A Misconception that should be rooted out

[Hog1]

I'm inflamed in number of area's with this thread. However, I do not have time at the moment to properly rake those that need to be raked. I'll be back in a bit for a proper reponse! Hold my place in line

[JoeRedskin]

I am inserting my two-cents to compliment the mods and members.

Preliminarily, I heartily disagree with much of crazyhorse's assertions on a variety of levels and particularly on his attitude towards the US and its citzenry. I am fully aware that we are a flawed country but would suggest that, more often than not, this is a country that strives to "do the right thing". Sometimes it fails and does so spectacularly causing great pain and hardship to individuals - both citizens and non-citizens. However, this country is not the Fourth Reich or Pol Pot's Killing Fields. In my opinion, the intent to do evil is not intergral to our government or our citizenry. Rather, although failing to do so through fear, greed, negligence or arrogance, it is the intent to do good and the belief that we can do good that is integral to the our government and our citizens.

As for my compliments: I am glad I live in a country that not only allows statements such as those made by Crazyhorse but, actually,encourages them. Only by allowing such calumny to spoken and discussed openly can it be truly exposed and discredited. To paraphrase Voltair, I do not agree with it but will defend to the death the right to say it.

Both members and mods have, thus far, exhibited both restraint and civility in discussing such a volatile topic. Kudos.

[That Guy]

natural selection's been explained pretty clearly; I really don't think that's the problem.

in brief - through breeding, sometimes a mutation arises. it can be bad (causing retardation or some other undesirable thing). Other times the mutation helps the species to adapt to their environment to give them a better chance at survival. For example, moth wing patterns changing over time to match their surroundings after being imported to a new country (by humans). The new patterns make them harder to see and less likely to be eaten by birds, so more of these "mutated" moths live long enough to breed and pass on an ever higher chance of receiving that beneficial mutation to their offspring.


it really has been explained well and in multiple different ways, but a lot of people get disinterested when it can't be conveyed in three words, or don't feel like taking the time to read through how it works (since one theory is based on other based on another etc and that reading can stack up).

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by That Guy

natural selection's been explained pretty clearly; I really don't think that's the problem.

in brief - through breeding, sometimes a mutation arises. it can be bad (causing retardation or some other undesirable thing). Other times the mutation helps the species to adapt to their environment to give them a better chance at survival. For example, moth wing patterns changing over time to match their surroundings after being imported to a new country (by humans). The new patterns make them harder to see and less likely to be eaten by birds, so more of these "mutated" moths live long enough to breed and pass on an ever higher chance of receiving that beneficial mutation to their offspring.


it really has been explained well and in multiple different ways, but a lot of people get disinterested when it can't be conveyed in three words, or don't feel like taking the time to read through how it works (since one theory is based on other based on another etc and that reading can stack up).

You've stated it simply enough. What I don't understand is why there isn't a greater effort to explain it to the masses. You would think that since this ignorance causes so much chagrin in the scientific community that there would be a more user friendly approach. Sometimes I think they prefer to have something to rail against.

Here's a question I always had: Cell theory says that all cells are derived from other cells. There is no spontaneous generation. What about the first instance?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

You've stated it simply enough. What I don't understand is why there isn't a greater effort to explain it to the masses. You would think that since this ignorance causes so much chagrin in the scientific community that there would be a more user friendly approach. Sometimes I think they prefer to have something to rail against.

Here's a question I always had: Cell theory says that all cells are derived from other cells. There is no spontaneous generation. What about the first instance?

really not my field, sorry . the beginning of everything is still VERY hypothetical and there are plenty of ideas, but not so much certainty.

natural selection, selective breeding, etc have been studied in the very long term though and are well understood.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by That Guy

really not my field, sorry . the beginning of everything is still VERY hypothetical and there are plenty of ideas, but not so much certainty.

natural selection, selective breeding, etc have been studied in the very long term though and are well understood.

Thanks anyways. BTW, long time no see post. Welcome Back.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Thanks anyways. BTW, long time no see post. Welcome Back.

yeah, joined the USAF... they, uh, don't give you a lot of free time or any kind of access the first few months. things should be a bit better now though.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Here's a question I always had: Cell theory says that all cells are derived from other cells. There is no spontaneous generation. What about the first instance?

That is one reason why evolution is impossible.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by steveo395

That is one reason why evolution is impossible.

Here's a link to a Scientific American article from 2002 addressing a range of complaints/arguments against the theory of evolution. Check it out:

Sci American answers the creationists


Welcome back, That Guy! Or is it Airman That Guy? That Air Guy?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Here's a link to a Scientific American article from 2002 addressing a range of complaints/arguments against the theory of evolution. Check it out:

Sci American answers the creationists


Welcome back, That Guy! Or is it Airman That Guy? That Air Guy?

yeah its airman whatever, but i don't really care too much about that I just want to stop running 4-5miles every other day in the mississippi heat. 95 with 95% humidity is harsh. I won't be here in august, but when the saints start playing you can get round trip bus fare and a game ticket etc for under 60$ through the base (keesler, in biloxi, 90minutes away from NO).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by steveo395

That is one reason why evolution is impossible.

I don't think it makes evolution impossible at all. It just doesn't explain how the first cell was "born." Do you reject evolution on scientific or religious grounds?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by steveo395

That is one reason why evolution is impossible.

Evolution has nothing to do first cause and doesn't address the issue. Evolution kicks in after first cause or tenth cause or whatever.

Evolution, however, had been scientifically shown to be operative for hundreds of thousands of years and still operative today.

Creationism, on the other hand, is rendered ridiculous by arguments for first cause. If all things have to have a creator, who created the creator?

There are hypotheses about first cause but no "scientic" Theories about first cause because no "hypothesis" of first cause meets the criteria of the scientific method.

If this gives you comfort by offering the possibility that God was the first clause by a means yet unknown to science, then be comforted. There are myriad possibilities and science is young.

By its nature, science refuses to rule out possibilities. It's not your enemy. It's a tool. To take it as an enemy shows a misunderstanding of its nature and its utility.

If the rules of science and logic had been adhered to there would not now be a war in Iraq, nor would the principles of our country currently be under attack, which is my consistent point in this thread.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think it makes evolution impossible at all. It just doesn't explain how the first cell was "born." Do you reject evolution on scientific or religious grounds?

both

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Evolution has nothing to do first cause and doesn't address the issue. Evolution kicks in after first cause or tenth cause or whatever.

You still need a first cause for evolution to work.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Evolution, however, had been scientifically shown to be operative for hundreds of thousands of years and still operative today.

There are so many holes in the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Creationism, on the other hand, is rendered ridiculous by arguments for first cause. If all things have to have a creator, who created the creator?

I hate when people say this. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or evolution, something had to always be there. All matter in the entire universe would have to have always been there if you don't believe in God.

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

There are hypotheses about first cause but no "scientic" Theories about first cause because no "hypothesis" of first cause meets the criteria of the scientific method.

If this gives you comfort by offering the possibility that God was the first clause by a means yet unknown to science, then be comforted. There are myriad possibilities and science is young.

By its nature, science refuses to rule out possibilities. It's not your enemy. It's a tool. To take it as an enemy shows a misunderstanding of its nature and its utility.

If it doesn't rule out possibilities, why are you ruling out God?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by steveo395

That is one reason why evolution is impossible.

evolution has nothing to do with first instance, and flying spaghetti monster can be argued to be just as valid as creationism since neither relies on science, making it a pretty hard debate to argue.

unless everyone's playing out of the same rulebook there's really nothing to say. But the implied "i'm right because i said so" thing that happens here so often doesn't really advance the conversation.

[djnemo65]

I get this thread now. The misperception that needed to be rooted out was that TG walked away from the game. Good to have ya back on board.