Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[konradv]

And the last time I asked "What fossils?" there was an astonishing silence.
------------------------------

If there was "silence" it must have been astonishment at how clueless you are! The fossil records PROVE that all things weren't created at even close to the same time. Dolphin fossils are NEVER found with trilobites and human fossils are NEVER found with dinosaurs.

 

[antagon]

I get what you are saying...this makes sense to all the 'educated' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I could use the same argument for religion.... it makes sense to all the 'good' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I was taught evolution, there are just too many unanswered questions to present it as fact for me. I still watch for new developments and read on new findings, most are disappointingly vague.
I am not against science (that includes mathematics as well as the sciences that are twisted to make political points). I am against 'teaching' (I would call it indoctrinating, because if the students present a different theory, they are punished thru grades) that science has ALL the answers. It doesn't. We are very complex creatures with physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological needs. Science cannot meet all those needs, it cannot even begin to explain why we act the way we do. I am simply suggesting that the classroom present the facts: many scientists work to prove the theory of evolution....., many theologians work to prove the theory of creation....., it isn't sloppy, it isn't complicated. It allows the student the freedom to choose to believe in one, the other, both, or to develop a new theory.
Do me a favor and listen to the 'evolutionists'; there is usually a hidden message that is suggesting there is no G*d, no Creator. The 'believers' of evolution do not want anyone to be able to choose different from evolution. If you believe them on that 'whopper', well then you will be easy to manipulate on all their other 'science based' plans to enslave the population of the world. It is the reason they 'hate' G*d. He sets people free. They will insist it is the other way around, but observe both sets of 'believers' and see if you can see a pattern. The 'believers' in evolution typically have more 'mental health' problems that can manifest physically causing them to age quicker. The 'believers' in creation, just seem happier, more content with their lives, and less prone to illnesses from stress. (Before you go off on me...it is a generalization, not ALL inclusive)
Again, TRUTH is everything….if you are only willing to look at one side; you may eliminate a path to understanding. That is my biggest problem with only presenting, one theory.

your very fundamental misunderstanding is with the use of the word *fact*. whats the point of the term 'theory' if you talk about teaching the theory of evolution as fact? i digress to my point that education has failed to even drive home the basics, like what a theory is. being one such victim, you're ahead of yourself worrying about a specific theory without understanding the term 'theory' in the first place. after you're apprised of its meaning, you could look into its application: essentially a precept to explore and by which hypotheses can be drawn and vetted.

a declaration of fact, such like what fundamentalist religious doctrines may state, is not, per sa, scientific. that is the issue is i have with teaching creationist dogma in a science classroom. it operates outside of science by virtue of its (oft supernatural) bases and conjecture that it is incontrovertible. maybe history or anthropology, philosophy or religion class. i had a religious education for years, and it was never necessary for my science teacher to go on about god, as all that was studied in it's own depth elsewhere. we still had grades to keep up in religion as well. the discipline of scholarship should bend to your skepticism about evolution too?

as to the tug-of-war between fundamentalists and atheists, that is a whole separate argument. neither will ever find the tools for accounts of the supernatural to substantiate the natural, or the natural to measure the supernatural. from my perspective, those struggles are for idiots. while most researchers abide by a religious tradition and subscribe to evolution at the same time, the vast majority of people have moved past the quest for one paradigm to compete with the next. i cant speak for this entire majority, but i find them to compliment eachother. the scientist who's out to disclaim god through science is debasing his trade to the same extent that a preacher is debasing god through the denial of natural science. after all, didn't god supply us with the wherewithal to observe nature, moreover create nature in the first place? my faith isnt threatened by that science, nor my knowledge of the world by my knowledge of God. many people share this mindset; part of our day and age.

as for your perception of creationists and their wellbeing... well,

Where did I suggest teaching creationism (intelligent design) as fact? I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.

Nowhere did I suggest that religious instruction should be 'taught' in science class.

evolution is already taught as a theory, buddy, and in science classes. it is a theory of science, whereas creationism is a religious theory. that's the conundrum which led me to conclude you aimed to put religious theory beside scientific theory and in a science class. it is a proposition which i find unacceptable.

If 'you' choose to 'believe' that 'evolution' is part of the natural order, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with those that want to 'act' superior to those that don't see enough evidence to 'believe' the theory of evolution.

you don't have to reveal your insecurities to make your argument. ..and i challenge the idea that you have taken the time to examine the evidence before making your judgment. can you explain why biodiversity has been shown to increase as well as decrease in the last 200 million years? if there were a single creation event like i believe, and the bible puts forth, there would have to be speciation to account for that, thereafter - your macroevolution. what evidences controvert that?

I know, now you will go back to the argument of 'selective breeding' (micro-evolution) to 'force' the 'acceptance' of macro-evolution (one species 'magically' changing into one or more species). You will go to bed 'believing ' that you are intellectually superior, because you 'know' that you have evolved from an ape-like ancestor...maybe you did?

if i had a crystal ball too, i would have predicted you'd have no answer to my earlier challenge to present which mechanisms prevent microevolution from bringing about macroevolution. shouldnt there be glaring evidence of that? like finite biodiversity - evidenced by an extinction-driven decline in biodiversity since the dawn of time?

i dont see it as being a matter of intellect as much as a concern of honest application of intellect. will you only accept information you want to hear? are you projecting righteousness you have on me? you're the cat who proposed people who dont believe in evolution were better off; that shit was funny, man.

I don't know, and until there is a much better presentation of evidence for the case of macro--evolution, I don't 'believe'.

doubting thomas

 

[antagon]

"Some scientists" are presenting evidence of creation; it is called "intelligent design".

What evidence of creation is there?

The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.

For the sake of argument, say, there is a 'Creator'. If that Creator set the planet in place, formed the basins for the oceans and made the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, created all the 'life' on the planet... in essence MADE the physical laws (what you call science), wouldn't you think that would be important to mention in 'science class'? In the Bible, the 'Creator' described doing the above. Men that would elevate themselves 'above' Him. want to argue that His work is irrelevant. They 'try' to humiliate those that 'believe' in Him 'over' simple men (that would be the men that cannot: set the planet in place, form the basins for the oceans and make the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, create all the 'life' on the planet).

You can choose to 'believe' men. I choose to believe 'men' that spoke with the Lord, many over thousands of years with a consistant message, not a Johnny come lately with his own version to raise money to fund his 'explorations and discoveries'.

does this suffice to demonstrate you believe religious beliefs should be taught alongside science?

science is not the physical laws, but the study of them. you have let semantics challenge your faith, brother. analyzing what science puts forth, i doesnt challenge whether or not there's divinity at play in nature, but rather studies it as it is. by projecting science to be the physical laws and scientists the men that cant form the basins of the oceans, you have willingly misinterpreted science in order to take a faith-based objection to it.

that is fundamental to your learning block on the topic of evolution. i see science as being a demonstration of how great God is. i see myself as a creation of God. that i can be studied by science, have heredity from my ancestors, and have some of the same genes that the most basic life on the planet posses is only a tribute to the infinite genius at work.

i find it offensive that some, few, christians, of all people, are setting a boundary on understanding life through science - and in the name of god.

 

[antagon]

And the last time I asked "What fossils?" there was an astonishing silence.

dont play yourself, lite. last time you were shown which fossils, you slipped into rejectionist personal attacks.

remember?

 

[THE LIGHT]

And the last time I asked "What fossils?" there was an astonishing silence.

dont play yourself, lite. last time you were shown which fossils, you slipped into rejectionist personal attacks.

remember?

The only one that is slipping into personal attacks here is you.

And you might want to check your link it has nothing to do with a post of mine.

 

[antagon]

that just indicates, lite, that you wont accept fossil evidence in the first place. there's plenty of information related to hominid transitional fossils behind that link. is that what you call silence? try again.

 

[THE LIGHT]

that just indicates, lite, that you wont accept fossil evidence in the first place. there's plenty of information related to hominid transitional fossils behind that link. is that what you call silence? try again.

Oh I see, you were just making a baseless accusation about me to cover up why I never got a response from you when I asked before. I got ya.

And by the way, no where on the page of that link you posted is the word fossil mentioned.

 

[antagon]

that just indicates, lite, that you wont accept fossil evidence in the first place. there's plenty of information related to hominid transitional fossils behind that link. is that what you call silence? try again.

Oh I see, you were just making a baseless accusation about me to cover up why I never got a response from you when I asked before. I got ya.

And by the way, no where on the page of that link you posted is the word fossil mentioned.

some kind of technical difficulties on your side, and which i dont seem to experience. the link shows many resources to learn more about 'transitional fossils' - when i follow it.

we dont want these barriers to stymie your understanding. try looking up 'transitional fossils' in your favorite way. look into 'hominid transitional fossils' for findings which make an argument for our having progressively developed from other creatures on the planet. that is the fossil record.

once you have taken an earnest look there, you could consider the genetic evidence which indicates heredity of all humans to many other animals, in particular to other primates. this genetic evidence can draw the same conclusions which indicate that you are descendant from your mother and father, to indicate that you are descendant, albeit distantly, to other animals on the planet. as those animals are classed closer to our genus, they bear closer genetic commonality to humans. back to the fossil records, these animals in our genus have emerged among the latest among earth's biodiversity. see 'genetic cladology' or 'phylogenetics'. look into 'chromosome banding comparisons' - ten years ago, understanding of how enzymes select phenotypes in DNA revealed that these played a bigger role in our humanity than our genes themselves, which remain very convincingly similar to other animals' genomes.

i dont want any opportunities to be lost in the technical woes of the internet. i learned about most of this stuff before the internet was much help at all. now, i would say, it is the least cumbersome, cheapest and most effective way to study topics up to a certain degree of depth. if you use the internet, at least, to search just the topics which i've suggested, while you may be able to elucidate some specific concerns you might have with the theory, you would never ask a question like 'what fossils'. i could only assume by that that you weren't acquainted, at all, of any of the fossils which support evolution theory.

 

[THE LIGHT]

that just indicates, lite, that you wont accept fossil evidence in the first place. there's plenty of information related to hominid transitional fossils behind that link. is that what you call silence? try again.

Oh I see, you were just making a baseless accusation about me to cover up why I never got a response from you when I asked before. I got ya.

And by the way, no where on the page of that link you posted is the word fossil mentioned.

some kind of technical difficulties on your side, and which i dont seem to experience. the link shows many resources to learn more about 'transitional fossils' - when i follow it.

we dont want these barriers to stymie your understanding. try looking up 'transitional fossils' in your favorite way. look into 'hominid transitional fossils' for findings which make an argument for our having progressively developed from other creatures on the planet. that is the fossil record.

once you have taken an earnest look there, you could consider the genetic evidence which indicates heredity of all humans to many other animals, in particular to other primates. this genetic evidence can draw the same conclusions which indicate that you are descendant from your mother and father, to indicate that you are descendant, albeit distantly, to other animals on the planet. as those animals are classed closer to our genus, they bear closer genetic commonality to humans. back to the fossil records, these animals in our genus have emerged among the latest among earth's biodiversity. see 'genetic cladology' or 'phylogenetics'. look into 'chromosome banding comparisons' - ten years ago, understanding of how enzymes select phenotypes in DNA revealed that these played a bigger role in our humanity than our genes themselves, which remain very convincingly similar to other animals' genomes.

i dont want any opportunities to be lost in the technical woes of the internet. i learned about most of this stuff before the internet was much help at all. now, i would say, it is the least cumbersome, cheapest and most effective way to study topics up to a certain degree of depth. if you use the internet, at least, to search just the topics which i've suggested, while you may be able to elucidate some specific concerns you might have with the theory, you would never ask a question like 'what fossils'. i could only assume by that that you weren't acquainted, at all, of any of the fossils which support evolution theory.

Either you don't understand what a fossil is or I am clearly missing the posts on that page that mention them. Maybe you could post the links or quotes from that page that mention "transition fossils"

 

[antagon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/112405-mathematician-destroy-evolution-in-5-min-14.html#post2208760

i have no idea what a fossil is.

 

[antagon]

i could hear that astonishing silence now.

 

[code1211]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/112405-mathematician-destroy-evolution-in-5-min-14.html#post2208760

i have no idea what a fossil is.

I hope this helps you.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago.

<snip>

 

[antagon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/112405-mathematician-destroy-evolution-in-5-min-14.html#post2208760

i have no idea what a fossil is.

I hope this helps you.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago.

<snip>

the references to evolution in that definition may shine too brightly for the lite.

 

[THE LIGHT]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...estroy-evolution-in-5-min-14.html#post2208760

i have no idea what a fossil is.

I can see that you have no idea what a fossil is. You also have no idea how to post "specific" links either.

You just keep posting the same link of which I have found no "transitional fossils" listed on that page.

 

[antagon]

are you being genuine? exodus 20:16.

somehow, i can access "Results 1 - 10 of about 145,000 for transitional fossils. (0.31 seconds)" by following that link.

search yourself for honesty, then search your local library, your pastor or the internet for information on transitional fossils.

i've long concluded your penchant for ignorance in the name of God, and espoused my personal distaste for as much. i'm certainly not impressed by your flaunting your proficiency at it now.

 

[THE LIGHT]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...estroy-evolution-in-5-min-14.html#post2208760

i have no idea what a fossil is.

I hope this helps you.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago.

<snip>

the references to evolution in that definition may shine too brightly for the lite.

Good, now that you know what a fossil is, maybe you can show me some transitional fossils.

 

[THE LIGHT]

are you being genuine? exodus 20:16.

somehow, i can access "Results 1 - 10 of about 145,000 for transitional fossils. (0.31 seconds)" by following that link.

search yourself for honesty, then search your local library, your pastor or the internet for information on transitional fossils.

i've long concluded your penchant for ignorance in the name of God, and espoused my personal distaste for as much. i'm certainly not impressed by your flaunting your proficiency at it now.

Find: "fossils"

"Text not found"

Again, maybe you can post some of the SPECIFIC links from that page that you are looking at so that there isn't any ambiguity. How hard is that???

 

[antagon]

the references to evolution in that definition may shine too brightly for the lite.

Good, now that you know what a fossil is, maybe you can show me some transitional fossils.

proverbs 17:12.

 

[THE LIGHT]

the references to evolution in that definition may shine too brightly for the lite.

Good, now that you know what a fossil is, maybe you can show me some transitional fossils.

proverbs 17:12.

Like I thought, you don't have any. Silence once again.

 

[antagon]

you must have truth-block activated on your browser.

i'm only giving you shit because you cant avoid transitional fossils in any study of fossils, in any biology book. any search engine will return thousands of results.

start here (links to missing links):

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look into this stuff on your own to be a credible detractor. if you feel that your faith requires defense from evolution theory, you had better know your enemy, lite.