Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2004 - 03:28pm PT
|
"do you believe in plate techtonics(sp?)? that there was once a concentrated land mass which was divided into multiple continents, the distribution of which is still fluid as they move about w/ respect to one another?"
That's a good question for ya Jody. If we're debating a 200 year old, widely accepted Evolutionary theory, then maybe we should really be debating Plate Techtonics - a theory thats less than 100 years old and less widely accepted.
If you are a Creationist, how can you believe that Plate Technotics is accepted theory? It means the world as we know it is at least 250 million yearsd old.
|
|
BR
Trad climber
The LBC
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2004 - 03:39pm PT
|
Come on, people. The smartest thing that any of you have said was in Anachronism's post, #2 of the whole damn thread.
You can't argue for abortion rights against an anti-abortion "pro-lifer."
You can't argue for the death penalty against someone who believes it is fundamentally wrong.
And YOU CAN'T ARGUE FOR EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE AGAINST A F*#KING CREATIONIST!!!!!
There are lots of theories out there that lack perfect, airtight, incontrovertible "evidence" in favor. Evolution is one of them. On the other hand, it is one that is widely accepted by people who put their FAITH in the scientific method.
Don't argue for evolution against Jody. He clearly did his homework before he started this troll, and he is ready to address most of what you will present, either with counter-evidence or by defining and redefining his terms in such a way as to weasel out of the argument.
Instead, ask him a simple question. As I will now do in a separate thread ...
br
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2004 - 03:40pm PT
|
SUBDUCTION, it does seem to have a certain sexiness about it, don't you think? which, ironically enough, brigs us back to Zeus...
=)
ever been to hawaii?
interesting spot, hawaii, both in terms of tectonics and, you know, selection pressures n-such...
tan chicks too, if you look hard enough.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2004 - 04:06pm PT
|
How come none of you have brought up any of your icons? You know, the ones that are always thrown out there as "proof" of evolution.
We addressed archaeopteryx, what about the Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryo's, Peppered Moths, Darwin's Finches, etc? Come on, you guys can do better than that?:)
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2004 - 04:15pm PT
|
Jody, How come you always answer a question with a question?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2004 - 04:22pm PT
|
Jody,
what proof do your require?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2004 - 04:56pm PT
|
"How come none of you have brought up any of your icons? You know, the ones that are always thrown out there as "proof" of evolution."
how come you cannot think for yourself?
you seem ill prepared to argue valid points unless you are armed w/ specific out of context usless information that in a very narrow view can be seen as de-bunking some specific item in the literature...
is it the case that you are prepared to argue in detail against whatever the pro-creationism websites (or where ever you rip off this garbage) all argue against in detail, simply because you can cut and paste like a champ???
EDIT
juvinillity, runnin wild (again!)
polly want a cracker?!?
baak-baaaaaaak
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2004 - 06:42pm PT
|
Matt, how come you always get juvenile in your posts?
How's that Dave? I answered another question with a question.
Ed, I don't know. I am supposedly the one searching for the truth on evolution and you folks are supposed to show it to me.:)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004 - 12:54am PT
|
Hi Jody Bro
Anyway, See if you can answer this honestly Back in the day when the church taught that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth, do you think, if we were living in those times, that you would be arguing about the truth of those beliefs with those "progressive" types who believed in a round Earth heading around the Sun? Does the fact that those old beliefs have proven false with time reflect badly on God or on Men?
The fact that we all started as a microscopic sperm cell and a tiny egg seems less divine than being brought by a stork too. I don't know what's worse, being descended from apes or having started life by being shot out of the end of somebody's crank!
My feeling is that God's still with us like in the beginning and still doing things the natural way, in harmony with the whole universal system that reflects divine perfection. no need for flashy 7 day epics.
But, like I said before, we're all bound to be wrong about it and that includes me
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004 - 01:30am PT
|
I truely hope it stops raining sometime soon so I can go out and climb and I can stop deluding myself about answering to this thread. I do not believe that anything I could write here would meet Jody's criteria for proof, and so additional posting would be a waste of my time, even when it is raining on my crags.
Oddly, Darwin himself had some interesting comments in the first edition of "On the Origin of Species", which is an excellent read even if you will never succumb to his ideas. After all, Darwin faced a much more cogent criticism of his ideas then Jody brings to this thread.
Darwin writes in his concluding chapter: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposed to mine. It is so easy to hide ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to an unexplained difficulty than to the explanation of certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory."
A perceptive comment true even 145 years after its first printing sold out in a day.
Further along, when answering the self posed question regarding how "far back" does all this go, he answers: "...all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, their laws of growth and reproduction... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings from which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
And nearer the end: "Authors of the highest eminence seem fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."
Apparently Darwin was not godless.
The last sentence: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
A perfect end to my contribution to this thread by the connection of the introductory post regarding gravity and evolution by the man himself written in the very book, back in the day.
|
|
Josh
Trad climber
Watsonville, CA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004 - 10:47am PT
|
I offer this thread as evidence that the internet is not a good thing. Isn't there enough porn on the web without the rest of us in here helping Jody get off on his public mental masturbation?
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004 - 11:14am PT
|
I have a serious question for Jody:
I have always wondered why creationists don't use evolution to prove creationism.
The argument goes something like this: "Look at the complexity of natural world and all the circumstances that had to alien in order to allow man to evolve on this planet, in this solar system. Only a supreme being could have cause the all those elements to come into play in the right sequence. The big bang, the first bolt of lightning that sparked life on earth, the millions of evolutionary steps from single cell organisms to humans and on and on. There is no way the evolution of man was a chance happening-Evolution is an act of God.
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004 - 12:28pm PT
|
I fear the answer to that, Mick, is what Matt and others have been repeating: it's not a matter of considering evidence and drawing personal conclusions, but a matter of ordering the universe according to what Brother Christenson says in Sunday School.
Here's another one: If you deny the ability of beings to adapt and become better than they currently are, what might be the hope of bettering yourself, "repenting," and living by a complex moral code? Isn't religion a sort of spiritual evolution?
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004 - 12:40pm PT
|
I also fear Religion.
I just can't believe that organized Religion doesn't take that position. I think it would be very persuasive upon some members of our society.
The reality is that there are millions of people on this planet that believe what the Church says without question. That's the way it is!
Personally, I've got a problem with people not thinking for themselves but unfortunately I live in this world where the majority are to lazy to think for themselves. They would rather let their church tell them how the world was created, instead of making a decision for themselves based on their own observations and knowledge.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2004 - 01:03pm PT
|
among the many rationale for the interpretations of biblical text to take a strict and often inflexible stance, the most obvious would be the intention of the church or ministry to excercise social control and limit or direct behavior of the individuals and communities they have influence upon.
possibly more relavant to these particular questions of faith vs. sciene is the fact that so many religious groups will tend to adopt philosophies that lean toward their more orthadox and fundamentalist viewpoints, perhaps because those components are so vocal, perhaps because they are obviously less flexible than the more tolerant membership, etc.
the bottom line is that we can see a pattern in many societies where the religious ferver of those on the fringe somehow gets an unbalanced impact upon the overall reality as it plays out in terms of social and political policy.
look at the afganistan
look at pakistan
look at india
look at palestine
look at iran
look at the african countries that are adopting islamic law
look at the israeli settlers and their orthadox community
and last but at all least...
look at the christian right wing groups in this country
(and as a microcosim, look at how the republican party and how it's moderate membership basicly gets drowned out by the well organized and very well funded christian coalition et/al/)
gW didn't go to Bob Jones University for nothin...
and all that good vs. evil resonates w/ those god-fearin types as well (not to mention that it resonates w/ muslims abroad)
|
|
Rockcandy
Ice climber
Santa Clarita, CA
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2004 - 03:54pm PT
|
Who can hike the base of El Cap and not believe in God?
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2004 - 04:49pm PT
|
Lots of people apparently.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 23, 2004 - 09:12pm PT
|
If we are supposedly descendants of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal, why do both of those have larger brain capacities than us?
The Catalogue of Fossil Hominds by Oakley, Campbell, and Molleson lists 200 as Neandertal and 100 as Homo erectus. Seems to me that this would be enough material to make accurate diagnosis of these categories. However, I still see people making posts about how little has been found of the fossil record and that fossils aren't easy to preserve, etc. The Catalogue lists 3998 speicimens of fossil hominids, that's a lot of stuff!
Some of the specimens in the catalog debunk the notion that we evolved from homo erectus. One of the more famous homo erectus specimens was the Cossack skull, who was alive and well just a few hundred years ago. Considering the "recent" dates on a lot of the Cro-magnon and Neanderthal specimens, how do you say we evolved from them when humans were right there alongside them?
Evolutionists can't definitivel say where Neanderthal came from. His beginnings, now said to extend as far back as 200,000y.a, are as much a mystery as his rapid disappearance about 34,000y.a.(Christopher Stringer, "Fate of the Neanderthal,"Natural History(December 1984).
Quite a solid foundation to build your theory on.:)
|
|
dirtbag
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2004 - 09:20pm PT
|
I'm not sure how the disappearance of Neanderthal 34,000 years ago in any way weakens evolution. In all likelihood--and evidence is increasingly showing this--neanderthal was a side branch of humanity that became extinct at about the same time Cro Magnon migrated to Europe. They are not ancestors of modern humans.
Why do I even bother explaining this anymore?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!