Evolution

[Chamberlain]

YORICK I never said there was no purpose for you did I?
I don't speak for others.

Edit: I'm sorry but this is really starting to piss me off...you know I didn't say anything about speaking for you and yet you act as if I did.
You deny everything because it seems as if you are being proved wrong...
I mean come on, denying the existance of instincts. That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
And don't ever start talking crap about me speaking for you. You know I didn't say anything about you not seeing the purpose in religion...so don't speak as if I did and try to make me look like an idiot.

[ 02-24-2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Chamberlain ]

[Timber Loftis]

Sure, Chamberlain, it's simple. I missed a step in Asimov's correlations. I forget exactly how it goes, but you take the Newtons result you got and then somehow relate it back to the two bodies.

Let's skip the mathematical specifics and agree that there is some threshold limit where two bodies in orbit will go towards each other, and there is some other threshold where the attractive force will be too weak and they will fly apart.

Now, how Asimov got it down to a correlation revolving around whether or not the number was less than or greater than 1 escapes me right now (I read the story once - in 1991). But, the point is that if you identify that threshold amount and relate it to the moons/planets, you will find that our moon should not be there.

I was simply trying to point out what some cite as evidence of a god. I don't think, however, I have the capability to come up with a single integer I can point at and say "There - creationism exists!"

Oh, wait, maybe I can. . . . 42

[Chamberlain]

I'll have to read it sometimes because I don't quite understand what the relationship is with which you are explaining. I do understand what you mean with the the point in which the planets would fly off...but remember other factors exist such as the electro-static force between the two bodies(i think this fundamental force of nature is relatively insignificant compared to the gravitational force)so...lets not get into that though...also the force that other planets and the the sun especially exerted on the earth...I'll look into it though.
Its understandable that you may have missed a step...1991 is a long way off...I was only 5 at that time...

Man this is sooooo off topic...but fun to discuss...look how many posts there are and this thread was created only..what? one or two days ago?

[ 02-24-2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Chamberlain ]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: As I said, the baby is born without the awareness of separation from others. Gazing at faces is important in the realisation of others being separate entities from it. The human face is also really interesting. Expressive, changes, emmits sounds. No wonder a baby looks at a live face instead of an innanimate poster.

No, by 'face' I mean something that looks like a face, as opposed to an actual moving face. If you show a picture of a circle, with two circles across the middle, and a shape (say, a rectangle) further down, and show them a picture with the exact same geometric figures, only in a different configuration, perhaps the circles running down the page and the rectangle further near the top, they will prefer to look at the one that looks most like a face. They do this immediately after being born, so they haven't learnt to do it from anywhere.

Interestingly they can't seem to tell the difference between a picture of a body with all the limbs in the right spots and a picture of a body with the limbs in weird positions. Not really relevant, but I find it interesting

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: Quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.
[/QUOTE]True. Babies do learn to walk. BUT! It is partly instinctual. If you hold a newborn baby up and let its feet touch the floor, it will move its feet as if it were walking (before it has ever attempted locomotion in any form, and before you could say it were copying something it had seen). This goes away after a bit because their bodies get too heavy for their legs to support (but they do appear to practice moving their legs when they're lying on their backs).

Originally posted by Yorick: 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

It's not the only thing they have. But it's the BEST thing. They could wave their arms. Kick their legs. They could gurgle. They could blink. All behaviours infants are completely capable of. But they don't do any of those to get attention, and more tellingly, they don't try any of these and discover they're not very effective and move onto crying. They just cry. Always, universally. Having a biologically-engineered voice box perfect for getting Mum's attention isn't much good if you don't use it

[ 02-24-2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Aelia Jusa ]

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Yorick: I know as a child I had no fear of heights. It lasted until I was at least seven. I did the old "go over the barricade of a waterfall and hang over" and totally freaked out my mother. I jumped off roofs, trees etc.

Swung off power lines...

[Leonis]

All I have to say on topic ( ), is that if evolution was true and worked the way it was claimed, we would see only smart, fit, lean, dark skinned (protection from sun/attract heat in the cold), whole, undiseased humans roaming the earth.

Instead we get a world populated by a few billion people who are dumber than an ape...

[ 02-24-2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Leonis: All I have to say on topic ( ), is that if evolution was true and worked the way it was claimed, we would see only smart, fit, lean, dark skinned (protection from sun/attract heat in the cold), whole, undiseased humans roaming the earth. Instead we get a world populated by a few billion people who are dumber than an ape...

No, you wouldn't.
Evolution revolves around life adapting to it's surroundings, like water molding to fit the shape of a container. It does not strictly involve becoming smarter, more resistant to disease or more muscular. It involves making the best use of resources available at the time and place, and passing on genes to the next generation. Big brains are expensive in terms of protein and fat, and in some instances it is better NOT to have such expensive organs in that they require ultra high maintenance. Humans by no means prosperred during the last Ice Age to the degree that mammoths and other such animals did. But some bands of homo sapiens were able to weather it out and survive, and thus continue their genetic lineage, and when global conditions became more favourable they were able to expand and exploit the Earth alot better. If the tiny groups of humans existing during the last Ice Age had died out, whether by accident, famine or predation, their genetic configuartion would have been lost forever, and the course of life history in recent millenia would have been ALOT different. But they didn't die, and here we are, with our computers and state religions and evolution textbooks. Remarkable stuff!

It all boils down to chance.

[ 02-24-2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chamberlain: No one ever answered my question. How come all the evolutionists are presenting all the evidence(carbon dating, fossil trends, etc)? It's seems like all creationists do is give one reason or another for why this evidence is inconlusive.

That's simple. Creation doesn't require proof....only faith.

There has been a lot of evidence presented by evolutionists, and this evidence has shown irrefutable proof of developmental progress and changes among different species. But developmental changes are not the same as saying "This is how the species came into being". That is the part I find "inconclusive".

My personal experiences have led me to believe in God, which has led me to accept and believe in Creation. God has "proven" His existence to my satisfaction. Evolutionary evidence has not proven "the origin of man" to that same degree of satisfaction. In giving my reasons why the evidence is "inconclusive" (IMO), I am not saying the evidence is invalid...just that it is not strong enough to convince me.....at least not yet.

Originally posted by Chamberlain: I have never and I will never see any evidence showing the existance of god or any evidence concerning creationism. Why is that? What do creationists have besides a bunch of stories in a damn book, or some whacko talking about there religious experience. The evidence presented to prove evolution may be inconclusive, but as least there is some evidence shown with trends of fossil changes and a bunch of other crap.

Chamberlain - it's obvious you have a lot of anger and resentment towards Christianity. I don't know what happened to cause that and, frankly, it's none of my business. But as one of the "whacko's that has talked about their religious experiences" here on IronWorks, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could be more respectful of opinions you don't agree with. I don't ask you to accept my Christian beliefs, but I do ask that you not ridicule them. I have had very amicable and enjoyable discussions with pagans, Wiccans, atheists, and agnostics on this forum at one time or another and I've learned a great deal from those discussions even though I disagree with thier belieifs. Just remember to debate the ideas, but respect the person. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[LordKathen]

It seems to me that the general christian view is becoming more and more subjective to the idea of evolution. I may be wrong, but from what ive read in history, even 100 hundred years ago, this was not the general subjectivness. A christian saying that we may have evolved, but we we're created in the begining by god, a hundred years ago was taboo. It is becoming more accepted that evolution has some truth to it. What will the general view of christians be in another hundred? We have a unitarian church in town that caters to these open minded views and lets people be as subjective as they want. The christian community does not like this church, I wonder why?