|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 22, 2005 15:39:11 GMT -5
Please learn about how the fraudulent Haeckel himself was using his charts! What you have failed to understand is that this stuff was widely accepted and believed. www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm#Haeckel's%20Theory A certain god by the name of 'dragon of heaven' admits that scientists are fallible but somehow he has the insight to proclaim that to believe in a supernatural God is childish. Wow! Vertigo says "There is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. Faith in a supernatural God is unreasonable. Take your strawmen elsewhere." It appears that Vertigo (and the rest of you as well) trusts fallacious scientists - but that is reasonable? Read, my lost little lamb, read. I addressed the recapitulation idea which was proposed in the late 1800's and was subsequently shown to be wrong as new evidence came to light. Science follows the evidence, not the word of the scientists. The evidence speaks for itself. Your argument is still fallacious.
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 22, 2005 23:10:05 GMT -5
Read, my lost little lamb, read. I addressed the recapitulation idea which was proposed in the late 1800's and was subsequently shown to be wrong as new evidence came to light. Science follows the evidence, not the word of the scientists. The evidence speaks for itself.
Your argument is still fallacious.[/quote]
Read also about Orce, Java. evolutionary "science" does not follow the evidence; it follows their interpretation of the evidence. eg.
1) Mountains are molded by wind erosion 2) The appearance of Mount Rushmore is therefore the result of wind erosion.
The problem is that the atheist reads the evidence wrongly.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Dec 23, 2005 0:29:57 GMT -5
We as humans know that Mount Rushmore was carved by man, and mountains are molded by wind erosion; it has actually (unlike anything you belive) been proven and is regarded, by anyone who is educated, as fact. Do yourself a favor and take your foot out of your ass er mouth.
|
|
bzzz
Maverick's Chew Toy
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
Posts: 2
|
Post by bzzz on Dec 23, 2005 10:26:53 GMT -5
I'm sure you've heard these before, but calling atheism a religion is like...
calling health a disease.
calling bald a hair color.
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 23, 2005 13:13:50 GMT -5
I'm sure you've heard these before, but calling atheism a religion is like... calling health a disease. calling bald a hair color. Actually, to say that atheism is not a religion is like women who have aborted their babies claiming they are not mothers.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Dec 23, 2005 14:16:58 GMT -5
For one thing pilgrim I am not a God and have been saying that all along. (P.S. flattery will get you no where) Now then let me make the most basic of basic points clear to you. Faith is the belief in something on feeling. It dose not need fact and at certain times disregards it all together. On the other hand Science follows the facts presented at the time. It is based completely on the facts present at the time. You are correct there are a significant amount of fools in this world who will demean any thing and falsify any thing just to get their time in the spot light. The problem Pilgrim is that you don't understand that these fools lie on both sides of your religious line. In the end what you get is an equality in the possibility's of evil by both party's and an inequality in fact. The realm of Science is the one with far more fact to it and there for is not only more believable by a rational mind but is more supportable without having to use circular logic. The only people who believe in religion are either the deeply (or not so deeply) insecure, or the people who want to believe it so as not to question their lives.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 23, 2005 14:46:46 GMT -5
What about them?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does.
Mountains by wind erosion? Ooookay. That argument will be found nowhere in any scientific literature. Desist with the strawmen Pilgrim.
No, the problem is that you know next to nothing about what you are attacking.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Dec 23, 2005 19:39:39 GMT -5
Actually, to say that atheism is not a religion is like women who have aborted their babies claiming they are not mothers. Well they are not so what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 26, 2005 23:11:41 GMT -5
Actually, to say that atheism is not a religion is like women who have aborted their babies claiming they are not mothers. Well they are not so what's your point? Of course you would say that because you don't believe unborn babies are real people! I think the majority of evolutionists would hold that view. Here then: Actually, to say that atheism is not a religion is like a woman dumping her newborn in a garbage bin then claiming she is not a mother.
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 26, 2005 23:17:27 GMT -5
What about them? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does. Mountains by wind erosion? Ooookay. That argument will be found nowhere in any scientific literature. Desist with the strawmen Pilgrim. No, the problem is that you know next to nothing about what you are attacking. The problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution is based on an interpretation of evidence. Now perhaps you might like to explain in detail how the eye evolved. Then you might explain how the ear decided to hear something.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 27, 2005 1:28:03 GMT -5
What about them? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does. Mountains by wind erosion? Ooookay. That argument will be found nowhere in any scientific literature. Desist with the strawmen Pilgrim. No, the problem is that you know next to nothing about what you are attacking. The problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. I beg to differ. *sigh* Falling back upon the IC argument are we? The evolution of the eye and the ear happened just like all other structures, over time through mutation and selection. The idea and where most of the misunderstanding lies (which I'll wager to say it applies here as well) is a failure to understand evolution as a process and not categorical steps or a "jumping" of one species to another or a novel structure simply "popping out" fully functioning as we know it. This is wrong. As for the eye, Zimmer makes a good statement upon it: Source - Zimmer, C. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. New York: Harper Collins. The gene responsible for the development of the eye is a type of hox gene called the pax6 gene. This is found in species with eyes from humans to fruit flies. However this gene is also expressed in other anatomical development as well. Mutations in Pax6 lead to malformation and many have been found: Source - www.genetics.med.ed.ac.uk/eyegen/pax6.shtmlIn his magnum opus The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Stephen J. Gould takes a very detailed look into the Pax6 gene expression as it relates to eye evolution and development. Fernald comments on the evolution of the eye: Source - Fernald, R. (2004). Eyes: Variety, Development and Evolution. Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, 64: 141-147. In a lecture by Fredo Durand, he also addresses the photopigmented roots of eye evolution and the obvious advantage it would encur: Source - people.csail.mit.edu/fredo/ArtAndScienceOfDepiction/Essay/ken.pdfHe also considers the avian eye to be far better in function than the mammalian eye as well. The Berkeley evolution site also addresses the silly criticism of IC of the eye: Source - evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtmlAgain it goes back to selection, the ability of light orientation is an extreme advantage and subsequent mutations and reproduction lead eventually to the eyes we use today in our species and others. This site goes over the issue of eye evolution as well: www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.htmlDarwin himself tackled the eye in Origin of Species from a passage that is often quote mined by evolution opponents. The ear is a simliar story: Source - www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Dec 27, 2005 1:52:38 GMT -5
Okay Ill take the challenge pilgrim. The evolution of the eye can probably be best explained by shadowing emphasis on the animals that have them. I am sure you would agree with me that many different beings in the animal kingdom have eyes. As well I'm sure that you would agree that there are some who have either very poor eye sight, those that have none at all, and there are those that have heavily developed eyes. Each has either developed a dependence on either its eye sight, some other sense, or group of sciences. By understanding this cycle you can understand the evolution of the eye. Each being is in a different environment. As the environments differ, the subsequent problems each being must face from its environment differentiate. The squid has a highly developed eye because it is almost pitch black in its environment. It must be able to see its prey in near darkness so it's eye has evolved as the development is called. The beings eye changes to meet the needs of it's environment. In the case of the human eye, humanity uses all its sciences but most focused in those that have it is the sense of sight. This is because it meets the needs of the environment. Humanity is awake predominately during the day, thus its eye doesn't have to meet almost complete darkness like that of a squid. Because it doesn't have to meet such problems the eye is smaller and the lenses different. The same reasoning can be used to explain the ear.
By the way the process of evolution happens to discredit the idea of God creating Humanity. You see in the old testament the bible explains that Humanity is created in Gods Image. However over the small space of time humanity has existed the human likeness has changed and limitedly evolved. Still though Humanity has evolved limitedly when viewing the Corpses of past humanity there are visible differences in likeness. If a God created Humanity in its likeness and humanity has evolved that means that the God would have had to change or humanity is no longer in its image. Since God must by Christianity's standards be perfect the idea of change cannot happen to a God they are Unchanging as they are perfect. Do you see how the entire idea corrodes?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Dec 27, 2005 10:24:30 GMT -5
You are all wasting your time. Pilgrim is a troll. He has not come honestly, he will disagree and argue with whatever you say. Just ignore him, if he won't think about his own religion, why should we do the thinking for him?
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Dec 27, 2005 13:59:44 GMT -5
I agree with Vertigo when someone argues about a subject of which they know nothing; that is horribly rediculous.
|
|
eugen43
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 12
|
Post by eugen43 on Dec 27, 2005 18:57:55 GMT -5
I agree with vertigo too, so I will just continue to religiously study my atheism.
|
|