Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Our life with the Neanderthals was no brief affair

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Our life with the Neanderthals was no brief affair
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:17 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

but the stories from 2000 years ago are still floating around.
Probably with time these will slowly die out

You sound like Voltaire. He wrote a number of tracts deriding the bible and claimed that 'One hundred years from today the bible will be a forgotten book'.

People don't think in the time frames I do.

I'm talking about a slow decrease over thousands of years. A forecast that it will die out in 100 years is foolish, if I had lived in Voltaire's time I would have laughed in his face.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:24 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

catman wrote:

Titus wrote:

Julius is right in asserting that the vast majority of people who claim to accept evolution haven't the faintest idea of what it actually is, how it happens and what the outcomes are. For the most part it is status-seeking and conformism with an in-group.

I also accept that smoking causes cancer and that HIV causes AIDS but I cannot give you the scientific details about how it happens.

Perhaps, but you don't hold any vigorous beliefs which directly contradict the link between smoking and cancer, or between HIV and AIDS, while I suspect you very much do hold vigorous beliefs which directly contradict the theory of evolution (most specifically regarding the evolutionary impact of diverse environments and circumstances on human evolution).

Well it keeps me from smoking two packs a day.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:31 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

catman wrote:

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

"Thought to have"?

Earlier you said it was a definite fact. Now you don't sound so sure.

Mmm ok, tell me one thing that has changed from what it was earlier. Should be easy for you, we have millions of living organisms on the planet. just one will do. Thanks.

Quote:

Both

You realize macroevolution has never been observed? It is only theorized. Someones idea.
Science is supposed to be about what is observable.

Quote:

We share a common ancestor.

Evidence? You do realize humans have greater genetic similarity to puffer fish than to apes.

During the Kitzmiller vs Dover School District trial back in 2005 even the creationist "experts" had no answer to the following evidence:

How to shut up those pesky creationists.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:32 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

But what amazes me is when these people try to rationalize their beliefs by backing their beliefs up with "science".

You could well be referring to evolutionists here. The majority of evolutionism is made up of irrational and unfounded conjecture. People morphed out of molecules. DNA (a biological information system with a functional complexity beyond anything a supercomputer could produce) just spontaneously self- assembled. The universe self-assembled against impossible odds.

Doesn't make sense, science isn't trying to make up science to justify their beliefs, since good scientists don't have beliefs, and bad science is disproven by good science over time.

DNA was likely partially assembled in interstellar dust clouds, cooking up for billions of years, and the planets passed thru the dust clouds. Once the building blocks were on Earth they assembled into DNA, and then the tree of life began (life utilized what was available, DNA).

Jezus didn't do it.

http://www.themarysue.com/building-blocks-dna-in-space/

leicsmac

Joined: 07 Jul 2010

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:31 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

leicsmac wrote:

Are you a young-Earth creationist? Favour intelligent design? Or is it just the evolutionary principle that you have a problem with?

Where do you stand on cosmology and space science as it pertains to all ths?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but as someone grounded in the works of space I'm curious.

I see. I'm no cosmologist, I'm mostly interested in biology/palaeontology and living systems.
I gather there are theories around that allow for a young earth as well as apparent age via light speed in an expanding universe etc. I haven't really explored them..

I believe in a young earth designed and created by an incredibly intelligent designer- God. Todays living creatures are descended from originally created types. There has been some adapatation, speciation and diversification withion those types- roughly equivalent to todays concept of genus- by the shuttling around of inherited genetic information. But no new genetic information has been created. No new novel structures have formed, mutation is a destructive harmful process- not one that creates new novel forms or improves organisms.

So todays lion, tiger, jaguar etc -all the members of the felidae for example are descended from one originally created ancestral cat. If you want to call that level of speciation "evolution" then so be it, but I dislike using the term because it encourages an acceptance of all kinds of other unfounded ideas and claims that are often included under this massive umbrella term. The idea that molecules gradually morphed into men over multibillions of years is a fantasy that exists only in the minds of atheists whose starting point is an arbitrary dislike of the concept of a creator.

Fair enough. Thanks for answering.

You see, the idea of there being something more to the development of life on this planet is something I can possibly entertain (though I believe the actions of such a system would be indistinguishable from what we'd call nature anyway).

However, I have seen (and indeed been part of) several projects to make sense of data from satellites and telescopes, and have also measured the speed of light (using a Michelson interferometer) in one of my projects. This means that I have ascertained, (using my own results as well as the results of others) is that the Universe is truly massive in size and that (through spectroscopic information and redshift data) light from faraway stars is arriving from a vast distance away and therefore (due to the limit of lightspeed) a long time ago, as well as the clear and ubiquitous influence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Also, using my own observations I have confirmed Hubble's theory on every single other galaxy moving away from us at an accelerating rate.

So I strongly subscribe to the theory that the Universe began way in the distant past (billions of years ago). This is because of a combination of my own results of repeated experiments, and also because of the results of peers. I have no reason to suspect that the speed of light has changed ever since it became constant in the microseconds after the expansion event nearly 14 billion years ago.

So the idea of a young Universe, and by extension a young Earth, is something I think personally doesn't fit the narrative.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:42 pm Post subject:

catman wrote:

Julius wrote:

catman wrote:

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Quote:

Both

You realize macroevolution has never been observed? It is only theorized. Someones idea.
Science is supposed to be about what is observable.

Quote:

We share a common ancestor.

Evidence? You do realize humans have greater genetic similarity to puffer fish than to apes.

During the Kitzmiller vs Dover School District trial back in 2005 even the creationist "experts" had no answer to the following evidence:

How to shut up those pesky creationists.

Why don't you answer the points I put to you?

The moment you are challenged you throw a link and dissapear? You don't seem to knowwhat you're talking about. Try making your case in your own words. Then we'll know you're actually familiar with the subject.

[quote='GimchiNinja']DNA was likely partially assembled in interstellar dust clouds, cooking up for billions of years, and [/quote]

haha. You seem to claim this is fact. Evidence? proof?
Do you even understand what science is supposed to represent? It isn't adolescent daydreams from reading too much science fiction.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:35 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

You seem to claim this is fact. Evidence? proof?

It is a reasonable theory and there is growing evidence for it (that the components of DNA formed in space and seeded the planets).

We have been tracing things back, and are now at DNA, and we will figure out how DNA was assembled too, just takes time. And the answer won't be "Jezus". Wink

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:01 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Titus wrote:

You could make the same case for creationism. Or any belief with a sufficient number of believers.

yeah *beep* them too.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:13 pm Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

Julius wrote:

You seem to claim this is fact. Evidence? proof?

It is a reasonable theory and there is growing evidence for it (that the components of DNA formed in space and seeded the planets).

Growing evidence? Has life or biological matter of any form ever been found outside of our earth and its atmsophere?

origin of life theorists have failed over and over to give any credible explanation to how life formed. Eventually they gave up and transplanted the problem to outer space where anything becomes more easily imaginable. That is a strategy. They did something similar with evolution. Finding that their claimed process of mutations and the probabilities involved to be impossible, they then decided to slap massive time-frames onto it to make it seem more possible. hence the imaginary ages they constantly make up. if you put something beyond human comprehension, then you can make up stuff and nobody can contest it.

Quote:

And the answer won't be "Jezus". Wink

So there we have it. Your initial impulse is atheistic. You have arbitrarily dismissed the possibility of intelligent design at the outset. That is not what science does. It considers and should be open to all possible avenues of enquiry. Then you desperately look for shreds of evidence- clutching at the most ludicrous straws- to try and justify your irrational bias.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

Here's the big picture...

Humans used to make up stories, because they couldn't explain the lights in the sky (stars, comets), fire, death, nighttime, dying, disease, etc.

We now understand the basics of how things work, but the stories from 2000 years ago are still floating around. Probably with time these will slowly die out, but story telling is deep in our blood, and likely there will always be those who prefer these stories. That's fine.

What's wrong with Greek myths or biblical stories? If you read the story of Icarus as a man who has the capability of flying towards the sun, then you're probably a silly modern whose literacy is confined to instruction manuals and and pop-fiction.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:30 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

It is a reasonable theory and there is growing evidence for it (that the components of DNA formed in space and seeded the planets).

Growing evidence? Has life or biological matter of any form ever been found outside of our earth and its atmsophere?

Yes, but a poorly phrased question on your part.

We have traced life back to DNA, which originates around 3.5B years ago on Earth. But where did DNA come from? Julius, YES, we have found the component pieces of DNA outside our Earth in space. Asking if component pieces of DNA are "life" is meaningless and irrelevant. They become life once on Earth.

As I already said...

NASA researchers studying meteorites have found that they contain several of the components needed to make DNA on Earth. The discovery provides support for the idea that the building blocks for DNA were likely created in space, and carried to Earth on objects, like meteorites, that crashed into the planet’s surface. According to the theory, the ready-made DNA parts could have then assembled under Earth’s early conditions to create the first DNA.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:55 pm Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

which originates around 3.5B years ago on Earth.

I assume you mean 3.58 billion years ago?

Quote:

But where did DNA come from? Julius, YES, we have found the component pieces of DNA outside our Earth in space.

Atoms? Wow. That must mean dna formed in space. Because space contains atoms.

Take a step back and consider the logic of your claim. Its like saying 'we found iron ore in rocks... so then we know the eiffel tower must have spontaneously self assembled...Surely if we give it several billion years then it must have happened at some point!'

Quote:

the ready-made DNA parts could have then assembled under Earth’s early conditions to create the first DNA.

Its popular acceptance relies on a positive spin by the lapdog mass media and the fact that most of the human population doesn't have the foggiest about what dna actually is, how it works, neither do they care or are even interested in the truth of the matter. Atheists know all this, which is why they get away with espousing such claptrap.

There is no possible way for dna to spontaneously self-assemble by some unguided process. Neither is there any ground in the first instance to think such a thing could occur. When you see a 737 airbus, do you assume it was deliberately and intelligently created by a guiding intelligence. or do you determindly ignore the obvious and go to great lengths to make up stories about it just randomly blowing together by chance?

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:04 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

You just got kicked out of my virtual office for spouting nonsense buddy. Very Happy

Not atoms, components of DNA...

The researchers, from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, found adenine and guanine — two of the nucleobases needed to make DNA (the other two are thymine and cytosine, which were not found) — on meteorite samples. Additionally, the samples showed the presence of three molecules that are similar to nucleobases, but do not have a biological role on Earth: Purine, 2.6-diaminopurine, and 6.8-diaminopurine. Hypoxanthine and xanthine, compounds used in biological processes, but not DNA, were also found. What is particularly significant about the new research is that the scientists were able to confirm that the biological parts were created in space and carried to Earth.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:07 pm Post subject:

Julius wrote:

There is no possible way for dna to spontaneously self-assemble by some unguided process.

Billions of years of random events, eventually one happens to sticks given the environment. All the other combos didn't stick, but on a different planet with a different environment they probably did.

It's called evolution. LOL.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:38 pm Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

found adenine and guanine — two of the nucleobases needed to make DNA

If i find iron ore and chromium, -two of the ingredients needed to make an aircraft- is it legitimate to claim that a jumbo jet could have spontaneously self-assembled?

You're engaging in magical thinking and ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence against.

Quote:

on a different planet with a different environment they probably did.

more outlandish conjecture. First up dna nor even the basic forms of dna have been observed to self-assemble. Second, no such imaginary planet with condusive conditions has been found. You're engaging in fantasy again. Laughing