|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08peJK0m510 |
Jeebus speaks! He sounds just like an American 20-something, maybe Canadian. Who knew?
Creepy video.
Well that settles everything. End of thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Are there any facts that could be presented to change your mind? |
How about actual evidence for evolution?
e.g. if the fossil record was jammed full of clearly intermediate forms gradually regressing back to far simpler organisms the further down you go.
If evolution- the massive, widespread, mass-morphological change of all living things from an ancestral proto-cell was true then the fossil record would clearly reflect it. No such transformation is indicated. Instead we have huge numbers of 'living fossils'- creatures identical to how they are today, or we have -entirely different- extinct creatures.
According to evolutionists fossils have been gradually deposited over the aeons, buried by uncountable different events and sediment depositions. So gradual change should be very detectable. Its not.
Also, the mechanism for such a huge change should have been discovered already. The proposed idea of mutation just doesn't cut it.
Would you like a mutation sir?
"No" is probably your instinctive answer. Because mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, damaging genetic flaws that result in disability and death to the organism. Even the (tiny minority) of mutations that are benign or produce localised advantage- don't add function or information, they remove it. They never produce whole complex functioning novel features and structures that lead an organism on to bigger and better things. Mutation cannot possibly be the process by which an initial molecule morphed into a blue whale.
Its time to drop it. Its very clearly, a failed theory. Instead, its propagandists have gone into overdrive as they desperately try to maintain the lie with mass media brainwashing. Evolution is now thrown at you on a daily basis, injected into just about every aspect of popular culture. From movies to music to tv dramas. And all without a shred of evidence. Secular humanists control the media and rule what you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So that is a yes? There are facts that could be presented to change your mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| metalhead wrote: |
This makes the most sense to me - seeing as how the world is pretty crappy, I guess we all came out of God's/Krishna's/Allah's ass then. This is the intellectually sound position. |
Actually, that's pretty close ... http://vedabase.net/sb/2/6/9/en1
Another part of the Big Picture is that the entire material creation serves as a prison house for the spiritual world, and we all have to suffer life/death sentences in various species throughout the evolutionary cycle until our consciousness becomes transcendental to matter (including fossils and bones of dead bodies ...) Here's another way of expressing it: http://vicd108.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/how-the-universe-became-the-universe-vedic-proto-evolution/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope this evolution v creationism (plus whatever Rteacher believes) thread isn't deleted. We're all adults, no reason to prevent endless debate, even if rude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| I hope this evolution v creationism (plus whatever Rteacher believes) thread isn't deleted. We're all adults, no reason to prevent endless debate, even if rude. |
Hallelujah!
http://www.singsnap.com/karaoke/r/c6bcb71e3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting discovery.
| Quote: |
French archeologists say they're learning more about the behaviour of an extinct relative to humans after discovering pre-Neanderthal bones in northern France.
The remains, consisting of three arm bones — a humerus, ulna and radius — date from around 200,000 years ago and were found near the River Seine in Normandy region during a dig in 2010.
Scientists are only now reporting a complete scientific analysis of the remains. Bruno Maureille, a paleontologist at the National Centre for Scientific Research, described them as "the only known example [of Neanderthal lineage] from northern Europe.”
The bones are of particular scientific interest as they hint at the behaviour of those in the Neanderthal lineage. Ridges on the humerus indicate the individual repeatedly threw objects with the left arm, possibly while hunting prey.
"An abnormal crest on the left humerus represents a deltoid muscle enthesis (connective tissue between tendon or ligament and bone), the archeologists wrote in the U.S. scientific journal PLOS ONE.
"Micro- and or macro-traumas connected to repetitive movements similar to those documented for professional throwing athletes could be the origin of the abnormality," they said.
Given their dimensions, these bones most likely belonged to an adult or an older adolescent, the archeologists said.
The specimen was found buried alongside the skeletons of a number of different animals from the period, including rhinoceros, bears, panthers and several species of wolf.
The site at Tourville-la-Rivière, 14 kilometres south of Rouen, was also identified as an ancient settlement from around 200,000 years ago, with the dig site containing 300 objects, including a number of flint knives.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ridges on the humerus indicate the individual repeatedly threw objects with the left arm, possibly while hunting prey.
"Micro- and or macro-traumas connected to repetitive movements similar to those documented for professional throwing athletes could be the origin of the abnormality," they said. |
Makes sense. Their ancestor Homo heidelbergensis was found in Northern Europe with spears dating to 300K YA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schöningen_Spears |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, so evolution exists...
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.
“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.
“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”
Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.
“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.
“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/pope-says-evolution-and-creation-both-right |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alljokingaside
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
Would you like a mutation sir?
"No" is probably your instinctive answer. Because mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, damaging genetic flaws that result in disability and death to the organism. Even the (tiny minority) of mutations that are benign or produce localised advantage- don't add function or information, they remove it. They never produce whole complex functioning novel features and structures that lead an organism on to bigger and better things. Mutation cannot possibly be the process by which an initial molecule morphed into a blue whale.
|
mmm, false. Easy example- bacteria. From what I remember, bacteria have a high mutation rate which confer onto it benefits like resistance to drugs. (the poor, sober things) Since bacteria are simple organisms, mutations are less likely to disrupt the cascade of events that allow it to go on living. In higher lifeforms, a mutation has a higher chance to disrupt life function since we are wayyyy more complicated machines w/ not only multiple cells, but multiple cells cordoned off into specific expressions, each expression a part working together like the parts of a super-complicated machine, we are, to maintain harmony, thus life. The probability of bad mutations isn't proof (or indicative at all) that mutation in of itself if bad. And given the timeline for evolution, the transition from one species to a higher one w/o intervening environmental factors (eg a race of ligers killing all chameleons who can't blend in) would be slow and gradual.
Eg Sickle cell anemia. While full blown sickle cell is obviously bad, being a carrier for genetic expression is advantageous, esp. if you reside in malaria-prone regions. Another ex. is the tetrachromatism- a mutation that confers four cones and a greater range of observable color than normals (we have 3 cones). But, since there's no obvious advantage to having four cones vs three in the context of modern society, possibly slightly disadvantageous since it's probably more jarring and confusing to tetrachromats during school and when communicating with others, it probably won't be the next step in our genetic evolution, tho who knows. Anyways, the point is:
all mutations=/=bad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wu Xinzhi, a professor with the institute, said he believes the discovery presents evidence to challenge the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. He says that if the "Out of Africa" theory is true, then in China, they should not be able to find a mandible (jaw) of a fossil with modern features older than 60,000 years. "But this Guangxi mandible is 110,000 years old. This means that this ‘Out of Africa’ theory is not true, at least not for China."
The theories contrary to "Out of Africa" are all crazy though.
For example, the Chinese had a stupid theory that they (Chinese) "independently evolved" from Homo Erectus. They actually taught this is schools. And they cooked up some ancient sapien skeletons found in China to "prove it". But when Westerners went to check out the skulls they were clearly homo erectus.
Basically Chinese just didn't want to accept they were from Africa, and changed the evidence to fit their beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Wu Xinzhi, a professor with the institute, said he believes the discovery presents evidence to challenge the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. He says that if the "Out of Africa" theory is true, then in China, they should not be able to find a mandible (jaw) of a fossil with modern features older than 60,000 years. "But this Guangxi mandible is 110,000 years old. This means that this ‘Out of Africa’ theory is not true, at least not for China."
The theories contrary to "Out of Africa" are all crazy though.
For example, the Chinese had a stupid theory that they (Chinese) "independently evolved" from Homo Erectus. They actually taught this is schools. And they cooked up some ancient sapien skeletons found in China to "prove it". But when Westerners went to check out the skulls they were clearly homo erectus.
Basically Chinese just didn't want to accept they were from Africa, and changed the evidence to fit their beliefs. |
White nationalists reject the 'Out of Africa' theory as well because they loathe the idea that they are closely related to Africans.
Genetics has proved otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
