|
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 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Justin this is where you made a mistake |
 |
|
| Junior wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| Obviously, not ever species will evolve exactly the same. |
But there is nothing to say any of them evolved at all.
Sorry to embarrass anyone...but umm...how can I put it? nothing has changed, since time immemorial. It may have become smaller yet remain anatomically identical (as is the case with many insects), or there may be localised manifestations of inbreeding which express a portion of the diversity inherent within a species (...eg some folks got blue eyes)...but evolution into anatomiically new and novel forms? hahaha...not at all. |
But they have. As demonstrated at Dover. Maybe one of your page authors (not the fishing lure guy) should have taken the stand then and shown exactly where paleontology went wrong in its evidence.
Regarding the lack of change in some fossils:
Let's examine Gould's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas on this point:
| Quote: |
548
THE COURT: Did you say equilibrium?
GOULD: Equilibrium. I did leave out a point there. That most species, successful species living in large populations, do not change. In fact, are fairly stable in the fossil record and live for a long time. The average duration of marine invertebrate species was five to ten million years. During that time they may fluctuate mildly in morphology, but most of them � I don't say there aren't exceptions � most of them don't change very much. That's what we would expect for large, successful, well-adapted populations.
And that's the equilibrium part. By punctuation, we refer to those events of speciation where descendent species rather rapidly in geological perspectives split off from their ancestors. And that's the second point. |
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_gould.html
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by pointing out a fact of evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Junior, this is exactly where you're wrong. Scientists don't have to be atheists. The majority of them are not atheists. The majority of evolutionary biologists are not atheists. Science is not about what God you do or don't believe in. It's about theory and evidence.
You are drawing a false dichotomy based on how you see the world, and you don't understand that it's not how other people see it. |
I fail to see how a christian can endorse the idea that mankind evolved from apes when scripture states people were made in the image of God.
i also fail to see how they can encourage a theory that has removed the possibility of a God in the minds of millions, or views everything as a chance spontaneous aggregation of matter, as opposed to an act of creation and design by the almighty.
There is limited scope for christians to agree that creatures have devolved genetically and changed a little within their natural variation limits...but agreeing that all life was fathered by a microbe over billenia is not what christianity is about.
if there are christian evolutionists, then they have completely compromised their faith and the authority of the biblical record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
I fail to see how a christian can endorse the idea that mankind evolved from apes when scripture states people were made in the image of God. |
As has been explained to you many times, one does not have to read everything in the bible as a literal description of reality. Further one can believe in god and not be a christian, just as Rteacher can believe in a pagan god and not believe in evolution.
| Quote: |
| i also fail to see how they can encourage a theory that has removed the possibility of a God in the minds of millions, or views everything as a chance spontaneous aggregation of matter, as opposed to an act of creation and design by the almighty. |
You fail to see a lot. That's why you're a young earth creationist.
| Quote: |
| i[f there are christian evolutionists, then they have completely compromised their faith and the authority of the biblical record. |
And they believe you have misread the bible and compromised your faith. Oh well.
So what do you suppose their fate is for believing in god and evolution? Hell fire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| if there are christian evolutionists, then they have completely compromised their faith and the authority of the biblical record. |
Oh, so you're a greater authority on Scripture than the Pope, now?
I'm not a Christian, but even I can see that large parts of the Bible were intended as metaphor. This is how the vast majority of Christians around the world, including most priests and theologians, interpret Genesis. They are not lesser Christians than you are. If you really believe that, you might want to read what the Bible has to say about the sin of pride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Justin this is where you made a mistake |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by pointing out a fact of evolution. |
So..a side-fact of evolutionary theory is...that nothing evolved? wow.
I thought you said everything evolved from an original single microbe/cell/amino acid?
that must mean everything evolved, right?
Or are you just saying it all stopped evolving before the fossil record began 3.5 billion years ago?
Last edited by Junior on Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| I'm responding on the original thread. |
But people had gotten tired of that thread and stopped contributing. It was down to about 3 diehards. This thread has some new faces at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
You'll be very very missed, bye.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| But it does point to a big chunk of Christians who believe in evolution. |
No it confirms that intelligent people form a minority of any given population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| But it does point to a big chunk of Christians who believe in evolution. |
No it confirms that intelligent people form a minority of any given population. |
Umm. I have pointed out the correlation between intelligence and a general lack of God beliefs right? There have been studies. It seems that you are defining intelligence by a belief in Creationism. That would seem to be a faulty yardstick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| That would seem to be a faulty yardstick. |
He's been using the same faulty yard stick for years, and he'll be damned if he's going get a new one when the old one is working so well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Justin this is where you made a mistake |
|
|
replies added to the existing evolution thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Why feel so threatened and the need to belittle the beliefs of others? Whhy not just let people believe what they want to? Why try and force those who differ, using a panoply of schoolyard tactics to think as you tell them to? Why does it matter to you? usually such defensiveness coupled with such aggressive bully-tactics is a clear sign of insecurity. You are reacting like a typical liar when cornered. |
Threatened? Yes, profoundly. The question is�.why? Because it's a formidable obstacle to scientific consensus? No. I�ll tell ya. I dislike what is manifestly inferior. I seek to sterilize feces that taints our species. Every person in the world must believe in accordance with what is decent, rational, natural, sane and demonstrably true. If they don't, what of the punishment? Hmm, how about eternal TEFL / $24,000pa damnation in a country which they despise? That's what I call Hell.
| Junior wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| I will not give the time of day to anything put forth by a TEFL teacher |
Then why should i do the same for you?
It does not take a PhD or even a bachelors degree to be able to see with your own 2 eyes that nothing has changed. This is the trade secret of evolutionism- that it never actually happened.
Salamander, N.China, 150 M years ago. vertually identical salamanders were found still living in the same area of fossil collection.
"Immediately apparent is the fact that salamanders at that time�the Jurassic period�differed very little from their modern equivalents."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/03/0328_salamander.html
�The new cryptobranchid shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives,� noted the study authors. �Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for more than 160 million years.�
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030403/salamanders.shtml
Now its amusing to keep seeing the evolutionists confronted with unchanged organisms and how they embroider their patter around it to try and cling onto the most tenuous suggestions of evolution. or casually push back the dates by even more multimillions of years (breaking all their own 'rules" of dating rocks in the process). They talk of living fossils as if they were a surprise, a "rarity" while at the same time not being able to find anything that actually has changed  . Its just stupid. Hilarious, in fact. |
So, essentially, you�d like me to believe an unemployable TEFL teacher and not an overwhelming scientific consensus. Your position takes place in an intellectual vacuum and requires me to suspend absolutely everything else we know about reality. No thanks. I'm sticking with the consensus and you should stick to the area of your expertise, if there is one - your beloved book of hate perhaps?
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Of course, a world with T-rex and Spinosaurus is wholly compatible with human flourishing. |
Dinosaurs is a loose term referring to a whole range of creatures that massively differed in size. If you've been watching too many Fred flintstone cartoons I can't help you, but its entirely possible for large and even aggressive land animals to live closely alongside man. Ever seen fishing canoes casually plying their way through rivers of 18 feet crococodiles? or people checking their crops while a herd of Elephant, each weighing up to 6 tons grazes nearby?
I'm sorry to disturb your playpen fantasies, but only a tiny fraction of dinosaurs were at all possibly of the bloodthirtsy "lets kill people" type- and even then, humans with their superior brain size, organisation and intelligence were easilly a match for them.
Yes, a few of the larger forms probably clung to an existence in remote areas away from people or human-altered landscapes- in much the same way threatened species do today in the himalayas or the depths of amazonia. Occasionally encountered and then existing in folklore which describes them with striking similarity in cultures worldwide. |
Whether it�s possible for Spinosaurus and T-Rex to live alongside humans is of no interest whatsoever to me. Spinosaurus, which killed anything that moved, was an African dinosaur (click here to see where Africa was in Spinosaurus' time). Humans come from Africa. I think these creatures might've posed a teeny weeny bit of a problem for our - and I laugh as I type - human ancestors' civilizations that lived alongside the dinosaurs. And how exactly did primitive man do battle with Spinosaurus - with their "big brains"? What tools did these folks have that could kill Spinosaurus? How did humans totally avoid this predator? The fact is, the notion that they did so is conspicuous by its absence from the consensus view (that man and chimpanzee diverged from their common primate approx 6 million years ago and the time separating those creatures and dinosaurs� sudden extinction � by one (or a combination of) an asteroid apocalypse and/or intense volcanism � is 60 million years approx).
This consensus in science will not be overthrown by a religious McJobber earning his pittance in Korea for the �skill� of teaching 10 year old Koreans his native language in his native language.
| Junior wrote: |
| You mean all the christian charities that build hospitals and scools and donate food the world over? Or sponsor research to defeat disease? silly me I forgot. |
These people are motivated by our innate moral and rational sense that owes its existence to naturally selected phenomena in our evolution. They are not doing so to suck up to your beloved celestial barbarian. How profoundly insulting it would be to say to these people "you�re only doing that for a divine reward! You�re scared of going to Hell! If God was declared dead, the first thing you�d do is rape, kill and rob!". That�s what Junior would do, eh, you sicko psychokiller?
| Junior wrote: |
| But don't go anywhere. I'm enjoying this too much |
You like getting your ass spectacularly pummeled, do you? No doubt this sadomasochistic impulse comes from your biblical influence and its sadistic barbarism.
Hey buddy, there�s a thread entitled �HAHA! I won the 394-page evolution thread� in the OT forum. That�s precisely what I did. Dinosaurs and their demonstrable evolution from primitive bipedal archosaurs destroys Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Craploads of coal on Antarctica destroys them. The observed universe being 93,000 million light years across destroys them.
Me a ridiculous simpleton? I send home more, on the 26th of every month, than you do in three months. How�s that? I am transcendent �bermensch and to be �bermensch is to say "I'm in control, I make the rules, and I don't need your okay, mein Fuhrer" and renounce religion and to say this life is my only chance.
| Junior wrote: |
What then are crocodiles? Their fossils stretch back to the time of the dinosaurs and beyond. Because it still exists, does that make it not a dinosaur?
Alligators live in peoples swimming pools in Florida.Would you call that co-existence? Bear also in mind the majority of dinosaurs were that size and smaller. Granted some huge ones existed and are dramatised in the media, but they were few. |
Crocs and alligators are archosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs 230 million years ago. From the fact that there are modern-day archosaurs, you and your religious loons believe it follows humans lived alongside the dinosaurs. It's the kind of thing one would expect to come from an 11 year old, but I don't expect great intellectual insight and profundity from an unemployable TEFL layabout.
| Junior wrote: |
| We've been through this and there is plenty. They didn't have cameras a thousand years ago,sorry. But what we do see is a rich folklore common to cultures worldwide, written accounts: artworks, often closely and explicitly describing what we now label dinosaurs. Back then, dragon was the common term. There is overwhelming evidence...just read the evolution thread. Not to mention they have found preserved dinosaurs with soft tissue, blood cells. Do blood cells last 65 million years???? |
Call me terribly old-fashioned, but I'll take scientific evidence, based as it is on mathematical equations which are objective, over primitive, subjective at best, probably delusional folklore and art.
| Junior wrote: |
But there is nothing to say any of them evolved at all.
Sorry to embarrass anyone...but umm...how can I put it? nothing has changed, since time immemorial. It may have become smaller yet remain anatomically identical (as is the case with many insects), or there may be localised manifestations of inbreeding which express a portion of the diversity inherent within a species (...eg some folks got blue eyes)...but evolution into anatomiically new and novel forms? hahaha...not at all.
|
Again, you're asking us to suspend belief in what science says is overwhelming scientific evidence and believe a TEFL teacher. The blue eyes comment means you don't even read newspapers, let alone science papers.
| Junior wrote: |
I believe he allowed species an inherent genetic range, a toolbox if you will, to bring forth as and when needed in a fallen world of change. Thus a finch may indeed grow a slightly longer beak over a few generations to exploit a new food source. But this is simply utilising genetic information already present. Its an example of an organisms self-regulation- not by chance but exactly as and when required.
From the original created forms, their descendants "devolved' to a slight extent by losing and stripping away excess genetic information not required in their new isolated environments. They didn't acquire new arms, wings and fins. they lost former information due to eg DNA damage, faults in replication in a now fallen and imperfect world. But thats not what the theory of evolution claims, neither can they show any process by which species radically acquire new information and morph into ever more complex organisms. Instead, they diverged by becoming simplified. |
Any particular reason the overwhelming majority of qualified biologists and geologists don't endorse this particular view endorsed by this particular unemployable TEFLer? |
|
| 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
