Evolution True or False?

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:00 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:


MM:
Oh yeah. I haven't stopped beating my wife yet, either.

Oh so thats what the Church tells you to do?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:04 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
M&M : Do you live in Kansas by any chance. Schools there have stopped teaching evolution. I wonder what those kids are going to do when they grow up? Work at a gas station seems like quite a decent paying job for such uneducated youth, don't you agree?

Do you really think one must be taught evolution to be considered educated? C'mon Thorin, I thought you were smarter than that.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:07 pm

Well i don't plan to work in a gas station when i grow. Would you like to work in one?

Well do you need to be taught how to speak a language to be considered educated, but i guess you never have to learn maths, history, science, or geography. Afterall you're not going ot be doing anything with your life.

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:13 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:

...He gave you steel and stuff which other dwarves value, but Thorin god gave humans honda civics with cupholders.
Alas for Bordin.

Now I see!...Civics made of STEEL and cupholders for the ALE. Genius.
(Bows head)
Please forgive my momentary lack of wisdom.
I offer up my Prelude as a sacrifice to the wise and mighty Thorin and will now pray to Crom and Thorin equally.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:17 pm

Fable:
You mean the one where you contended that the important founding fathers of the US Constitution deliberately Christianized America?

MM:
"cough"
There was no need. 99% of the population was already Christian. 98.4 percent Protestant (75% Puritan extraction), 1.4% Roman Catholic, and .2% Jewish to be exact.
"cough"

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:18 pm

I am almighty. Another worshipper.
My first plan:
@people: Become conservative Thorinist. Do not listen to anybody. Try to convert everybody to your religion. Denounce all that is true and tell lies so people will follow.
ex: evolution isn't true, but Thorin is. Listen to him. Argue with all intelligent people named fable.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:20 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:

MM:
"cough"
There was no need. 99% of the population was already Christian. 98.4 percent Protestant (75% Puritan extraction), 1.4% Roman Catholic, and .2% Jewish to be exact.
"cough"

Oh yeah they killed all the native americans.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:29 pm

Eminem writes:
Fable:
You mean the one where you contended that the important founding fathers of the US Constitution deliberately Christianized America?
MM:
"cough"
There was no need. 99% of the population was already Christian. 98.4 percent Protestant (75% Puritan extraction), 1.4% Roman Catholic, and .2% Jewish to be exact.
"cough"

You know, this kind of sophistry might work if people only had to take your word against mine. But @Eminem, they can just go to the topic which I've already posted, and see that you spent a fair part of 6 topic pages defending your contention. Either you were floundering around for 6 pages, writing at length to justify a point without any reason, or you're trying to bluff your way out, above.

My guess is that you don't believe a census of the religious persuasions of US citizens had anything to do with "Christian values" being deliberately written into the Constitution by Jefferson, Madison, etc, either. Which was what you posted, after all. At great length. With poorly documented materials.

But if you're now saying it isn't something you contend, then fine: I'll just post the comments you wrote in the "Eminem" topic, and let people see how you contradict yourself. There's nothing like letting the words speak for themselves.

Either that, or stop trying to change your line. It's all the same to me.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:42 pm

Fable:
My guess is that you don't believe a census of the religious persuasions of US citizens had anything to do with "Christian values" being deliberately written into the Constitution by Jefferson, Madison, etc, either. Which was what you posted, after all. At great length. With poorly documented materials.

No, my point has always been that the Founding fathers had no intention of uprooting the country from its religious foundations the way modern liberal historians would like us to believe.

Anyway, this is the last thing I will say on this topic. On to other threads...

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:57 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
Anyway, this is the last thing I will say on this topic. On to other threads...

Try to drop it after making a factual misstatement? Think again.

You didn't simply write a defense of anything remotely approaching this statement you just posted:

No, my point has always been that the Founding fathers had no intention of uprooting the country from its religious foundations the way modern liberal historians would like us to believe.

Part of what you wrote, and defended for 6 pages, were the following:

Take, for example, the United States Constitution, written and inspired by Christian Theists all (James Madison and John Locke respectively).

and...

Elegans writes:
Do you seriously mean what I think, namely that the principles of democracy are derived from christian faith???
Eminem:
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, Elegans, at least in regards to the principles of "American" democracy (I know nothing about Swedish democracy, so I won't go there). The role Christianity has played in bringing about democratic institutions in America cannot be overestimated.

Now, you put a lot of attention, detail and thought into some very long posts of yours, spent defending those statements. They state very plainly how you feel, and they are certainly not moderate in tone or substance; but they are honest. They express how you passionately felt, and I respected that.

Talking now about "the country being uprooted from its religious foundations by liberal historians" is a long way from what you wrote when you claimed that the US Constitution was written and inspired solely by Christian Theists, or that US democracy was derived from the Christian faith.

Strut and sneer all you like, @Eminem. You can't deny what you wrote. And anybody can check to see you hardly "won" those discussions.

And now if you want to drop it, after your Phyrric "claim" to victory in the Eminem topic, fine.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:23 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
I can't decide whether to call it a Lie or a Religion. Which term is stronger? Probably the former. In that case, let me state my opinion thus -

Evolution is a lie. Period.

OMG - you are actually a "young earth" creationist?

I should have guessed it, since you seem to be my total antithesis

I don't aim to force you into a discussion, but it would be interesting, since I've never had contact with any creationists before, and I really find it difficult to understand why a person would chose young earth creationism.

Word · Post by **Word** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 7:29 pm

The design of the US Constitution puts a law done specifically denying the connection of church and state. Besides we weren't the first people to use democracy "heathen" Greeks first invented the goverment form of democracy anyway so how could non-believers create a goverment for a religion they don't believe in!

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 10:26 pm

Originally posted by Word:
The design of the US Constitution puts a law done specifically denying the connection of church and state. Besides we weren't the first people to use democracy "heathen" Greeks first invented the goverment form of democracy anyway so how could non-believers create a goverment for a religion they don't believe in!

@Word, go check out the Eminem thread, which I already linked a few messages back. You'll get all the pros and cons, there.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 2:56 am

A bit of info for Eminem

Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision.

It is a fact that genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance.

Do you belive in carbon dating?
(and i dont mean the naughty kind)

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:33 am

Originally posted by Tom:
A bit of info for Eminem

Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision.

It is a fact that genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance.

Do you belive in carbon dating?
(and i dont mean the naughty kind)

Forgive my ignorance, Tom, but do you mean to say that genetic mutations (which occur by chance) are responsible for such complex structures as, for example, the human eye, the circulatory system, or the cerebral hemispheres of the brain, none of which modern day scientist completely understand? Moreover, aren't genetic mutations significantly more maladaptive and fatal than adaptive and benign? How much time are we looking at here anyway?

Carbon dating? I have my doubts.

Elegans, I wouldn't know a "young earth creationist" if I saw one. I haven't a clue how old the Earth is. I merely hold to the belief that man is the creation of an intelligent designer, and did not come about by chance genetic mutation, natural selection, or what have you.

Hope that helps.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:36 am

a big deal of evidence for evoulution comes from carbon dating.

It is a much used technique in science and i have never heard it disputed.

do you have any reasons for doubting it?

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:45 am

a bit more info for Eminem

A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. (CP)

Thus there are two important factors in evoulution. the selection of traits beneficial to survival through normal variation and mutation.

most mutation are not beneficial and in nature results in the death of the animal. but a tiny number are beneficial to the survival chance of the animal. this becomes fignificant when we consider the hugh time scale involved - several thousand million years.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:49 am

Originally posted by Tom:
A bit of info for Eminem

Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision.

It is a fact that genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance.

Do you belive in carbon dating?
(and i dont mean the naughty kind)

@Tom: What you jsut explained there is what is called the Chaos theory of Evolution. Basically, saying that over time, orgainisms that have been "strong" have survived because of, not only natural selection, but from genetic mutations that ahppend to them along the way. By them have an extra sensory optical nerve, or a chaemeleon skin, they have beat the odds, and survived, and mated, thus allowing for more of that genetic seed to be spread. But also, when that seed is spread, the Chaos theory kicks in again. If the orgainism moves to new territory, they find a way to survive, either by changing diet, by adapting to the local floria and fauna, or by natural selection taking another step in genetics. The Chaotic portian of the theory holds such a randomness that no one can really predict what will happen to the creature when exposed to new surroundings or conditions, and the same is with the Human Race. Natural selection chose us instead of Dinosaurs, the choice was made thorugh shear chaos and reandomness. We lived, and survived as basic mammals. As time went on, some people became different, namely intelligent. They went on to breed, and survive, while the less fortuneate died of cold, starvation and natural predators. That randomness that chose those pockets of humans to become smart was pure chaos. It is how we evolved and how we still evolve.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:02 am

Originally posted by Tom:
a bit more info for Eminem

A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. (CP)

Thus there are two important factors in evoulution. the selection of traits beneficial to survival through normal variation and mutation.

most mutation are not beneficial and in nature results in the death of the animal. but a tiny number are beneficial to the survival chance of the animal. this becomes fignificant when we consider the hugh time scale involved - several thousand million years.

"Might" being the operative word. There is no empirical evidence in the present to back up this study. In any case, the finches remain finches with wider beaks, and do not evolve into a different species altogether.

Billions upon billions of years is plenty of time. Where then are the transitionary fossils that exhibit the changes caused by genetic mutations and natural selection? If your assertion is true, wouldn't the archaeological evidence be more overwhelming than it is?

RE: Carbon dating. I'm no expert, but this site (I think) does a good job in explaining the limitations and shortcomings of radio carbon dating:

[url="http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon"]Click here[/url]

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:09 am

Originally posted by Tom:
a big deal of evidence for evoulution comes from carbon dating.

It is a much used technique in science and i have never heard it disputed.

do you have any reasons for doubting it?

I have heard it deabted IRL and this is what is contended;

"You can not effectively Carbon date because you don't know how much carbon is in the original organism"
"You also can not account for the fossils without exoskeletons"