothetically if there were pack of Velociraptors they would have to very very desperate to attack a Tarbosaurus. This is because Tarbosaurus averages 3 meters tall and 10m long. This is in contrast to Velociraptor which, despite Jurassic Park, only averaged 2.5m long and .5m high. Thus not even making a mouthful for the annoyed but not seriously threatened Tarbosaurus.

    moral: Jurassic park is a good money maker but a VERY bad science adherent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote:
    I completely disagree. For archy everything seems to be a supernatural question. I don't believe it. When, not if, when man creates life then we will know a lot more about the origin of life.


    no you won't for man is missing the main ingredient of life-- God breathed life into man. scientists cannot do that. they may clone a body but that is about it.

    oh an scientists have no clue what the original conditions are and even if they come close, they will not be able to compare if they are right or not because they do not know the original conditions thus they do not know what calibrations they need to make to rectify their mistakes. at best they will have nothing an dyou want to put your lives on the line for nothing?

    Quote:
    This is not a study. It is the sort of anecdotal evidence given as the power of prayer. It is meaningless. This tells us nothing. The only defense archy has for anything is that all evidence to the contrary must be wrong since it disputes his religious yackety yack.


    as i have said before i give you evidence from a published source and you find some way to dismiss it. the problem lies with you.
    I just wanted to comment on archies view of life here


    Archy said:
    " man is missing the main ingredient of life-- God breathed life into man"

    I would very much disagree with this statement for 1 simple reason, ask urself what is life

    I think of life in several specific ways

    1. Its the ability of a chemical to replicate itself either through pot luck, just happens to be where all the ingredients for the chemical process exist or the chemical has the ability to seek out and find the stuff it needs to replicate

    2. To differentiate it from (so called pure )proper chemical reactions, I would say it has the ability to switch this process on and off, so if the stuff it needs to replicate is in low amounts it has the ability to wait it out.

    3. It can replicate itself many times over, and this is unlike the ordinary chemical reactions where the rate of the reaction gradually declines as a) the output of the reaction increases and b) the stuff used to make the reaction in proportion to the chemicals produced declines

    4. I believe life occurs EVERYWHERE because on the above information the definition covers things that dont have dna or even rna

    dont u consider a virus as life, all it is missing is the rna to replicate itself

    but it does have the ability to seek this stuff out

    if u put a virus into a liquid consisting of rna I am confident it would replicate itself as it has what it needs to do it

    it also had the ability to not chemically reproduce and can sit dormant or still for long periods of time

    just my thoughts on life.....I haven't checked on this stuff and would appreciate corrections if applicable

    I also know experiments have been done to see if the chemicals for the origins of life could be created and how easily this would be done

    I think they got as far as amino acids...please feel free to check me on this stuff
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax



    Riiiight.... because the anarchist win the wars.... don't they? The highly organized societies don't like.... ya know.... form armies..... and massacre the disorganized savages....

    You just have to understand that the concept of being "fit" can apply to the group level instead of the individual level. If a pack of veloceraptors attacks a tyranasaurus rex, the pack of veloceraptors will win that fight any day of the week. T rexes don't know how to form good packs. So, they lose.
    I just want to point out the problem with this post.

    1. There is actually very very little evidence of pack hunting in Dromaeosauridae, the family Velociraptor belongs too, and no evidence of group behavior in Velociraptors themselves. All specimens so far have been found as isolated individuals.

    2.Velociraptors were an Asian dinosaur while Tyrannosaurus is a Western North American genus (we will substitute Tarbosaurus, a related genus of tyrannosaurid from Asia, for the next point.

    3. Hypothetically if there were pack of Velociraptors they would have to very very desperate to attack a Tarbosaurus. This is because Tarbosaurus averages 3 meters tall and 10m long. This is in contrast to Velociraptor which, despite Jurassic Park, only averaged 2.5m long and .5m high. Thus not even making a mouthful for the annoyed but not seriously threatened Tarbosaurus.

    moral: Jurassic park is a good money maker but a VERY bad science adherent.
    Yes, but the core point made is valid. Altruism and the formation of social structure is evolutionarily beneficial in many species, including humans. Morality derives from that and the survival instinct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    What's the morality in the social structure of ants then?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    What's the morality in the social structure of ants then?
    Sugar is good.
    Ants from my nest are good.
    Ants from another nest are bad.

    Values, if not morality as we'd call it. Without wanting to sound alarmist and silly, the day they evolve to that point we are all doomed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    you forgot.

    Keeping your kids as slaves in a cellar is good, Austrian style.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    you forgot.

    Keeping your kids as slaves in a cellar is good, Austrian style.
    You make a compelling point. If the normal value set of your own species doesn't suit, adopt a different one. Ants so you can justify matriarchy, sugar diets and basement antics. Lions if you need a moral argument against vegetarianism. Zebras for the opposing view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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