Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Uri Lee wrote:Eric von Danniken, David Ike and others have been misquoted and labeled as MAD MEN so no one believes them!

Mostly by themselves.

Seriously, these guys usually claim scientific evidence and methods, when they go about the scientific method backwards, use circular reasoning, no experiments, and just generally spout nonsense.

Bran Dawri wrote: use circular reasoning, no experiments, and just generally spout nonsense.

A bit like creation-ism then!?

Uri Lee wrote:No, should I?

(I think you've just proved my point)

The power of irony is strong with this one. I can feel the creases disappearing from my laundry as you type.

Evolution can be taught in schools if you want, but the school should HAVE to have a religious studies course as well. That way, everyones happy. Also, to make people more politically correct, the religious studies course should go over all religions and then make everyone have to take it.

Also, evolution is just a theory. It's just the most popular theory around right now. In a hundred years, it'll probably be replaced.

Religions have been around for thousands of years. They won't ever disappear.

correct, evolution is just a theory, but it IS based on observable evidence

mcfly wrote:

Religions have been around for thousands of years. They won't ever disappear.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering:
Why do YOU think they've been round for thousands of years?
What makes you think they won't ever disappear?

Uri Lee wrote:

mcfly wrote:

Religions have been around for thousands of years. They won't ever disappear.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering:
Why do YOU think they've been round for thousands of years?
What makes you think they won't ever disappear?

Well, whether you're any of the Western worlds "big 3" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) you believe that the Earth was made aboutt 7,000 years ago by God, and eventually you'll get to go to heaven. Judaism was around way back in the BC, and in the last 2000 years its split into 3 parts. Practically every time a group of people in ancient times were a tribe or anything, they created some sort of religion. That has not changed in the last century even. Nowadays, there are people who believe in "science". Diehard evolutionists are following a religion, by the way they treat evolution. But even so, just look at China. Its a atheist country, however, there's Buddhists, and believers in Confucius, and even though the government is trying to stop Christianity, there are still missionaries, converts, and churches. People want to believe in something, some would say they have to. So religion will always be around because people have a need to have somethign to believe in.

I read an intersting article regarding clams in the south pacific.
When some native fishermen hauled in a load of clams, some had a particular pattern on the shell that resembled a face. The fishermen believed these to be the spirits of dead fishermen, so would always throw them back into the ocean. subsequently, the clams with that pattern survived, bred and thrived(due to them not being eaten)better than all their brother and sister clamsTheir genetics being passed on to the next generation, resulting in more calms with the 'face' pattern. Is this evolution, being assisted by a spiritual belief?

Uri Lee wrote:I read an intersting article regarding clams in the south pacific.
When some native fishermen hauled in a load of clams, some had a particular pattern on the shell that resembled a face. The fishermen believed these to be the spirits of dead fishermen, so would always throw them back into the ocean. subsequently, the clams with that pattern survived, bred and thrived(due to them not being eaten)better than all their brother and sister clams. Is this evolution, being assisted by a spiritual belief?

Well, its not evolution because they are not changing, that's just survival of the fittest being assisted by a spiritual belief.
But yeah, that's pretty cool.

mcfly wrote:

Well, its not evolution because they are not changing, that's just survival of the fittest being assisted by a spiritual belief.
But yeah, that's pretty cool.

Then what is evolution, surely it is just survival of the fittest over a very long period of time?

Uri Lee wrote:

mcfly wrote:

Well, its not evolution because they are not changing, that's just survival of the fittest being assisted by a spiritual belief.
But yeah, that's pretty cool.

Then what is evolution, surely it is just survival of the fittest over a very long period of time?

Yeah, but there's no mutations involved, or changing of any kind. It could be said that it is the beginning of an evolution, because one faction of a species has a trait that makes it survive longer than another faction, but when the island tribe finally goes away or new people begin fishing there, the clam will be on the same level as every other clam in polynesia.

The change in this case already happened - a face-like pattern.

mcfly wrote:

Uri Lee wrote:I read an intersting article regarding clams in the south pacific.
When some native fishermen hauled in a load of clams, some had a particular pattern on the shell that resembled a face. The fishermen believed these to be the spirits of dead fishermen, so would always throw them back into the ocean. subsequently, the clams with that pattern survived, bred and thrived(due to them not being eaten)better than all their brother and sister clams. Is this evolution, being assisted by a spiritual belief?

Well, its not evolution because they are not changing, that's just survival of the fittest being assisted by a spiritual belief.
But yeah, that's pretty cool.

Of course it's Evolution. It's the very epitome of it. A chance happening in markings etc, has enabled them to thrive where those without get fished and eaten. Ergo, the DNA pattern which passes along said trait is encouraged, leading to more of them having this life saving pattern.

The exact reason said pattern is an aid to survival is utterly immaterial. It is arguably a form of camoflague, so saying that if someone less bothered by the markings moves in is something of a red herring. Tiger's stripes help them in their enivronment. Plonk them somewhere without grasses etc to blend in with, and they will be less successful.

Yeah, but its just like the whole peppered moth thing, one color beats another color.
Only now its one grey rock with muscle inside is better than another grey rock with muscle inside.
Its just so tiny its useless overall, and it won't change the species because eventually new people will be fishing there that won't care which clam they catch.

If a species suddenly starts sharing a specific type of markings, then that IS a form of evolution. The species has changed, as given time, all the Clams in that area will have that kind of marking.

And you say eventually. Says who? If it's not being ncommercially fished now, there is every chance it will remain that way. A change, however cosmetic, which enables a species or subspecies to thrive is evolution at work. For one reason or another, it is being preyed upon less. This means it can out compete it's cousins, and overtime, become regarded as a seperate subspecies overall.

The markings in question make as much difference as developing spines. The spines would make you harder to eat than something smooth, so unless absolutely desperate, you would typically be passed over in favour of easier prey. You breed more, the others get eaten more, eventually Spines proliferate amongst your offspring, to the point you become a distinct subspecies.

The clam example is just an example of MICROevolution, or interspecies evolution. MICROevolution happens all the time.

No Creationist has a problem with MICROevolution. It's MACROevolution, or the idea that one species becomes another, is the point of contention. For example the belief that whales evolved from cows is an example of MACROevolution.

GG

generalgrog wrote:The clam example is just an example of MICROevolution, or interspecies evolution. MICROevolution happens all the time.

No Creationist has a problem with MICROevolution. It's MACROevolution, or the idea that one species becomes another, is the point of contention. For example the belief that whales evolved from cows is an example of MACROevolution.

GG

wouldn't that have started as MICROevolution, and gone through many stages until the mutants of the original species was unrecognizable? we can only observe things on a micro scale, because of the very large timescales involved.

generalgrog wrote:The clam example is just an example of MICROevolution, or interspecies evolution. MICROevolution happens all the time.

No Creationist has a problem with MICROevolution. It's MACROevolution, or the idea that one species becomes another, is the point of contention. For example the belief that whales evolved from cows is an example of MACROevolution.

GG

You see, I fear from the above quote you're missing a fundamental point of Evolution. Cows did not becomes Whales. Whales did not become Cows. This is clearly nonsense. However, if you look far enough back with the appropriate evidence, you should be able to find a common ancestor. In all likelyhood, neither species will look anything like the 'parent' species, but that is evolution for you. The parent species will have had at least two divergent species shoot off from it, better adapted to certain environments, and it trees off from there.

Microevolution therefore becomes Macroevolution over millions of years. Chance fluctuations in a species enable this. The good changes are retained and thrive, the others die off.

a particular bird of prey preys on tortoises, but it has to fly to a great height and drop them onto rocks in order to break their shell. Perhaps in 10 million years time, if there are any tortoises left, it will be the ones whose legs have mutated into wings so they can glide back to the ground in saftey!!!! lol

Or the Tortoises whose shells can withstand the impact? Both could feasibly happen.

mcfly wrote:Evolution can be taught in schools if you want, but the school should HAVE to have a religious studies course as well. That way, everyones happy. Also, to make people more politically correct, the religious studies course should go over all religions and then make everyone have to take it.

Also, evolution is just a theory. It's just the most popular theory around right now. In a hundred years, it'll probably be replaced.

Religions have been around for thousands of years. They won't ever disappear.

The point of education isn't to make the parents happy, it's to ensure that children get the mental tools they will need to deal with the adult world, like reading, writing and arithmetic.

Religion should be taught as a part of a comparative sociology/anthropology course.

Religion as a faith in its own right is already taught to children by their parents and churches.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The clam example is just an example of MICROevolution, or interspecies evolution. MICROevolution happens all the time.

No Creationist has a problem with MICROevolution. It's MACROevolution, or the idea that one species becomes another, is the point of contention. For example the belief that whales evolved from cows is an example of MACROevolution.

GG

You see, I fear from the above quote you're missing a fundamental point of Evolution. Cows did not becomes Whales. Whales did not become Cows. This is clearly nonsense. However, if you look far enough back with the appropriate evidence, you should be able to find a common ancestor. In all likelyhood, neither species will look anything like the 'parent' species, but that is evolution for you. The parent species will have had at least two divergent species shoot off from it, better adapted to certain environments, and it trees off from there.

Microevolution therefore becomes Macroevolution over millions of years. Chance fluctuations in a species enable this. The good changes are retained and thrive, the others die off.

But even so, there's no proof for evolution or religion, like I said earlier, either way, all you do is believe in something.

And also, whales have a ancestor that become cows. The ocean fish thing crawled onto land and then turned into a reptile which turned into a mammal which split and turned into a whale and another mammal which eventually became a cow.

Kilkrazy wrote:

mcfly wrote:Evolution can be taught in schools if you want, but the school should HAVE to have a religious studies course as well. That way, everyones happy. Also, to make people more politically correct, the religious studies course should go over all religions and then make everyone have to take it.

Also, evolution is just a theory. It's just the most popular theory around right now. In a hundred years, it'll probably be replaced.

Religions have been around for thousands of years. They won't ever disappear.

The point of education isn't to make the parents happy, it's to ensure that children get the mental tools they will need to deal with the adult world, like reading, writing and arithmetic.

Religion should be taught as a part of a comparative sociology/anthropology course.

Religion as a faith in its own right is already taught to children by their parents and churches.

Yeah, I bring that point up kind of as a joke, it would be fair, but there's nothing fair nowadays and I know it would never happen.

I am closing this thread. There has been some flaming already. More importantly, this thread deals directly and potentially attacks some persons religious beliefs, and the Dakka OT is not a convenient forum for such a discussion in light of its fuel air explosive ease of going BOOM. If there is an issue with that, please contact Yakface directly.

I have no dog in this hunt, but its a blowout well waiting to happen.