Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
"Dan Erick" wrote in message om... "Tony Fernandes" wrote in message ... I think the truth about a "creator" or the nature of the universe or what happens after we die transcends conscious thought. It's not even something you and I can discuss becuase of our finite ability to comprehend. I'll stipulate their MAY be a creator if you can stipulate that there may NOT be one. Becuase really, neither of us really knows for sure. ;-) Tony Well Tony, I'm not going to go into all the ways that God has shown me that He is indeed real. It's not something I could prove to you, but I could never deny Him. But, for arguments sake let's stipulate that there may not be a god. If I'm right, then I get eternal life in Heaven. And unbelievers are punished forever. If you're right, then we die that's it. The End. And I have just "wasted" my life loving others as myself. Who's got more to lose? Are you comfortable with the fact that you just may be wrong? I know that our finite ability to comprehend can not fathom how terrible eternity in Hell would be. But if you're wrong that would be the biggest mistake of your life =( Pascal's Wager, huh? what is there to lose? how about if god says at the end something like, "I gave you reason and you discarded it in favor of fantasy. I therefore condemn all believers to eternal damnation."? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
Sorry Mr Stahl, try again. It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!!
Very few things, if any, can be considered "proven fact" actually. We tend to take things as "fact" if the bulk of the evidence supports it. So far in our scientific studies noone can prove evolution and deny creation, nor can they prove creation and deny evolution. Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do research between microevolution and macroevolution. Many regard the two as the same thing. These days, I don't think anyone argues that they're distinct processes. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
"Les" wrote in message ... "Mark Stahl" wrote in message ... "Doug" wrote in message ... This is the wrong place to discuss this, so I'll just say that you are correct in evolution threatens my faith. When evolution is proven, the Bible is disproven, and I become an atheist. Explaining away Genesis undermines the entire Bible. No creation, no god. congratulations on becoming an atheist, then.... Right now, evidence does not fully support evolution. actually, it does. in fact, it is observed, experimentally verified fact. Sorry Mr Stahl, try again. Probably not worth it, but OK. It is NOT A PROVEN FACT!!!! of course it is. evolution has been observed both in the field and in the laboratory. as a biologist, i am quite familiar with this fact. you may not be aware of it, but evolution is both fact (observed) and theory (the explanation for the observation). there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution, but the fact that it occurred and continues to do so is universally agreed upon, except perhaps by fringe groups of crackpots such as are often to be found scurrying about dark corners of the usenet. evolution is simply the change in allelic frequency over time. as such, it can be observed in simple experiments such as selecting for traits in a population like antibiotic resistence and such. these observations are uncontroversial, and are clear demonstrations of the fact of evolution. these observations are easy to make in microorganisms, but are applicable to any organism. So far in our scientific studies noone can prove evolution you say "our" as if you have worked in the field. what are your credentials again? in any case, yes, many scientific studies have proven that evolution occurs. in fact, i will probably do one such experiment later on today. for a quick overview of how, simply see: Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84 Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14. the latter review paper should be clear enough on this point. and deny creation, there is nothing about "creation" to deny. nor can they prove creation and deny evolution. one cannot deny evolution any more than one can deny gravity. Although, I have had arguments with people that believe that evolution has been "proved", like yourself, and before you post again I want you to do research between microevolution and macroevolution. LOL, the idea of someone who differentiates between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (terms not used by scientists) telling me to do "research" has me in stitches. in fact, i had to show some of my colleagues, who are also laughing at you. Once you have studied the difference in those then show your "proof". OK, no problem: instances of speciation (what you presumably mean by your made-up "macroevolution" term)- here are a few of the many examples from the primary literatu Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737. and a very nice textbook selection: Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436. as an aside, no creationist has ever explained how evolution would simply "stop" at some arbirtary point, a crucial concept for their "theory". presumably they invoke magic yet again. it is therefore incumbent on those who insist on a distiction between "macro" and "micro" evolution to describe this difference, which of course they never will. care to take a swing at it (providing the appropriate molecualar mechanisms)? Right now you post meaningless diatribes with no basis or reference to facts, basically you are utilizing strawman tactics. no, i am patiently attempting to correct the woeful deficiencies in your understanding. if my posts are "meaningless" to you, it is only because you choose to understand, or are unable to do so. frankly, i question whether you even know what a "strawman" is, since i didn't use any such tactic. If evolution were fact, we'd see a gradual change of species from one to another, with increasing diversity as time passes. which is precisely what is observed, both in the imperfect fossil record and in the better-preserved genome. Precisely? Imperfect? Seems to me that your precision is a little off. yes, but you have demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about, so it doesn't particularly matter what it "seems like" to you. Instead, the fossil record is replete with zillions of instances of different species, with less and less diversity as time passes. what on earth are you talking about? care to explain this bizarre comment? you skipped it before. There are a very few instances (Archeopteryx, platypus) that seem to show evolution, but the vast majority shows distinct speciation, not gradual change. there are quite a few examples of transitional fossil forms. moreover, the genetics show exactly the gradual change you expect. Well then list some of those examples. there are literally hundreds. how long do you want this post to be? OK: from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 24(4), December, 1972: "....Similarly, we also tend to refer transitional fossils to that higher taxon which the most resemble or to which their final representatives belong. Consequently, the fact that we are dealing with continuously gradational sequences may be obscured by our conventional practise of superimposing artificially discontinuous, higher rank taxonomic boundaries across such lineages (Olson, 1965, p. 100-101, 202-203; Van Morkhoven, 1962, p. 105, 153; Williams, 1953, p. 29; Cuffey, 1967, p. 38-39). As a result, for example, in the middle of sequences of transitional fossils bridging the conceptual gaps between the various vertebrate classes, we find forms which sit squarely on the dividing line between these high-rank taxa and which can be referred to either of two. In addition to Archaeopteryx between reptiles and birds (discussed previously), we can also note Diarthrognathus between reptiles and mammals, the seymouriamorphs between amphibians and reptiles, and Elpistostege between fishes and amphibians (see references in Table 5). " In an excellent website replete with documentation from the literature, Kathleen Hunt has documented literally hundreds of transitionary fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html You should also consult the following texts for more information about fossil data. Colbert & Morales' Evolution of the Vertebrates (1991), Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (1988), and Benton's The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods (1988). all of this is very well and quite convincing to anyone without an agenda, and that's before consulting the clinching genetic data! BTW, just because something obeys what you would expect in genetics does not prove one thing and disprove the other. perhaps not, but it is extremely suggestive. in fact, it would be an incredible coincidence (a deliberate deception, perhaps?) for a "creator" to produce precisely the kind of nested hierarchy of descent-with-modification that we see in the fossil record and flesh out with genetics. taking the data at its face value and combining that with observations we can make in real time, the evidence in favor of the general theory of evolution as the mechanism for producing our current bioversity is truly overwhelming. it is the best supported scientific theory of all time, after all. ...and don't forget speciation is a classification thought up by humans to explain what they see. Many different species (I'm referring mostly to invertebrates here) are in fact the same creatures, or "kind" if you will. ridiculous assertion. there is no such thing as a "kind" outside of the bible. Now I'm done (I hope), as this is really the wrong place. ...just wanted to point out that the science does not fully support either side, sure it does. evolution is scientifically observed. creation is made up. Again. No basis in fact. Just a useless troll. Why do I feed these things? well, if by "no basis in fact" you mean "more supporting facts than any scientific theory ever", you may have something there. as to why you "feed these things", i suspect at least part of you was crying out to be educated. tell me, did you go to public school or....? and creation makes more sense to many than the "magic" of evolution. creation only makes sense to the uneducated, sorry. OHHHHH I see what you are now. Well you have fun in your circle of "educated" people who do not know the difference between theories and facts so i suppose you know the difference between "theories and facts"? do tell us. or macro vs micro. in terms of evolution, there is no such difference. unless you want to try to suggest how one might exist...? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
OT religious thread Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
Relax Les. He's a troll.
-- Todd |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
OT religious thread Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
"Les" wrote in message ... "Mark Stahl" wrote in message ... "Les" wrote in message ... "MZ" wrote in message ... I agree, almost. Personally I would amend it slightly. It is impossible to prove, to another person, that a creator does or does not exist. It is a topic that you basically just have to believe one way or the other and be comfortable in that because as of now it cannot be "proven" in a manner to appease everyone. Now, with that being said, it is a useless argument since neither side can be wrong in their beliefs on the issue. Neither side can be wrong with their beliefs, perhaps. But, as I've hopefully pointed out in this thread, one can be wrong with their reasoning for adopting such a belief system. Like many mysteries, it's simply a matter of weighing evidence and choosing the option which appears to be the most plausible. One can be wrong with their reasoning, on both sides, to the point of being blinded by their faith. I think that everyone can agree to that, and it has been pointed out. Someone who relies solely on science, which cannot be "proved", seems foolish to those who believe in God. i suppose that is the problem with scientifically illiterate people-- they forget that the beauty part of science is that it can be, to the extent that anything can be, "proved". Let's get a few things straight right off the bat here Mr Stahl. Creationists can be and are scientifically minded. No they're not, at least not with respect to their creationism. If that were so, there would be scholarly, peer reviewed journals publishing the creationists' scientific findings. For that matter, there would actually *be* a "theory of creation". I know physicists that are creationists and I know some that are evolutionists, and they even coexist with mutual respect. Perhaps in other fields, but not in their "creation science". People can and do compartmentalize. Your insistence that creation has no basis in science is wrong, No, it's perfectly correct. If you know otherwise, post here the "scientific theory of creationism". show me where they've published their results. introduce me to their field workers and lab workers. show me the scientific basis of creationism; i'm all ears. much like your insistence that evolution is proven. i certainly hope we've dispelled your ignorance on this topic and you understand that evolution is an observed fact, just as gravity is. Neither is proven nor disproven, except that evolution actually is... what we had been doing was exchanging thoughts and ideas in a calm interesting fashion, until you came here and spout your idiotic arguments. no, you were displaying your ignorance and i was helpfully correcting you. And likewise those who believe in God, which cannot be "proved", seems foolish to those who rely on science. It would reason, although it is flawed as well, that a person who uses BOTH is bound to not be foolish and have the whole picture. that makes no sense whatsoever, and elevates wishful thinking to the level of observation and empiricism. What doesn't make sense? claiming that using both reason and belief in "god" would prevent someone from being foolish and allow them to have the "whole picture" makes no sense. one is a matter of faith, the other has a basis in reality that can be demonstrated to the outside world. if you wish to discuss the "wisdom" that must accompany the learning we obtain from our reason, that is one thing and many people obtain that from their faith. But it's degrading to both faith and reason to somehow suggest both are equally useful for all things. There are 2 different thoughts there, both of which make sense to me. You didn't seem to have a problem with is making sense when it providing something to your argument. again, in english? But they are usually more sure of their beliefs and not easily swayed. If you can talk somebody into something, then someone can talk them out of it. Unfortunately, most folks arrive at a decision before they actually weigh the evidence. So then they search out evidence that supports their initial belief while ignoring that which doesn't support it. True, for some people. There seems to be a debate in these types of threads that God and Science are mutually exclusive. They are not. There has never, to my knowledge, been evidence that a belief in God and the Bible defies proven (not theoretical) science. well, certain versions of the bible contain obvious and documented scientific errors, so perhaps your knowledge needs updating... Perhaps you would like to show evidence of that? i can literally come up with hundreds. i am shocked that you can't. even believers are comfortable with the idea that their scriptures are not science or history texts. Besides translations can in some passages get things a bit off. The languages, Greek and Hebrew, that the bible has been translated from are on the whole more complex than our own. It is bound to have "errors" when our language lacks the complexity to fully show the complete meaning or understanding. I suggest you should update some of your knowledge. such bluster from such an undereducated person.... It would be similar to translating old Greek plays and such to our modern language. Try as we might to find the right word or words we can easily miss something due to basically the lack of words to complete the understanding. But by your logic all the Greek plays we have are inaccurate. no, i am not in any way referring to translational errors. i am talking about documented errors of fact, from virtually every field of human endeavor. from geology where the bible asserts that the earth was created in several days approximately 6000 years ago and was involved in a global flood to biology in which it is claimed that rabbits chew their cud (Lev. 11:5-6), insects have the wrong numbers of appendeges, bats are birds, humans live to ridiculous ages and are resurrected after death to historical inaccuracies like the supposed exodous of the israelites from Egypt and the conquest of the Cannanites, which archaelologists dispute. there is no doubt that the bible is fraught with factual errors that contradict known science. that doesn't mean that one cannot be a theist and accept scientific principles. but where the two cross-- and they often do-- i know which side rationality is on. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
OT religious thread Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
"Todd" wrote in message news:8VjEc.904926$Pk3.108576@pd7tw1no... Relax Les. He's a troll. -- Todd what would that make you, then? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with the bass in my trunk. Help? O/T
Stop, already with the filly-soffikal discussion, and line the trunk
with Dynamat Extreme. Watch out for the edges, I have bandages on 5 of 10 finger tips right now. Worse than paper cuts, as the pain is not there until after the cut happens. Usually when cleaning a new area and the alcohol gets in there. Ow. I just finished (?) the doors and door liner on my 97 Ranger and it's a lot quieter. Get the bulk pack, it's cheaper than getting a wedge pack, and another, and another and another. Tom Seattle |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: SOUNDSTREAM CLOSEOUTS AND MORE!! | Car Audio | |||
Too much Vibration on the Trunk | Car Audio | |||
Too much Vibration from the trunk | Car Audio | |||
Boston 8" Pro subs in trunk? | Car Audio |