An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.
18
27%
There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.
17
26%
Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.
8
12%
I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.
23
35%
 
Total votes : 66

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:42 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I personally was very heart broken when I found out the truth. Just being honest here. Why should any child be put through that? Even if it's just a mild heart break? Do we think that perhaps we are preparing our children for the realities of life? By lying to them???


Perhaps now you understand how an atheist feels when he or she sees a helpless child being indoctrinated into a religious worldview.


I know exactly what you are talking about. I feel that way when I see that children are legally brainwashed into the evolution religion world view. It is really very sad!


No, there's a serious difference. Children raised by religious parents are told to accept with unwavering certainty the parents' perspective on how the world works. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method are taught to constantly want to learn more about the way the world works, and to question why things are the way they are. Children raised by religious parents, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to read the Bible. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to go out there and find out. Children raised by religious parents tend not to ever change their perspective despite any amount of evidence. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.

It is a failure of parenting to instill upon your children unshakeable beliefs that they cannot possibly have the intellectual skills to seriously consider. Good parents teach their children how to think but don't demand that they think the same things as the parents. I don't currently plan on having children, but if I did, I surely wouldn't insist to my child that he or she will burn for eternity in Darwin's prison cell in the sky if he or she doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. I will show him or her the various pieces of evidence that led us to conclude that this is a theory that explains the data we see, I will explain the present limitations as well, and then let my child make his or her own choice.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:16 pm

Metsfanmax wrote: Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.


You mean like in this thread where I have been posting links to the Facts and everyone has stopped believing in the theory of evolution because of the evidence provided?

A victim of brainwashing and programming does not simply change upon being shown the evidence of the truth. It's just human nature! But the brainwashed victim will ignore the evidence provided and fight it to the very end. On this is what the enemy of all creation is counting on. Human Nature! That the brainwashed masses will go fighting to the very end to their final judgement and ultimate destruction. Despite the evidence provided in that final judgment.

That is why topics like these are so important if by chance I can awaken even just one soul to the truth of the matter.

You are absolutely right that organize world religion is no better and also a deception and a brain washing. But I am not talking about organized worldly religion but about the theory of evolution which is also a faith based religion. If you can see the truth in that statement?

The thing about a deception is that when it works, one just never realizes that one is actually being deceived.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:58 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Children raised by religious parents are told to accept with unwavering certainty the parents' perspective on how the world works. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method are taught to constantly want to learn more about the way the world works, and to question why things are the way they are. Children raised by religious parents, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to read the Bible. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to go out there and find out. Children raised by religious parents tend not to ever change their perspective despite any amount of evidence. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.

Your idea that the 2 are in opposition is a big part of why young earthers are gaining ground. When you insist that it is faith VERSUS attention to proofs, evidence and fact... you set up permission for some people to simply ignore the fact based discussion or to assume if people could be so ignorant of faith and so opposed to it, then they would go to any lengths to disprove faith.

ONLY by acknowleding the validity of each realm, by focusing on the points that can be proven, will science stay on the higher ground. Attempting to claim science is superior to faith is a big reason for the challenge to science.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:01 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.


You mean like in this thread where I have been posting links to the Facts and everyone has stopped believing in the theory of evolution because of the evidence provided?

Since almost all of the evidence you provided doesn't actually counter evolution and the rest has been shown to be fraudulant by reproducable testing, duplicated multiple times...No, not at all like your ideas. Metafax is talking about honest discovery and analysis.


Viceroy63 wrote:The thing about a deception is that when it works, one just never realizes that one is actually being deceived.

This would be the only think keeping you from committing the extreme sins of blasphemy and false testimony.. the slim chance that you have been so decieved.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:34 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Children raised by religious parents are told to accept with unwavering certainty the parents' perspective on how the world works. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method are taught to constantly want to learn more about the way the world works, and to question why things are the way they are. Children raised by religious parents, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to read the Bible. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to go out there and find out. Children raised by religious parents tend not to ever change their perspective despite any amount of evidence. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.

Your idea that the 2 are in opposition is a big part of why young earthers are gaining ground. When you insist that it is faith VERSUS attention to proofs, evidence and fact... you set up permission for some people to simply ignore the fact based discussion or to assume if people could be so ignorant of faith and so opposed to it, then they would go to any lengths to disprove faith.

ONLY by acknowleding the validity of each realm, by focusing on the points that can be proven, will science stay on the higher ground. Attempting to claim science is superior to faith is a big reason for the challenge to science.


Nothing I said has anything to do with rejecting faith. It has to do with not forcing your children to have the same faith that you do; let them develop their own faith, if that is what they choose to do when they are competent enough to make the choice. I am not saying that people should force their children to be scientists either. What I am saying is that one should teach one's child the ability to analyze relevant evidence (whether it be intangible and faith-based or tangible and scientific) and come to a conclusion based on that, and to be properly skeptical whenever coming across new information. Not only is this a reasonable way to live one's life, but also by teaching your children that method of thinking you empower them to be flexible and adapt when fundamental things about their world change. Someone who was taught inflexible rules from a young age (of any flavor) is unable to adapt as easily, and they risk being left behind in a changing society.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:16 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Children raised by religious parents are told to accept with unwavering certainty the parents' perspective on how the world works. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method are taught to constantly want to learn more about the way the world works, and to question why things are the way they are. Children raised by religious parents, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to read the Bible. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if they are uncertain about the way the world works, are told to go out there and find out. Children raised by religious parents tend not to ever change their perspective despite any amount of evidence. Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.

Your idea that the 2 are in opposition is a big part of why young earthers are gaining ground. When you insist that it is faith VERSUS attention to proofs, evidence and fact... you set up permission for some people to simply ignore the fact based discussion or to assume if people could be so ignorant of faith and so opposed to it, then they would go to any lengths to disprove faith.

ONLY by acknowleding the validity of each realm, by focusing on the points that can be proven, will science stay on the higher ground. Attempting to claim science is superior to faith is a big reason for the challenge to science.


Nothing I said has anything to do with rejecting faith. It has to do with not forcing your children to have the same faith that you do; let them develop their own faith, if that is what they choose to do when they are competent enough to make the choice. I am not saying that people should force their children to be scientists either. What I am saying is that one should teach one's child the ability to analyze relevant evidence (whether it be intangible and faith-based or tangible and scientific) and come to a conclusion based on that, and to be properly skeptical whenever coming across new information. Not only is this a reasonable way to live one's life, but also by teaching your children that method of thinking you empower them to be flexible and adapt when fundamental things about their world change. Someone who was taught inflexible rules from a young age (of any flavor) is unable to adapt as easily, and they risk being left behind in a changing society.

[/quote]

Let’s put it this way. According to you, there is the idea of faith, which must be taught without option.. or the idea that there is no faith, which means options. See the problem?

The real truth is that everyone teaches beliefs to some extent. It doesn’t matter if you start from a fundamental point of “there is God” or “there is no God” or even “I don’t know.. you have to decide”. Ultimately, we teach and then our kids decide on their own.

You ASSUME that there is a dichotomy, that it is possible to teach kids without imparting information that goes beyond what we truly know and into that which we believe. The truth is that is not possible. Instead, what all people do is a combination. We teach our kids to think and reason.. and lay out those things that we consider “not solved” or “open” to discussion, those things that are “not proven by evidence, but believed” , those things that are firmly proven, and those things that lie somewhere in between. Offhand, how to fix a car would be “firmly proven” (essentially.. I don’t do cars). How photosynthesis works is generally “proven”. How to drive a car, what to eat are somewhere in between… partially proven, partially beliefs and partially things that a child might decide to do differently. Which political party one adheres to is closer to something not proven by evidence, just believed. However, every one has some points of just plain, pure, faith.

The key to ANY teaching is to understand where the lines draw. What you are basically saying is that you think that people with faith should leave more questions open, but you say that because of your personal beliefs. You do not say that because of purely objective facts (if you want to discuss that, make it another thread.. maybe the “proof of God” one? ) You say that because your experience, things you feel lead you to think that. Per your earlier statements, it seems you were led to reject much of what your parents’ taught you (or am I confusing you with someone else… for this, really doesn’t matter).

The basic point is that if you were truly “not given an option”, then you would not be able to reach a conclusion that differed from your parents. Yet, you did.
The other point is what option is a parent really going to offer when they believe, with all their heart and sole and logic, that certain actions lead to “being saved” and other actions lead to “heaven” ( grossly simplifying.. let’s not get bogged down in a discussion of those terms, just look at the basic idea). Also, remember that the parents would have come to this thinking through their own process of analyzing and thinking.

Again… this claim that one set of ideas is restrictive and that another is not is just wrong and is exactly what feeds into the fight. I have said this many times before and I will say it again.. challenge someone’s faith, make them defend their faith against science and many will choose faith. That is EXACTLY what young earth distorters do. Notice how few of Vice’s arguments actually address real points that evolutionists think? Notice how he skirts and avoids any mention of real evidence and proof with declarations that its all just fake (but neglects to give any similar analysis to his “evidence”). I have already said that Viceroy does this a bit too patly, but peruse the IRC documents, various creationist-young earth websites and you find that same pattern. Their ideas depend upon declaring this a war AGAINST faith. When you make statements like above, when you allow yourself to become that kind of thinker, then you are very much feeding into their arguments.

And, sadly, you enter down a similar path. That you have, for now, reached similar conclusions to my own does not mean it is a good path. It means we simply happen to each understand that 2 + 2 = 4. But see, I also understand that this only applies in the real world. In the quantum world, just to give an example, that is not necessarily true. Now, certainly, I expect you understand or at least accept quantum physics (at least accept its possible, that it’s a fact based set of ideas, etc.). However, here is the thing….don’t you agree that teaching kids that 2+2=4 is a good thing, a necessary thing without adding in “but in the quantum area” immediately?


Many times, one has to understand the rules before one can understand the exceptions and why they exist.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:13 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Let’s put it this way. According to you, there is the idea of faith, which must be taught without option.. or the idea that there is no faith, which means options. See the problem?


No, because you have constructed a false dichotomy where the only way to teach the idea of faith to someone is to teach them your specific belief in faith. It is entirely possible to teach the historical importance of faith to a child by describing the various things people have done and thought, based on those beliefs. You would then let the child decide whether they want to hold faith in whatever things you've described. This is no different from describing to a child the various things people have done and thought that led them to believe in evolution, and letting them decide based on what you have told them. It is acceptable to say "this is the result we get from the scientific method" and then let the child decide whether the scientific method is an appealing way for them to live his or her life. It must also be acceptable to say "this is what happens when we hold (religious) faith" and let them decide whether a life of faith is an appealing way for them to live his or her life. Appropriate parenting involves giving your child the tools to be successful in life and make his or her own path; you cannot do this if you teach them that X or Y is true without question.

You ASSUME that there is a dichotomy, that it is possible to teach kids without imparting information that goes beyond what we truly know and into that which we believe. The truth is that is not possible. Instead, what all people do is a combination. We teach our kids to think and reason.. and lay out those things that we consider “not solved” or “open” to discussion, those things that are “not proven by evidence, but believed” , those things that are firmly proven, and those things that lie somewhere in between. Offhand, how to fix a car would be “firmly proven” (essentially.. I don’t do cars). How photosynthesis works is generally “proven”. How to drive a car, what to eat are somewhere in between… partially proven, partially beliefs and partially things that a child might decide to do differently. Which political party one adheres to is closer to something not proven by evidence, just believed. However, every one has some points of just plain, pure, faith.


You're using semantics to try and prove a point that is much more fundamental. There's a difference between fundamentally believing that the human senses can lead us to fundamental truths about the universe (this is obviously a deep metaphysical question), and pragmatically knowing empirical relationships that help one understand the universe better on a day to day level. If knowing that F = ma is going to be true tomorrow just as it was true yesterday is an article of "faith," it's such a trivial article of faith from a pragmatic point of view that everyone shares it.

The key to ANY teaching is to understand where the lines draw. What you are basically saying is that you think that people with faith should leave more questions open, but you say that because of your personal beliefs. You do not say that because of purely objective facts (if you want to discuss that, make it another thread.. maybe the “proof of God” one? ) You say that because your experience, things you feel lead you to think that. Per your earlier statements, it seems you were led to reject much of what your parents’ taught you (or am I confusing you with someone else… for this, really doesn’t matter).


No, I am saying that whenever you teach anyone anything, the point is not to force them to believe the conclusion you draw, but rather to teach them how to make their own conclusions. Those who indoctrinate their children into their own religion actually tend to do the opposite of good teaching, by forcing the conclusions and never showing the child how to make a critical assessment of the issue.

The basic point is that if you were truly “not given an option”, then you would not be able to reach a conclusion that differed from your parents. Yet, you did.


I was indeed given an option. My parents never required my undivided allegiance to their respective religions (perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in this thread?). So I was raised with some religious background but when I was old enough to seriously think about the issue, I was able to make the choice for myself. My point is that many people never get this option. People who are raised by strictly religious parents, and indoctrinated into their beliefs, do not often successfully break away. Those who do are the exception, not the rule.

The other point is what option is a parent really going to offer when they believe, with all their heart and sole and logic, that certain actions lead to “being saved” and other actions lead to “heaven” ( grossly simplifying.. let’s not get bogged down in a discussion of those terms, just look at the basic idea). Also, remember that the parents would have come to this thinking through their own process of analyzing and thinking.


It requires humility and strength to not force your child to believe the same things as you. Nevertheless it is the appropriate thing to do, since your child is not the same person as you. If you strongly believe that the only way for your child to be saved is through belief in your religion, then you should share that with your child and attempt to convince them of your point of view. But you should not do it before the child is old enough to be able to seriously consider the issue.

Again… this claim that one set of ideas is restrictive and that another is not is just wrong and is exactly what feeds into the fight. I have said this many times before and I will say it again.. challenge someone’s faith, make them defend their faith against science and many will choose faith. That is EXACTLY what young earth distorters do. Notice how few of Vice’s arguments actually address real points that evolutionists think? Notice how he skirts and avoids any mention of real evidence and proof with declarations that its all just fake (but neglects to give any similar analysis to his “evidence”). I have already said that Viceroy does this a bit too patly, but peruse the IRC documents, various creationist-young earth websites and you find that same pattern. Their ideas depend upon declaring this a war AGAINST faith. When you make statements like above, when you allow yourself to become that kind of thinker, then you are very much feeding into their arguments.


It is absurd to suggest that we atheists/scientists are the reason why people choose faith. No, the reason these people fall back on faith is that they were indoctrinated by their parents. They havebeen raised from a very young age with the unquestioning assumption that God exists, so that is naturally their default position. I suspect that Viceroy is too deeply embedded into his ideas to be easily extracted. Your argument goes nowhere, because Viceroy clearly wanted to believe from the start that evolution was flawed. What are we supposed to do, just say c'est la vie and move on? No. It is better to challenge him with alternative perspectives. If, at the end, he has still dug in his heels and hasn't changed his mind, so be it. It is cowardly to not even try.

And, sadly, you enter down a similar path. That you have, for now, reached similar conclusions to my own does not mean it is a good path. It means we simply happen to each understand that 2 + 2 = 4. But see, I also understand that this only applies in the real world. In the quantum world, just to give an example, that is not necessarily true.


...yes, even in the 'quantum world', 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, certainly, I expect you understand or at least accept quantum physics (at least accept its possible, that it’s a fact based set of ideas, etc.). However, here is the thing….don’t you agree that teaching kids that 2+2=4 is a good thing, a necessary thing without adding in “but in the quantum area” immediately?


Of course. Good teaching always involves teaching half-truths. I fail to see how this bears on the question of whether you should teach a child to believe the same thing as you, because in religion, there are no half-truths, by construction. You can't believe in God "just a little bit."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:19 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: Children raised by parents grounded in the scientific method, if shown evidence in the fossil record that disproves evolution, would stop believing in evolution.


You mean like in this thread where I have been posting links to the Facts and everyone has stopped believing in the theory of evolution because of the evidence provided?

15 seconds on google found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuiyo-maru_carcass

I have now checked up on 2 of your pictures; both of which I had to find sources myself because you, or the website who hosted the original articles, did not cite anything remotely reputable in terms of sources.

Both "Facts" as reported by you have found to be false.

Remind me why I should be taking your "Facts" seriously again?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:11 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Let’s put it this way. According to you, there is the idea of faith, which must be taught without option.. or the idea that there is no faith, which means options. See the problem?


No, because you have constructed a false dichotomy where the only way to teach the idea of faith to someone is to teach them your specific belief in faith. It is entirely possible to teach the historical importance of faith to a child by describing the various things people have done and thought, based on those beliefs. You would then let the child decide whether they want to hold faith in whatever things you've described.

No, teaching about faith is not the same as teaching faith... and that you fail to grasp that is pretty much my point.

Metsfanmax wrote: This is no different from describing to a child the various things people have done and thought that led them to believe in evolution, and letting them decide based on what you have told them. It is acceptable to say "this is the result we get from the scientific method" and then let the child decide whether the scientific method is an appealing way for them to live his or her life. It must also be acceptable to say "this is what happens when we hold (religious) faith" and let them decide whether a life of faith is an appealing way for them to live his or her life. Appropriate parenting involves giving your child the tools to be successful in life and make his or her own path; you cannot do this if you teach them that X or Y is true without question.
No, because science and religion, faith are fundamentally different. Science is based on evidence.
Faith is based on belief, where the evidence ends.

Science actually uses both, as does religion, but not in the way you describe. For science to advance requires someone to have the imagination to think up new ideas and then the faith to follow through and see if the result is as they imagine.

You and Viceroy actually make a similar error. He assumes that because a particular scientist is stuck on an idea, then it must reflect all of science and all of science refuses to accept opposition. In fact, the opposite is true. Similarly, you have somehow convinced yourself that once people have faith, they basically stop thinking and analyzing and comparing. Neither is really true.

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
You ASSUME that there is a dichotomy, that it is possible to teach kids without imparting information that goes beyond what we truly know and into that which we believe. The truth is that is not possible. Instead, what all people do is a combination. We teach our kids to think and reason.. and lay out those things that we consider “not solved” or “open” to discussion, those things that are “not proven by evidence, but believed” , those things that are firmly proven, and those things that lie somewhere in between. Offhand, how to fix a car would be “firmly proven” (essentially.. I don’t do cars). How photosynthesis works is generally “proven”. How to drive a car, what to eat are somewhere in between… partially proven, partially beliefs and partially things that a child might decide to do differently. Which political party one adheres to is closer to something not proven by evidence, just believed. However, every one has some points of just plain, pure, faith.


You're using semantics to try and prove a point that is much more fundamental. There's a difference between fundamentally believing that the human senses can lead us to fundamental truths about the universe (this is obviously a deep metaphysical question), and pragmatically knowing empirical relationships that help one understand the universe better on a day to day level. If knowing that F = ma is going to be true tomorrow just as it was true yesterday is an article of "faith," it's such a trivial article of faith from a pragmatic point of view that everyone shares it.

No. It was not the best of examples, but the point is real. The line you draw is not real, it is a one you have found convenient. The real line is that there are some things that have been proven, some things that might be proven and other things that likely will never be proven. At the intersection of the two, things that might be proven, that is where science and religion both can be useful, as long as one understands the limits of each. In the things that likely never will be proven, that is where faith takes over. Science’s “answer” is just to leave it open, but that is not a real answer and in many cases people need/want real answers.

Atheists (not saying that’s you.. cannot remember right now) often think they are getting around this by saying things like “I cannot prove god, so there is just nothing”. However, that is actually a faith statement. If it cannot be proven, it is a statement of faith. In built into that idea is that anything that existed should have proof that is fully evidenced. If you look at most atheistic arguments they tend to go.. either “if god were real, then….[there would be this piece of evidence]” OR “if god were real, then xyz would not happen”. In either case, they have constructed a world and decided that God does not fit. Those with faith do the same thing, but reach a different conclusion.

There is no such thing as just teaching options when it comes to faith. The foundation required to fully understand, like many kinds of understanding requires beginning early. This IS true for science. Science teaching is so heavily infused into our society now that we don’t think much about it, but math, knowing certain names, etc… then on to chemistry, biology, etc, etc, none of that just happens. Once a child understands, then there can be choice, but not until. Once a child understands the basics of science, chemistry, geology and biology, then they are able to challenge things, perhaps even challenge things they were taught was quite true.

You want to criticize faith in the same way that Viceroy tries to criticize evolution.. without first understanding.






Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
The key to ANY teaching is to understand where the lines draw. What you are basically saying is that you think that people with faith should leave more questions open, but you say that because of your personal beliefs. You do not say that because of purely objective facts (if you want to discuss that, make it another thread.. maybe the “proof of God” one? ) You say that because your experience, things you feel lead you to think that. Per your earlier statements, it seems you were led to reject much of what your parents’ taught you (or am I confusing you with someone else… for this, really doesn’t matter).


No, I am saying that whenever you teach anyone anything, the point is not to force them to believe the conclusion you draw, but rather to teach them how to make their own conclusions. Those who indoctrinate their children into their own religion actually tend to do the opposite of good teaching, by forcing the conclusions and never showing the child how to make a critical assessment of the issue.

That you think this is the best proof that you were not really taught well, just like Viceroy’s arguments are proof that he/she was never taught science well.

Again, both science and faith begin by teaching fundamentals. In both cases, there is a combination of leading the child to understand.. that should be the bulk, and teaching “this is so”. We tell kids that 1 is one, 2 is two objects, etc…. no debate. It is a matter of definition. People who believe in God teach that God is there. No option, it is a matter of definition. When it comes to addition, we take out blocks, point to fingers or other objects and show why 2 + 2 = 4, but it has to start with the definition of 2. Similarly, when kids get older we get into why God did this or that, etc. At some point, most kids truly question God and have more complicated questions. In most cases, for most people the “there is God” gets shifted a tad into various complexities, just like at some point we realize that 2+2=4 can really mean anything from 1.49999999 (etc) to 2.499999999, and a few other caveats. BUT, it all starts with the definite.


Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
The basic point is that if you were truly “not given an option”, then you would not be able to reach a conclusion that differed from your parents. Yet, you did.


I was indeed given an option. My parents never required my undivided allegiance to their respective religions (perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in this thread?). So I was raised with some religious background but when I was old enough to seriously think about the issue, I was able to make the choice for myself. My point is that many people never get this option. People who are raised by strictly religious parents, and indoctrinated into their beliefs, do not often successfully break away. Those who do are the exception, not the rule.

Sorry, but your understanding of how faith really works is as poor as Viceroy’s understanding of evolution…and it shows.

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
The other point is what option is a parent really going to offer when they believe, with all their heart and sole and logic, that certain actions lead to “being saved” and other actions lead to “heaven” ( grossly simplifying.. let’s not get bogged down in a discussion of those terms, just look at the basic idea). Also, remember that the parents would have come to this thinking through their own process of analyzing and thinking.


It requires humility and strength to not force your child to believe the same things as you. Nevertheless it is the appropriate thing to do, since your child is not the same person as you. If you strongly believe that the only way for your child to be saved is through belief in your religion, then you should share that with your child and attempt to convince them of your point of view. But you should not do it before the child is old enough to be able to seriously consider the issue.
This is the difference between having faith and thinking everything is just optional. I grew up in CA, I am certainly familiar with that concept, but it has little to do with real faith. Your failure to understand that is not such a big deal. Your failure to grasp that you don’t understand it is why you are adding to the fight instead of detracting or solving it. You feed directly into the thinking of folks’ like Viceroy because you start from the fundamental idea that faith is just wrong. No matter how you want to paint it up, that is what you think. Its OK for someone to adopt various ideas, like they would different clothing or a political party, but true faith is something you just don’t get.

The thing is that there IS no “alternative”. I want my child to understand what I know, but to say that belief in God is optional is like saying that belief in the number 2 is optional. It really is not.


Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Again… this claim that one set of ideas is restrictive and that another is not is just wrong and is exactly what feeds into the fight. I have said this many times before and I will say it again.. challenge someone’s faith, make them defend their faith against science and many will choose faith. That is EXACTLY what young earth distorters do. Notice how few of Vice’s arguments actually address real points that evolutionists think? Notice how he skirts and avoids any mention of real evidence and proof with declarations that its all just fake (but neglects to give any similar analysis to his “evidence”). I have already said that Viceroy does this a bit too patly, but peruse the IRC documents, various creationist-young earth websites and you find that same pattern. Their ideas depend upon declaring this a war AGAINST faith. When you make statements like above, when you allow yourself to become that kind of thinker, then you are very much feeding into their arguments.


It is absurd to suggest that we atheists/scientists are the reason why people choose faith.
I did not say that it is the reason people choose faith. Read it again. I say that your disdain for faith is the reason that people won’t listen to what you call logic. If you wish to talk to someone, don’t challenge their faith. You will lose. You will lose because faith is not, as you think, an option. You can disagree or agree, but understand that or you will, as I said, create more of the divide, create more people who decide that your disdain is reason enough to reject what you say in favor of what people they trust, namely pastors and other “experts” put forward by their church or belief set.

You show them disdain, they show you disdain. NO understanding and the world loses.

Metsfanmax wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
And, sadly, you enter down a similar path. That you have, for now, reached similar conclusions to my own does not mean it is a good path. It means we simply happen to each understand that 2 + 2 = 4. But see, I also understand that this only applies in the real world. In the quantum world, just to give an example, that is not necessarily true.


...yes, even in the 'quantum world', 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, certainly, I expect you understand or at least accept quantum physics (at least accept its possible, that it’s a fact based set of ideas, etc.). However, here is the thing….don’t you agree that teaching kids that 2+2=4 is a good thing, a necessary thing without adding in “but in the quantum area” immediately?


Of course. Good teaching always involves teaching half-truths. I fail to see how this bears on the question of whether you should teach a child to believe the same thing as you, because in religion, there are no half-truths, by construction. You can't believe in God "just a little bit."

As I said above, 2+2=4…… but it can also mean that 1.5000000000000 + 2.49999999999999 = anywhere from 3.5 to 4.49999999999

And yes, there are MANY variables in religion… true religion as opposed to the fiction so many atheists and non believers of other stripes try to pretend faith is.

Just like you cannot rely on evolution deniers to give the honest truth about evolution, you cannot rely upon those who have rejected faith to honestly define what it is, not fully.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:12 pm

Oh, by the way, 2 electrons plus 2 electrons don't necessarily equal 4 electrons.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:34 pm

player wrote:No, because science and religion, faith are fundamentally different. Science is based on evidence.
Faith is based on belief, where the evidence ends.

Science actually uses both, as does religion, but not in the way you describe. For science to advance requires someone to have the imagination to think up new ideas and then the faith to follow through and see if the result is as they imagine.

You and Viceroy actually make a similar error. He assumes that because a particular scientist is stuck on an idea, then it must reflect all of science and all of science refuses to accept opposition. In fact, the opposite is true. Similarly, you have somehow convinced yourself that once people have faith, they basically stop thinking and analyzing and comparing. Neither is really true.


I agree that scientific/philosophical inquiry reaches a point, after which either (1) a conclusion can become 'sound' through one's faith in it, or (2) the conclusion remains unknown in soundness---which for many is not satisfactory. People prefer seemingly sound conclusions, rather than being prodded into accepting the vagueness of those conclusions.

For example, when Montesquieu wrote of the necessity of checks and balances for a democratic government, he could not prove that such a form government would be superior to the governments of his times (17th century). However, if he maintained that his view was the correct one, then this would be done on the basis of faith.

Of course, we would agree with Montesquieu on his checks and balances doctrine because we enjoy the position of hindsight. Even our belief in the importance of checks and balances maintains the validity/soundness of such a doctrine.

Arguments which exhort policy X in the name of the "common good," "national security," "public safety," or the ever nefarious "helping others," similarly rely upon faith in their final conclusion. If questioned about the problem of #2, they might say, "Never mind the uncertainty and the potential unintended consequences. Policy X is the correct choice." (I wonder: who fits that description?)
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:19 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:It is absurd to suggest that we atheists/scientists are the reason why people choose faith. No, the reason these people fall back on faith is that they were indoctrinated by their parents. They havebeen raised from a very young age with the unquestioning assumption that God exists, so that is naturally their default position. I suspect that Viceroy is too deeply embedded into his ideas to be easily extracted. Your argument goes nowhere, because Viceroy clearly wanted to believe from the start that evolution was flawed. What are we supposed to do, just say c'est la vie and move on? No. It is better to challenge him with alternative perspectives. If, at the end, he has still dug in his heels and hasn't changed his mind, so be it. It is cowardly to not even try.


And every culture does the same thing with their ideologies as does every parent. This continues on into the Theory of evolution. No parent that believes in the theory of evolution is going to teach their children "Logical Thinking" because the truth is that the theory of evolution is not Logical. A theory is a possible explanation for the observable facts but if the theory can't explain the facts then it is not logical to continue with the theory. And yet it is taught to school children from a very young age to believe in this theory as if it were true.

Every single text book on this subject begins more or less with, "Millions of Years ago, when Dinosaurs ruled the earth..." How is that not "Indoctrinating" our young minds to believe something that has no proof behind it or bases for a foundation? How do young minds question that which is being taught them with such authority? If we really wanted to teach our children "Logical Thinking" then we would not make it against the constitution to teach religion in school since it is already being taught in school. It goes by the name of the religion of the theory of evolution.

To teach "Logical Thinking" one must present all of the theories and present them as such. Theories and nothing more. Schools must then spend as much time teaching Basic theology (The Bible) as they spent teaching any other subject. To say that the theory of evolution is not being taught as fact is absurd. Of course it is. They just don't admit it is. Yet anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution is immediately look upon as ignorant of the facts. This is clearly not the case.

I presented my case in the OP. The basis for the theory of evolution is set in the rocks and not in a lab. It is the Fossil records that is being used to teach evolution as fact. The fact that the sedimentary column is never found as it is drawn in the text books is not mentioned in the course of teaching the theory as fact. The fact that the exhibits, the fossil records, are also misrepresented or falsified is also not mention in the teaching of the theory as fact. It is all biased towards evolution! And this is how we keep an open mind?

I stated that there is no evidence to support the theory. Obviously Mutation do occur but if this is the evidence then I have already refuted this many times in this thread. The onus of responsibility to prove that I am wrong lies not with me but with those who claim that I am wrong. Yet all that I have seen presented are links to "mutations in a Lab." No one has yet to show the intermediary species that lead from a cow to a whale for example and not be a hoax. Everything in this thread has been digressed from the original intentions of the OP.

I wonder why?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:32 pm

Viceroy63 wrote: This continues on into the Theory of evolution. No parent that believes in the theory of evolution is going to teach their children "Logical Thinking" because the truth is that the theory of evolution is not Logical.
Oh stop already.

First of all, we are still waiting for you to produce even a single piece of evidence that actually disputes the theory of evolution. Just pretending no evidence exists is not enough.

Also, you have not provided any evidence other than your very dicey read of the Bible (one disputed by plenty of true Biblical experts) to support your claim.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Lootifer on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:42 pm

Regarding you thing about Dinosaurs.

As Player and many others have stated this does not directly disprove evolution. What it potentially does is ask questions of dating techniques (which indirectly impact some supporting evidence for evolution).

Can I suggest that if you want to argue your case effectively (i.e. have people actually listen to you - currently zero people are taking notice of your opinions, they are merely poking holes in your wafer thin conclusions) you should be attacking dating techniques rather than evolution? This is the rational form your argument should take as if you successfully show that dating techniques are flawed then you can then (and not before) develop your argument against evolution.

By scattering consipiracy theory pictures of dinosaurs existing today and then smugly saying "Hah, see, evolution no worky!" you are not making one iota of difference in peoples minds - you are simply making yourself out to be a fool (cue Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln quote).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:52 pm

Lootifer wrote:Regarding you thing about Dinosaurs.

As Player and many others have stated this does not directly disprove evolution. What it potentially does is ask questions of dating techniques (which indirectly impact some supporting evidence for evolution).

Can I suggest that if you want to argue your case effectively (i.e. have people actually listen to you - currently zero people are taking notice of your opinions, they are merely poking holes in your wafer thin conclusions) you should be attacking dating techniques rather than evolution? This is the rational form your argument should take as if you successfully show that dating techniques are flawed then you can then (and not before) develop your argument against evolution.

By scattering consipiracy theory pictures of dinosaurs existing today and then smugly saying "Hah, see, evolution no worky!" you are not making one iota of difference in peoples minds - you are simply making yourself out to be a fool (cue Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln quote).

To do that effectively, he would have to actually understand how those techniques work AND how they are used. He has shown he does neither.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:03 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
player wrote:No, because science and religion, faith are fundamentally different. Science is based on evidence.
Faith is based on belief, where the evidence ends.

Science actually uses both, as does religion, but not in the way you describe. For science to advance requires someone to have the imagination to think up new ideas and then the faith to follow through and see if the result is as they imagine.

You and Viceroy actually make a similar error. He assumes that because a particular scientist is stuck on an idea, then it must reflect all of science and all of science refuses to accept opposition. In fact, the opposite is true. Similarly, you have somehow convinced yourself that once people have faith, they basically stop thinking and analyzing and comparing. Neither is really true.


I agree that scientific/philosophical inquiry reaches a point, after which either (1) a conclusion can become 'sound' through one's faith in it, or (2) the conclusion remains unknown in soundness---which for many is not satisfactory. People prefer seemingly sound conclusions, rather than being prodded into accepting the vagueness of those conclusions.
Pretty much the opposite of what I said.

Proof is proof, not faith. It is only when there is no proof that faith comes into play in science.
However, many charletans and well intentioned misguided individuals do take advantage of the difficulty in understanding some aspects of science to put forward their "answers".
BigBallinStalin wrote:For example, when Montesquieu wrote of the necessity of checks and balances for a democratic government, he could not prove that such a form government would be superior to the governments of his times (17th century). However, if he maintained that his view was the correct one, then this would be done on the basis of faith.

Of course, we would agree with Montesquieu on his checks and balances doctrine because we enjoy the position of hindsight. Even our belief in the importance of checks and balances maintains the validity/soundness of such a doctrine.
Sort of, but with no where near the basis of anything called scientific fact. These are merely ideas that presuppose other ideas and therefore a reasonable result. Many, many external conditions are necessary to even get to the point where such a system is even relevant, never mind possible or better than something else.

Our current state shows how fallible this system was/is, among other issues.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Arguments which exhort policy X in the name of the "common good," "national security," "public safety," or the ever nefarious "helping others," similarly rely upon faith in their final conclusion. If questioned about the problem of #2, they might say, "Never mind the uncertainty and the potential unintended consequences. Policy X is the correct choice." (I wonder: who fits that description?)
Not so.

See, there is such a thing as fact and science. Science relies upon tested and reproducible results. Vaccines work. Promoting a public vaccination campaign helps keep people well (generally.. not going to get into the caveats, just making the point). An idea like “free markets” is, however something ephemeral. It is based upon human behavior, which is predicated upon various outside conditions. Not so vaccines.

This is why science must be the root of any economy, fundamentally, because it is not changeable, is not based on one’s views or political position. It simply IS.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:09 am

Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:51 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).


Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive. That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?

Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?

Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?

The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books. When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts. As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood. Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.

If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?

Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:55 am

Sometimes, when I read Viceroy's post, I pretend he is the Futurama character that introduces the Scary Door.




--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25358
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:10 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).


Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.

No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.

Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.

Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.

In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.



Viceroy63 wrote: That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.

Again, no. That is sort of the “kindergarten” version, something said loosely in general context because they don’t want to take the time to go into full details. The details are understood by most educated adults. Specifically, its probable a LOT of things contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. No one seriously thinks, at least today, that all dinosaurs were instantly killed off at exactly 65 million years ago. However, around then we see a huge change in the fossil compositions. I won’t get into the whole bit because you have a tendency to ignore anything not feeding into your ideas, but the truth is that even the “quickest” scenarios have dinosaurs persisting for a long while after that. We don’t know exactly because just not finding dinosaur fossils doesn’t mean they were truly gone, it just means that none died in a way that lead to fossil preservation. However, what we do see is that there were lots and lots of dinosaurs and then none or almost none. The change happened around 65 million years ago. There is evidence of at least one major geologic cataclysm at about that time, so the idea that the 2 things.. the demise of the dinosaurs and the meteor hitting is a reasonable idea. However, it wasn’t as if it hit them all on the head. The most prominent scenario I have read recently is that this meteor and probably volcanic activity, too lead to a “dramatic” change in climate. Note that geologically, “dramatic” could mean hundreds of years, even millennia. Anyway, all that is theory and the exact reason the dinosaurs died is debated. When they died off is ALSO debated, though your creationist friends are unlikely to point that out. It is very possible that dinosaurs persisted long after. Its slightly possible they persisted into the time of humans (not very likely, but there is a slight chance).

Whether dinosaurs died or not, though is actually irrelevant. We have entirely different species today. The Bible does not talk of dinosaurs living and then being replaced by modern species. It talks of just modern species. Whatever happened with the dinosaurs predates the known times in the Bible. Of course, God knew how he created the Earth, but let me ask you. If God were to say to the people who would become Jews that these species around came from other creatures, how, exactly would they understand that? And, what would be the purpose of that understanding? In a time when many people believed the Earth to be flat (not all, but some ancient Jews did believe that) because of what they saw, when they had an utterly different understanding of time than we, the story we read is what they could have understood.

Viceroy63 wrote: Since recent archeological evidence suggest that Dinosaurs are even today still among us in remote parts of the world, they why are they not evolved? Why are they described the same way even after millions of years of evolution?

IF they exist, then it would be because they were isolated, similar to how the Coelacanth survived. The other possibility is how we still have horseshoe crabs.. that they just had a “successful” body type. Having a “successful” body type does not preclude change in progeny, but it just makes it less likely.

Viceroy63 wrote: Why is it that there is no Dinosaur bones where we Find the Woolly Mammoth?


Because woolly Mammoths lived long after the time of dinosaurs. Also, the climate was very different… ergo the woolly bit. In fact, woolly mammoths very much did live with humans.

Viceroy63 wrote: Could it be possible that theory is based on a misrepresentation of the Facts?
Sure, but you have to show that this is the case. So far, you have not done that.

Viceroy63 wrote: The only place where you find the geological sedimentary column, as shown in text books, is only in the text books.
Where did you get that idea? Actually, you can see geologic layers in many road cuts in CA and other mountainous areas. When we probe the depths of the ocean and lack sediments, we see various layers. In fact, go anywhere and take a log core sample and you will see definite layers. Oh, almost forgot.. the canyons. They give a nice, clear, vegetation-free look. Geologists love deserts because they can see the geology without having a bunch of vegetation obscuring it.


Viceroy63 wrote: When geologist look at the sedimentary column they only find segments of it at a time. This geologist freely admit. They put the column together to fit their ideas of the theory and not to fit any facts.

OH.. OK, started to answer before I had read down.
No, actually geologists are very cautious about suggesting that layers not connected are formed together. When we show kids how this works, we can use blankets and layer cakes. Try it! Take a layer of chocolate, a layer of frosting or another type of cake.. repeat in any order you wish. Make 3 (or break into 3 good sized sections). First, tear the cake in the middle. This is similar to an earth quake. Take your hand and yank out some of the middle of another, leaving just the bottom layer. That is what a river does over a very, very long period of time (sometimes wind does this also, but rivers tend to be quicker). Take the last and fold it, then twist. Those are all simple examples, without huge complications like heat that changes the rock, multiple twists and fracturing, etc.

Anyway, if you look at the layers of earth/rock in a particular area, that is what you will see. Is that, alone, proof? No. To get into the real proof, though requires chemistry and some other techniques I don’t have time to explain… and that, to be honest, likely require a lot of education you are unlikely to have. The bottom line is that Some formations are pretty clear and obvious. Even young earth creationists don’t really deny that the layers on each side of the Grand Canyon match, for example. They just try to claim they were all made at the same time. In many other cases, the story is much more complicated and not entirely understood. There is a book about the Marble Mountains in CA called “The Klamath Knot”. It is called that because there were so many different things happening to that landform that untangling it is like untangling a knot. But, just like a knot of string, you start with one, known point and work your way until you have undone all the tangles. In that case, I believe there are still some sort of mysteries. That is, no… saying “oh , well, God just did it” doesn’t work, but did this piece metamorphise with this other piece, etc, etc.. the exact details are not necessarily fully known, (and actually, they might be by now.. the book is decades old).


Viceroy63 wrote: As I explained in an earlier comment, the reason why all the bones are found in their sections is because of the way that the sediments settle after a violent world wide flood.
You have “explained” that, but the facts don’t match your explanation. Floods leave specific kinds of traces. In fact, floods are one of the easiest things to decipher, right along with volcanic eruptions. They leave definite traces and give a pretty firm universal dating mechanism, because each flood will have a very different sediment composition. There were cases of fossils shifted by floods. I would have to read the exact report you have read to know where they erred, but many times young earthers try to claim that old bones uncovered and relocated were aged the same as other, fresh bones. However, wear patterns and other evidence shows that is not the case.

Viceroy63 wrote: Those human skeletons (10 persons) were in fact held down by some kind of a land slide when the Flood occurred. Everything else just settled at it's only pace. That is why you don't find any Shoe crabs with the Dinosaurs or with the Woolly Mammoth at the top of the Column yet they are also still alive today.

I have no idea what article you think proves this, but it mixes up a good deal false information with some truths.

Viceroy63 wrote: If evolution were a fact instead of a theory then you would not only expect to see dinosaur bones at the level where you find mammals but also more evolved and adapted dinosaurs right there alongside of the other mammals as well. Along with alligators and crocodiles and all of those creatures which we see at the bottom of the column and are still alive today. But we do not see them, Why?
You do see very primitive mammals alive with dinosaurs. I have no idea what you mean by we would see “more evolved and adapted dinosaurs”. We do see a wide range of different dinosaurs, and the emergence of a few mammal predecessors.

I am not versed in Alligator phylogeny or fossils, so I don’t know when they emerged. Not sure why you think this is a critical point, though.

Viceroy63 wrote: Thus the existence of any kind of a dinosaur today lays to rest the theory of evolution simply on the merit that we don't see it happening in the geological or archeological records. We should have found the evidence of intermediate species by now and not archeological proof that dinosaurs and mankind live alongside of each other and unchanged for over 65 million years. That just doesn't make sense for a theory that can't answer that question. I hope this makes it clear. And this is just one point of logical reasoning for why Evolution simply has never happened.

Almost nothing in this last paragraph is correct.

Let me explain something to you. If you want to refure the theory of evolution, you truly need to begin with actually understanding the theory of evolution, not some creationist young earth fiction being taught by evolution opponents.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:15 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy?

You still have not answered why you think just finding a few dinosaurs will disprove evolution....
(other than something about how evolution depends on the demise of the dinosaurs, which is just plain wrong).


Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive.


No, the theory of evolution doesn't depend on death at all. It depends on some species passing on differing genes to their progeny. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including just pure random chance. (which, note, means more than just mathematical randomness, by-the-way, it means just that we cannot predict and maybe do not understand the mechanism -- aka "God did it" is plausible, just not something scientists will say because it cannot be proven, they would head that under "don't know or "random"). The process happens very slowly when there is no change, but if a population is isolated, say on an island, by a landslide or other event, it can happen whilst the main population is quite thriving.

Further, just because some individuals are doing better and passing on new genes, it is not given that the old examples will die off necessarily. They could survive just by chance, just because they happened to be on the edge of the population, somehow wound up surving despite the harsh competition. Think of blacksmiths and horse and buggy purveyors. Once each were extremely critical to civilization. Now, they are few and far between. They were absolutely out-competed, BUT... did they completely disappear? No! Some serve groups like the Amish that want the old technology, some have become artists. They are far fewer, but not utterly gone. In fact, numbers have grown again slightly in recent times. That is very similar to what happens in evolution. It is why we have Ceolocanths, Nautilus, sharks, etc... even though most of their ancient, close relatives have long since gone.

Here is another way to look at it.
In our culture, a woman takes her husband's name. If she has no brothers, that might mean the end of the name, but if she has brothers, it will continue. Even if all the males having a particular name die, there is no gaurantee that it will end the name. A sister might have a child on her own, or may marry someone who takes her name, either because that is the cultural norm there or, maybe because a particular name is so common that people are being encouraged to take another. Each of these situations is analogous to somethign that happens with mutations and evolution.

In other words, it is a “straw man” argument… an argument that is false, but presented as if it were a real and true argument to give the appearance of considering the opposition.




Time index: 55 seconds into the clip...
"Darwin made it clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if the changes provide an advantage in the survival of the species."

Time Index: 1:45 Minutes, into the clip...
"Each Change in evolution, according to Darwins Theory, must provide some kind of advantage to the species."

[I am not making this up. These are words from real scientist and learned individuals and not just me!]

Time index: 2:40 Minutes into the Clip...
"Natural Selection only selects for a functional advantage. In most cases Natural Selection actually eliminates things"

Time Index: 4:45 minutes into the clip...
'Scott Minnich" Researched the Flagellum Bacterial Motor for over 20 years. And he states clearly that the Motor could not have evolved. Thus claiming that the theory of Evolution could not have created/produce this motor.

This is not just my idea or thoughts. This is the consensus of many scientist in the field. And this Video is full of such statements.

The Explanation provided why evolution is not possible is clear to understand when you consider and compare the construction of a house (Time Index: 6:20) to the complicated species in question. All materials and tools must already exist and the construction or evolution needs to follow a plan. Evolution does neither of these but works after the facts.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:39 pm

Viceroy, did you even READ what I wrote, because I addressed most of what you claim is new information already.
Also, I have no audio on my computer right now, so write out what you want me to know.

Viceroy63 wrote:


Time index: 55 seconds into the clip...
"Darwin made it clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if the changes provide an advantage in the survival of the species."


That is the definition of Natural Selection, that species with an advantage will outcompete those without. However, natural selection is only one part of evolution.

Darwin thought evolution was more linear (more direct) than it is, he also thought it would take much less time than it does. He was wrong about those pieces, and other bits. Just because he was the first to publish the ideas doesn’t mean the theory has gone unchanged. Science evolves.

Viceroy63 wrote:
Time Index: 1:45 Minutes, into the clip...
"Each Change in evolution, according to Darwins Theory, must provide some kind of advantage to the species."

[I am not making this up. These are words from real scientist and learned individuals and not just me!]
Well, I meet your “real scientist” , since I happen to be a published scientist..a nd raise you one without any effort. (Neoteny, a few others who are ALSO scientists, real ones with real publications recognized outside of the IRC)… see I happen to be a published scientist.
And, in addition to our personal knowledge (you missed that "personal" bit before), we tend to cite scientists who have real degrees in the field they are studying and who are published in reputable science publications, not just local newspapers and the like.
Whoever this guy is, he is not correct. In most cases, yes, changes will mean improvement, but not always. Also, a point you keep ignoring.. “improved” under some conditions might well mean “death” if the situation changes. Just as an example, not many bass survive well once a dam has burst.

Viceroy63 wrote:
Time index: 2:40 Minutes into the Clip...
"Natural Selection only selects for a functional advantage. In most cases Natural Selection actually eliminates things"

Ah, this old saw.
No, that is wrong. No such preconditions exist. Not sure who thought this would pass muster… well, it doesn’t in the real scientific world.


Viceroy63 wrote:
Time Index: 4:45 minutes into the clip...
'Scott Minnich" Researched the Flagellum Bacterial Motor for over 20 years. And he states clearly that the Motor could not have evolved. Thus claiming that the theory of Evolution could not have created/produce this motor.
OK, I am not even going to bother looking this up, I will just take it at face value.
20 years of study proves… NOTHING, absolutely nothing.
Further, that might be this guys’ opinion, but it is absolutely not a widely accepted view. Also, even if it were true, it would not disprove the theory of evolution. At absolute best, it would possibly prove that evolution did not happen in that particular instance. But, to disprove evolution, you would have to disprove ALL the cases, ALL the evidence, not just pick out a few pieces you think might indicate something.

Oh, and a far more likely scenario is that this guy is just plain wrong. Most folks associated with the young earth creationists are just plain wrong.

Viceroy63 wrote:
This is not just my idea or thoughts. This is the consensus of many scientist in the field. And this Video is full of such statements.
Correction, it is the “consensus” of a few scientists associated with the anti-evolution movement, many of whom are not actually studied in anything to do with biology or paleogeology.

Viceroy63 wrote:
The Explanation provided why evolution is not possible is clear to understand when you consider and compare the construction of a house (Time Index: 6:20) to the complicated species in question. All materials and tools must already exist and the construction or evolution needs to follow a plan. Evolution does neither of these but works after the facts.

No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:47 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, its clear , yet again, that you know nothing at all of evolution..


The fossil records speaks for itself! I only present the evidence that you choose to ignore.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:01 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Well, for one thing, the theory of evolution is dependent on death. The survival of the fittest is the supposedly mechanism for natural selection which in turn is the driving force behind the theory of evolution. Species evolve from less complicated lifeforms into more complex life form in order to survive. That is according to the theory. It matters not that the dinosaurs died because of a meteor or an asteroid, according to the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the fact that it supposedly happen 65 million years ago.


Evolution is not "dependent on death" with the exception that immortal beings obviously don't evolve. But it is dependent on birth (and in fact sexual reproduction helps the process along). "Survival of the fittest" (a really poor choice by Darwin as it should be survival of the most adapted; not always the fittest) is a way to show how species change over time, but that in and of itself isn't completely evolution.

There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant tzor
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 8
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:11 pm

tzor wrote:There are species that predate the dinosaurs that are still around and common today. Evolution doesn't demand that the dinosaurs died, the lack of real evidence to indicate they have been around recently is the evidence to suggest that they died. Evolution doesn't demand that the woolly mammoths die either. Somewhere there may be a woolly mammoth, or a dinosaur, or one of those other animals that are currently not commonly seen, rarely seen or just plain old seen. There are animals that exist only on Australia.


That is almost like my point exactly. But why then do we not see evidence of these species in the Sedimentary Column? Where we see mankind and other mammals, we don't see dinosaurs reptiles with men as well? Why should that be? And more to the point that I was making, Why don't we also see more evolved or better adapted species after 65 supposedly million years of Dinosaur evolution? Or did they stop evolving and produced no more mutations or promutations of different dinosaurs for 65 million years? A dinosaur from Roman times look a lot like they did 65 million years ago.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

As to the lack of evidence of the continual existence of the dinosaurs, that is for everyone to judge for themselves. I am sure that all of those people who have seen the "Loche Ness Monster" or "Champ" in the USA Lake Champ, are well convinced that they were witness to a living dinosaur. The literally thousands of photo's and Video's are not what I would refer to as a lack of evidence. There is more going on then meets the eye!

Image
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: virus90

Login