Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[PoliticalChic]

For me it is quite simple because I see it daily. Especially in spring.

A hummingbird to a golden eagle to a sparrow. Go ahead and tell me there's no God. Tell me how these all evolved in so few years.

Make them magically appear.

Really, really nice post.

From "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,"
Charles Murray states the following:


The deterioration of social capital in lower-class white America strips the residents of one of the main resources in the pursuit of happiness. As per Aristotle, happiness consists of lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole. After careful consideration, it seems that there are just four domains through which humans achieve deep satisfaction, happiness: family, vocation, community and faith.

a. Family happiness is the same as a happy marriage; 58% of those in a happy marriage said their lives were very happy. This compares with 8% who said their marriages were ‘not too happy.’

b. Vocation is more than job. It can be what one does, or one’s cause…Homemakers were the highest proportion of people with high work satisfaction, and were very happy.

c. Faith. None of the data is as dispositive as this. The more attached to faith, as defined by belief and how many services one attend, the more self-described as ‘very happy’ with life. More than once a week attendance, 49% very happy; down to never attends, 23% very happy.

d. Community. The survey measures everything from levels of giving blood, to hanging out with friends, to participating in various groups and associations, to levels of trust, to participation in group arts and group sports, to the diversity of our friendship patterns. High levels of community involvement were consistently associated with “very happy.”

 

[Old Rocks]

and

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some have a hard time understanding that there are higher forces than man incarnate...but rather assign MAN as ultimate force.

And then some tend to live dangerously...

Some have a hard time understanding that some of us need proof when others make scientific claims.
I need no proof of anything for my religous beliefs.
My faith and confidence in my religous beliefs are not in any way conflicted with my belief in evolution and natural selection.
My religous faith is that strong. Those that lack strong religous beliefs and confidence in them struggle with the fact that evolution is fact.
Those of us that have faith in God and have a strong relationship with Jesus Christ have no problem with evolution.
Some are milk weak and a few of us are strong.

While I am an agnostic, Catherine Faber is a Christian, and makes a very similiar statement in this song;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw]The Words of God - YouTube[/ame]

Rocks...I've challenged you twice to respond to a basic question about 'post-modern science,' your raison d'etre for years on this board.

There must be a profound reason why you avoid same....and why you'd rather not discuss it.

I understand why...I'm sure that anyone who understands this thread understands, as well.

Disappointing.

Another chance?
See Post #211.

 

[Gadawg73]

For me it is quite simple because I see it daily. Especially in spring.

A hummingbird to a golden eagle to a sparrow. Go ahead and tell me there's no God. Tell me how these all evolved in so few years.

Make them magically appear.

Really, really nice post.

From "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,"
Charles Murray states the following:


The deterioration of social capital in lower-class white America strips the residents of one of the main resources in the pursuit of happiness. As per Aristotle, happiness consists of lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole. After careful consideration, it seems that there are just four domains through which humans achieve deep satisfaction, happiness: family, vocation, community and faith.

a. Family happiness is the same as a happy marriage; 58% of those in a happy marriage said their lives were very happy. This compares with 8% who said their marriages were ‘not too happy.’

b. Vocation is more than job. It can be what one does, or one’s cause…Homemakers were the highest proportion of people with high work satisfaction, and were very happy.

c. Faith. None of the data is as dispositive as this. The more attached to faith, as defined by belief and how many services one attend, the more self-described as ‘very happy’ with life. More than once a week attendance, 49% very happy; down to never attends, 23% very happy.

d. Community. The survey measures everything from levels of giving blood, to hanging out with friends, to participating in various groups and associations, to levels of trust, to participation in group arts and group sports, to the diversity of our friendship patterns. High levels of community involvement were consistently associated with “very happy.”

In New Jersey all last week on business I read excerpts in the Philadelphia paper of this book. It is well done. However, his study group is narrow as I believe it was age 30-50 and none of the study was with middle class whites. His working class groupings are lower middle class blue collar workers and then he compares them to well educated upper middle class and wealthy.
Hardly proves a damn thing when you leave out the majority of folk. His main theme is we are coming apart. No shit. Anyone that has not known that for a while is not very bright.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Take God, Adam and Eve and the snake out of the equation and how does one whip up a creation is science argument?

Or you can add the hundreds of other creation 'theories' from various peoples and religions and you're in the same boat.

Why is Genesis science, but the creation story of the Iroquois Indians not???

Hey....don't leave out this 'creation story':


1. Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

2. Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies.

3. It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts…. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.

a. Why? For the same reason that the pitch of a police siren is changed as the police car disappears down the street: the Doppler Effect, the waves carrying the sound is stretched by the speeding car. That is why the redshift indicates that the galaxy in question is receding! The universe is expanding. Thus, the reasoning behind the Big Bang.

4. So, if the universe is expanding,...

a. The particles must have been closer at some time

b. And hotter at some time

c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

5. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time.
See chapter four of "The Devil's Delusion," by David Berlinski

Don't you love how 'science' proposes a creation myth....that doesn't explain how or from what the universe was created!!!!

Ya' gotta have FAITH, I guess.


"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378. Christopher Isham is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London

 

[NYcarbineer]

All too often,

a person's desire for something to be true is inversely proportionate to that person's need for evidence to prove it to be true.

 

[Dragon]

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.

"A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support."

Those who wish to say that evolution is "just a theory" need to educate themselves on what the word "theory" means.

Evolution is indeed a theory, but the diminutive "just" doesn't belong. There is nothing dismissible about scientific theory. The word does not imply a wild guess or a conjecture, as it might in ordinary language; those two contexts of the word should not be confused.

Note the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an individual conjecture that may be proven true (or false) simply. A theory is broader and more complex, and while it is possible to prove it false, it is never possible to prove it true with any finality. NEVER -- and so to point out that this has not been done is quite meaningless. A theory is composed of many hypotheses; if a key hypothetical component is proven false, then the theory may be proven false, but if all of the components are proven true, that still does not prove the theory true -- it remains possible that some other theoretical construction may better link the hypotheses together, or that new predictions may be made on the basis of the theory and those will prove false.

To claim an equivalence between intelligent design and evolution on the grounds that "both are just theories" is to demonstrate ignorance of scientific method. In scientific terms, evolution is a theory, but intelligent design is NOT. It is not a theory because it is not composed of hypotheses that can be demonstrated true or false. No scientist can ever be in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.

Intelligent design is therefore without scientific merit, and certainly cannot be placed on an equal footing with evolution.

 

[Spectre13]

For me it is quite simple because I see it daily. Especially in spring.

A hummingbird to a golden eagle to a sparrow. Go ahead and tell me there's no God. Tell me how these all evolved in so few years.

Make them magically appear.

I would not call an order of millions of years a short amount of time. We have evidence of life back to around 650 million years. Hello?

 

[Spectre13]

Er, no. There is proof that life has evolved at a micro level, and plenty of evidence (although not bona fide proof) that is has done so at macro level too. No faith involved at all..

Well, we don't know exactly how electricity works either but we can mainipulate it and get results with it. From what we do with electricity we can formulate a theory base on those outcomes.

Okay, let's forget the stuff you can't prove, lets stick with what you can prove. Lets go with the brain and learning. If we did not evolve, we would be the same as we were when we were born. So, as we grow, our body would be getting larger, but we could not gain in intellegence if we did not evolve. Those evolutions cause convalutions which crowd the crainum. It is a fact that we have more cezarian sections than any time in human history. This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped. This, in turn, causes the cranium to enlarge; but because the brain has taken the fast track, women's birth canals can't keep up. This is evolution in action. something we almost never get to see.

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)


One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

 

[Spectre13]

Take God, Adam and Eve and the snake out of the equation and how does one whip up a creation is science argument?

Or you can add the hundreds of other creation 'theories' from various peoples and religions and you're in the same boat.

Why is Genesis science, but the creation story of the Iroquois Indians not???

What are you missing here? With all due respect we run parallel. I put this up the other day in a different thread on how the Creator gave us the land and that He gave us the right and the honour of ruling the land.

I lived this land. Anishinaabe and I'm posting on the fly so bear with me on spelling are first peoples. They are dedicated to the Creator.

Look, even your own bible talks about evolution. Doesn't it say somewhere that one day like a million years and a million years is like a day unto the lord... or something like that? So, 7 days might be 7 million years as well as our concept of 7 24-hour periods?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, we don't know exactly how electricity works either but we can mainipulate it and get results with it. From what we do with electricity we can formulate a theory base on those outcomes.

Okay, let's forget the stuff you can't prove, lets stick with what you can prove. Lets go with the brain and learning. If we did not evolve, we would be the same as we were when we were born. So, as we grow, our body would be getting larger, but we could not gain in intellegence if we did not evolve. Those evolutions cause convalutions which crowd the crainum. It is a fact that we have more cezarian sections than any time in human history. This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped. This, in turn, causes the cranium to enlarge; but because the brain has taken the fast track, women's birth canals can't keep up. This is evolution in action. something we almost never get to see.

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)


One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

 

[Spectre13]

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)


One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

You are truly the devils advocate...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

You are truly the devils advocate...

My turn?

OK...you have earned the Megan McCain ‘Emoticon of Privacy’ award.

In the category of stupid posts....no body holds a candle to yours.

 

[Spectre13]

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)


One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

I am not the one who just regurgetates everything right out of a book...or like the man said, straight from google. You don't defend anything with your own reasoning. you just naysay by printing whatever material you can find quickly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

I am not the one who just regurgetates everything right out of a book...or like the man said, straight from google. You don't defend anything with your own reasoning. you just naysay by printing whatever material you can find quickly.

If you have no objection I’d like to create a new stupidity-award in your honor…the word ‘honor’ may be inappropriate…

…how about the“ Spectre Backward Belief in Human Superiority” award?


That would just about cover your 15 minutes of fame....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nonsense.

Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language. Just because you can't relate to it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It is also well documented that cetateans have an extrodinarily complex language. Not only is it complex, it can be communicated half way around the world, barring all the white noise humans generate that interfere with it. It is documented that cetaceans also have a concept of the self, so your argument is highly flawed.

It is also widely documented that chimps and bonobos also have a concept of self. They also have learned how to covey basic ideas to humans and is not mimicry. They reason and can deliver compound ideas, which also puts them in the group, which we are part of that can reason and communicate. All animals do it, mostly it is our problem that we can't understand most of them.

I have never read sir John Maddox's essay, but just reading the excerpt sounds like it was written in the 30's though it is shown to be 1999. I can't believe his emeritus status on that extremely general conclusion. Again, maybe partially true in some aspects, but the core reason is because we evolve. How do you think Change starts? Duh?

Take chimps and bonobos. They are both technically chimps but bonobos have several differences from normal chimps. If they did not evolve, they should be identical, since they are right next to each other in Africa. Lets also not forget the entire test tube that Galapagos was and still is. There are many examples if one really takes an unbiased approach to it.

Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet and can do as they please. That some supreme being put them there to destroy the rest of the earth at their whim. If that is so, then we have not shown to be very smart. We mostly shit where we eat and that sets us apart from other species for sure. Just backward nonsense. It is the same type of attitude that, (given the timeframe), got galileo in trouble and also those who refuted the flat earth theory. This backward human superiority thing is primative and useless to hide behind.

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

I am not the one who just regurgetates everything right out of a book...or like the man said, straight from google. You don't defend anything with your own reasoning. you just naysay by printing whatever material you can find quickly.

She possesses an innate sense of subservience and low self esteem that causes her to believe that all worthwhile insight must come from some place other than her own mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

I am not the one who just regurgetates everything right out of a book...or like the man said, straight from google. You don't defend anything with your own reasoning. you just naysay by printing whatever material you can find quickly.

She possesses an innate sense of subservience and low self esteem that causes her to believe that all worthwhile insight must come from some place other than her own mind.

I have long realized that folks like you come here because they need the attention even at the cost of being humiliated...

....did you always have a fascination with the works of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch?

 

[auditor0007]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter. This matter became chemicals. These chemicals somehow combined to form living things like bacteria and other cells developed to form the millions and millions of multi-system organisms that exist today. (simplistically speaking of course) I'm not saying i believe in intelligent design but to say you believe in what I just described but to think intelligent design is stupid, sounds pretty stupid in itself, too. I don't think humans are anywhere capable of comprehending what the deal is right now.

Energy and matter did not come from nowhere. They existed and have always existed. This is a scientific fact, at least until proven differently. You cannot create or destroy energy. Now, I don't know the answer completely and won't pretend to. What I do know however, is that if the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe, there was something there before. The energy and matter that came together to create that big explosion existed in some form. Without it, there would not have been a big bang. Now, did a higher power make it all happen? I have no clue. But if so, the ingredients were still there. And if scientists are all wrong, and there is a way to create energy out of nothing, well, then all bets are off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am not the one who just regurgetates everything right out of a book...or like the man said, straight from google. You don't defend anything with your own reasoning. you just naysay by printing whatever material you can find quickly.

She possesses an innate sense of subservience and low self esteem that causes her to believe that all worthwhile insight must come from some place other than her own mind.

I have long realized that folks like you come here because they need the attention even at the cost of being humiliated...

....did you always have a fascination with the works of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch?

Your first sentence is the height of irony.

 

[Spectre13]

"Also we are not the only species with a language. All species have a language."
Thank you Dr. Doolittle....

...and you have the nerve to write 'nonsense'???


"Most of this comes from the insecurity that comes with thinking humans are the kings of the planet...backward human superiority thing..."

Guilty, as charged.


Speaking of 'documented,' your post documents that you are a fool.

I am not the one who just regurgetates everything right out of a book...or like the man said, straight from google. You don't defend anything with your own reasoning. you just naysay by printing whatever material you can find quickly.

If you have no objection I’d like to create a new stupidity-award in your honor…the word ‘honor’ may be inappropriate…

…how about the“ Spectre Backward Belief in Human Superiority” award?


That would just about cover your 15 minutes of fame....

As usual, you sputter nonsense and act like it has some sort of meaning.