U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-23-2013, 12:54 PM
 
7,315 posts, read 5,574,322 times
Reputation: 2860

Advertisements

What I find most interesting (and funny), is that the anti-science religious pretend to speak "science" while promoting the idea that Noah went around finding 1 male mosquito and 1 female mosquito and 1 male polar bear and 1 female polar bear to stick in the Ark. lol How sheer preposterous these people are and the fairy tales they believe, discredits every word they say. lol

 
Old 03-23-2013, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,223 posts, read 1,599,397 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua View Post
What educational background do you have in evolution?
Formal?
None.

I studied Computer Information Systems and Business Administration.
Does this disqualify me from discussing evolution?

Does it mean my logic is not sound?
I wouldn't be surprised if you said it did. I had a business ethics professor tell me I didn't have the mental horsepower to understand the topic.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 01:05 PM
 
7,315 posts, read 5,574,322 times
Reputation: 2860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964 View Post
Formal?
None.

I studied Computer Information Systems and Business Administration.
Does this disqualify me from discussing evolution?

Does it mean my logic is not sound?
I wouldn't be surprised if you said it did. I had a business ethics professor tell me I didn't have the mental horsepower to understand the topic.
Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Yes____ No_____

I ask because I'm trying to understand how you personally arrived at defending the points of view on the Internet promoted by religious "scientists" who neither qualified to discuss, nor understand evolution, astronomy, and all the other sciences disputed by the evangelicals.

I've read through a few of the websites from the anti-science evangelical religious, and have found that:

1) They cannot prove any aspect of Creationism. It remains a piece of religious mythology. This is a problem, because anti-science evangelical religious seek to prove their stance, which is that the Bible is correct, and science is incorrect, yet they have nothing via which to "prove" scientifically that the Bible is correct or factual, and,

2) They have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of evolution, astronomy, anthropology, geology, or any of the other sciences they dispute. This is most easily reflected in the questions asked by those of you who don't understand them. The questions are very "telling," because they indicate that their "understanding" of these sciences is that of a layperson at best, and a child at worst.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,223 posts, read 1,599,397 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua View Post
Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Yes____ No_____

I ask because I'm trying to understand how you personally arrived at defending the points of view on the Internet promoted by religious "scientists" who neither qualified to discuss, nor understand evolution, astronomy, and all the other sciences disputed by the evangelicals.

I've read through a few of the websites from the anti-science evangelical religious, and have found that:

1) They cannot prove any aspect of Creationism. It remains a piece of religious mythology. This is a problem, because anti-science evangelical religious seek to prove their stance, which is that the Bible is correct, and science is incorrect, yet they have nothing via which to "prove" scientifically that the Bible is correct or factual, and,

2) They have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of evolution, astronomy, anthropology, geology, or any of the other sciences they dispute. This is most easily reflected in the questions asked by those of you who don't understand them. The questions are very "telling," because they indicate that their "understanding" of these sciences is that of a layperson at best, and a child at worst.
No, I believe the earth is much older than 6K years.
I believe modern physicists and archaeologists have adequately demonstrated evidence which establishes this beyond question.

I am not defending anyone or anything, I am proposing questions and making assertions I believe are supported by evidence, not facts. I believe my position differs from yours in that I acknowledge the difference between evidence and facts while I see you making absolute statements concerning things you assume, not know regarding the intentions of those I believe you over-generalize and lump into one bucket.

I think you are making a fool of yourself, displaying blaring ignorance, exposing a hostile prejudice and acknowledging an emotionally based philosophical bias rather than a logical position.

If you think there is a lack of understanding, address the issues and elucidate rather than make assumptions about intent to justify an attack against those you disagree with. If you are truly someone with the knowledge, experience and expertise to educate, then do so.

From everything you have currently said though, I have no indication you are anything other than an emotionally biased and angry individual with a chip on your shoulder and a grudge against a particular group.

If you want to debate religion, then start a thread on the topic.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 01:40 PM
 
7,315 posts, read 5,574,322 times
Reputation: 2860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964 View Post
No, I believe the earth is much older than 6K years.
I believe modern physicists and archaeologists have adequately demonstrated evidence which establishes this beyond question.

I am not defending anyone or anything, I am proposing questions and making assertions I believe are supported by evidence, not facts. I believe my position differs from yours in that I acknowledge the difference between evidence and facts while I see you making absolute statements concerning things you assume, not know regarding the intentions of those I believe you over-generalize and lump into one bucket.

I think you are making a fool of yourself, displaying blaring ignorance, exposing a hostile prejudice and acknowledging an emotionally based philosophical bias rather than a logical position.

If you think there is a lack of understanding, address the issues and elucidate rather than make assumptions about intent to justify an attack against those you disagree with. If you are truly someone with the knowledge, experience and expertise to educate, then do so.

From everything you have currently said though, I have no indication you are anything other than an emotionally biased and angry individual with a chip on your shoulder and a grudge against a particular group.

If you want to debate religion, then start a thread on the topic.
What are you talking about? This topic is about people who don't want evolution taught at school, i.e., Creationist evangelicals, and what they think is wrong with teaching evolution in schools. Ergo, this discussion IS about Creationism vs. Evolution.

As to the 6000+ years.... ok, so how many years do you figure the earth is, if not 6,000? Evolution has approximations, but of course nothing exact like the evangelical 6,000. What's your take on the amount of years?
 
Old 03-23-2013, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,490 posts, read 28,468,979 times
Reputation: 29155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964 View Post
There are interdependent characteristics which must work in concert for a physiological transition to be successful.

If I am mis-stating your comments it is not intentional. I did this so you can say yes, this is what I am saying or no, this is wrong, etc.

One concern with this explanation is in a general sense, I still feel my original statement is valid. These interdependent changes must occur in concurrence to be successful. Yes if we extend the timeline they may happen in sequential intervals, however in the larger view, they must all happen in a manner and time frame that supports a specific activity.

Another concern is this scenario seems much more likely for variation within species. Genetic proclivities that are more beneficial to a specific environment "weed out" the population to those more suited to this environment thereby ensuring the population is more likely to pass on these "positive" traits to future generations. The problem with this is it does not address the transition of one species into another unless you are assuming these traits are occurring by random chance of genetic mutation. All of a sudden, even with time the coordination of chance, positive mutation among interdependent characteristics and correlation with environment becomes suspect.

A third concern is time itself. Variation of a few degrees over a relatively short period of time can and does have a profound negative effect upon the fauna and flora in an environment. The "time" necessary to adapt would support the proven fact of variance within species but becomes another problem for the theory of transpeciation or macro evolution.

Once again, I do not believe "time" is the secret ingredient which makes macro-evolution plausible. I believe even possible becomes problematic when we see no evidence of transpeciation.

This does not mean you are not entitled to your own opinion. I only object when opinion is presented as fact.

Your example again is variance within species where you propose a common ancestor where the descendants have become specialized to the degree where they are now distinct sub-species and may not interbreed.
If the descendants become specialized to the point where they cannot interbreed they are different species, not sub-species. Sub-species can interbreed. It is usually geographic factors that prevent them from doing so.

Smaller Than Species: Subspecies, Races, and Breeds - For Dummies

"Subspecies: A group within a particular species that shares genetic characteristics with other group members but that it doesn't share with members of the larger species. Subspecies may interbreed quite freely or may be partially reproductively isolated that is, they can interbreed but don't do it as well, or produce offspring as viable, as when they mate within their own subspecies group. Subspecies can range from ever-so-slightly-different groups within a species to groups that are on the verge of speciation. For example, the cobra and the pine snake are completely different species, but pine snakes are divided into subspecies, such as the black pine snake, Florida pine snake, and Louisiana pine snake."

Why do you say there is no evidence of "transpeciation"? If you mean development of new species, there are anatomical homologies, fossil evidence, and genetic evidence. All of that taken together shows how species diverge.

The effect of time is part and parcel of the Theory of evolution. You cannot dismiss it just because it does not fit your personal viewpoint.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,490 posts, read 28,468,979 times
Reputation: 29155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964 View Post
I am not defending anyone or anything, I am proposing questions and making assertions I believe are supported by evidence, not facts. I believe my position differs from yours in that I acknowledge the difference between evidence and facts while I see you making absolute statements concerning things you assume, not know regarding the intentions of those I believe you over-generalize and lump into one bucket.
I would hope that one would only use facts as evidence. The alternative is conjecture. I cannot see how that could lead to any valid conclusions.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,223 posts, read 1,599,397 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua View Post
What are you talking about? This topic is about people who don't want evolution taught at school, i.e., Creationist evangelicals, and what they think is wrong with teaching evolution in schools. Ergo, this discussion IS about Creationism vs. Evolution.

As to the 6000+ years.... ok, so how many years do you figure the earth is, if not 6,000? Evolution has approximations, but of course nothing exact like the evangelical 6,000. What's your take on the amount of years?
I like Michio Kaku and I believe his take is about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years.
Other than that I don't have strong opinions concerning the age of the earth.
Currently it is not a question which interests me.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,490 posts, read 28,468,979 times
Reputation: 29155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964 View Post
I like Michio Kaku and I believe his take is about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years.
Other than that I don't have strong opinions concerning the age of the earth.
Currently it is not a question which interests me.
Perhaps the age of the earth should be of interest, because the age of fossils is also part and parcel of the Theory of evolution.
 
Old 03-23-2013, 02:18 PM
 
26,950 posts, read 17,481,234 times
Reputation: 10636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua View Post
What I find most interesting (and funny), is that the anti-science religious pretend to speak "science" while promoting the idea that Noah went around finding 1 male mosquito and 1 female mosquito and 1 male polar bear and 1 female polar bear to stick in the Ark. lol How sheer preposterous these people are and the fairy tales they believe, discredits every word they say. lol
So true. Imagine being able to justify the credibility of a man living inside a fish, but denouncing the evolutionary process of fish over long periods of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top