Evolution

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Chamberlain: Btw "Rather than accepting your teachers acceptance of other humans unproven theories as fact, why not make up your own mind and look at it all with an open mind?" Don't talk about looking at things with an open mind when all you have done is shot down everything anyone has said about the subject. You're just finding something...anything to say to prove otherwise.

I don't know who that's aimed at. My psychology runs with the first above quoted paragraph. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chamberlain: 1.I have never and I will never see any evidence showing the existance of god or any evidence concerning creationism. Why is that? 2.What do creationists have besides a bunch of stories in a damn book, 3.or some whacko talking about there religious experience.

1.Don't know. Only you can answer that. You don't want to see it maybe? You tell me. Everything I see screams of evidence. Same medicine different dog I suppose.

2."Stories in a damn book" teach you about maths, biology, histopry, psychology, anything. Books are warehouses of others experiences. Very valuable.

The bibe is a number of books written by various humans at various times. You can learn a lot about many things from it. DOn't diss it if you haven't tried it. Many swear by the benefits reading it have brought into their lives.

3.Are you calling me a whacko?

[Chamberlain]

Dammit you people reply too fast...read my edit...it explains that I've been in your same situation so don't say I don't want to see it or whatever...that used to be all I saw, but I've changed...I've opened my eyes and figured out theres no purpose.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Quote: Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: What makes a defence mechanism not an instinct I wonder?

Your nervous system is a defense mechanism. Part of how you're made, not a bahavioural pattern you perform.

A childs voice is very high. It cuts through and can be heard from further away than an adult crying. As such, part of the cry as a defense mechanism is involved in the very structure and makeup of the child itself, not a series of bahaviour patterns. A childs cry is the only thing they have.

Hungry? Cry
Tired? Cry
Scared? Cry
Saw something suddenly? Cry
Heard a shocking noise? Cry
*************
An instict is universally applied. All beavers know how to build a dam. Salmon instictivly know where to go to mate.[/QUOTE]Sorry, YOrick I disagree. I think by "defense mechanism" and "instinct" what you really mean is "relfex" and "instinct." AFAIK the term "defense mechanism" (except as defined psychologically by Freud) is very limited - "Flight or Fight" type stuff. But, the reflex/instinct dichotomy seems to be what you're going after.

Hit the knee and the knee moves = reflex. Pure bodily reaction that occurs by your spinal cord re-routing the impulse from the knee: the message does not even get as far as the brain.

BUt, crying is instinctual. It's not a reflex. Admittedly it's not as complex an instinct as flying south for the winter or building a dam, but it's not simply a reaction. So is suckling.

And, let's not forget WALKING, which develops with or without being taught. A deer's instinct (and further bodily development in utero) allows it to walk within minutes. Humans take longer, but it's still instinct.[/QUOTE]Walking? C'mon. That's mimicry and trial and error. Babies LEARN to walk. They aren't born able to do it. It takes a lot to work out how much pressure to put here and there etc. Trial and error. But they see others - adults, little kids - all walking.

Ever had to learn again as an adult? Wierd experience.

Babies are constantly learning and absorbing.

Fair call on the relex issue, but the shape size and structure of a babies voice box is part of how they are made, not a reflex action.

So much noise comes out of something so small with so little strength. As I said, a babies cry will carry further than that of an adult male.

[Timber Loftis]

Chamberlain, not to poo-poo my own atheism, but in Isaac Asimov's short story "On Planets" he uses the equation for figuring the attractiveness between two bodies (atoms or planets, same equation) to find some limited proof of God.

The equation: F= m-1 m-2 G / d2

m-1/m-2 = mass of bodies 1 and 2
G = gravitational constant defined by Newton in 1685: 6.664x10-11 N·m2/kg2
d2 = distance between the objects squared

If you run every moon/planet combo in the solar system through this you get a number between 0 and 1, indicating the bodies are attracted and in orbit with each other. Except Earth's moon, where the number works out to be greater than 1, indicating our moon should simply not be there.

Anyway, you're right that no creationists are citing evidence. I think what they are citing is BELIEF. Everything else is knocking down the science. The Bible does not seek to justify itself, so it's not like we have a record to attack regarding creationism. Unfortunately, the only ways to disprove the Bible are: (1) attack inconsistencies (very easy but so obvious you must ignore it to accept the bible in the first place), or (2) coorelating biblical stories and events and writers with history to show how the stories were simply written by people to serve the needs of the community or convey its history in fable form (very very difficult and anyone can always fight historical facts).

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chamberlain: Dammit you people reply too fast...read my edit...it explains that I've been in your same situation so don't say I don't want to see it or whatever...that used to be all I saw, but I've changed...I've opened my eyes and figured out theres no purpose.

No purpose for YOU. My experience of is that I have purpose. Don't prescribe my reality on me and I won't on you. Don't be saying I have no purpose and I won't go around saying you do. [img]smile.gif[/img] Agreed?

[Timber Loftis]

Timber Loftis regrets to inform the members of this thread that he has over 2 hours of work before he can retire home for the evening and it's already 6:30 in Chicago. Therefore, against all urges and desires, he is closing Internet Explorer and will return tomorrow.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Timber Loftis regrets to inform the members of this thread that he has over 2 hours of work before he can retire home for the evening and it's already 6:30 in Chicago. Therefore, against all urges and desires, he is closing Internet Explorer and will return tomorrow.

I should go too mate. See you then. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chamberlain]

Woa woa...am I seeing this correctly.
I remember this equation from physics.
Tis the equation for the force due to gravity.
You have it all right, with the gravitational constant and whatnot.
But you're trying to tell me that the attraction between every moon and planet in the solar system besides earth...is less than 1 newton(greater than 0 naturally)
I find this hard to believe considering I can apply more force while pushing a box across the floor.
Are you sure about this.

[Chamberlain]

K...maybe I am misinterpreting what you were trying to say but I just ran some numbers to prove you wrong anyway...
From numbers I found on the internet
Please tell me if I'm wrong
Mass of jupiter: 1.9x10^27 kg
mass of europa: 4.8x10^22 kg
distance between the two: 67090000 m
G: 6.664x10^-11

F= ((1.9x10^27)(4.8x10^22)(6.664x10^-11))/((67090000)^2)

Hehe this is so off topic but...
Force due to gravity between jupiter and europa is equal to 1.35x10^24 Newtons
Basically a big big force...
last time I check that number isn't between 0 and 1
please tell me if I'm wrong or misinterpreted you in any way.

Someone check my work btw