| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,656 Views) | |
| TexasShadow | May 27 2006, 05:32 PM Post #181 |
![]()
Jane
|
natural laws...sure. just saying they didn't develop spontaneously without design. gravity. point is, it isn't a repulsive. have to go by what we have, not what ifs... tautology... no. the universe is orderly, period. why is another matter. anything useful about it being orderly? yes, it helps us work up theories and test them. the energy goes somewhere... it doesn't cease to exist altogether. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 05:44 PM Post #182 |
![]()
Member
|
Perhaps because evolution *IS* the "only thing that seems to have any merit whatsoever?" We are talking scientific merit as a scientific theory that helps explain life on earth over the past 3.5 billion years. You keep insisting it's not taught as a theory - I beg to differ with you. I've never seen it taught as anything but theory. And again with the viewpoints! Should we creatively consider every viewpoint man has ever come up with? In a science class one would expect science to be taught. If ID wishes to be considered science, it has to play by the same rules... and it don't. Keep asking this of you and Alan, but there's never a response: how would you go about falsifying ID? What evidence would convince you ID were false?
You may be good at pointing out logical fallacy, but this paragraph shows an abysmal scientific illiteracy in evolutionary theory. What you have written is so wrong that attempting to explain why it's wrong would take far more time and effort than I'd consider investing. But, I will guarantee you that the show NEVER said chimps or other existing primates "morphed into humans." That may have been YOUR interpretation of the show based on your apparent lack of the rudiments of high school biology, but the show never said it. Now that I understand the profound depth of your scientific illiteracy, I understand why you believe the things you do about evolution and ID. 'Nuff said. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 05:48 PM Post #183 |
![]()
Member
|
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share an instance when the concept of "orderly" "help[ed] us work up theories and test them?" I can't think of any, but maybe you know of one or two. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 06:00 PM Post #184 |
![]()
Member
|
Just goes to show you how sharp ol' Charles Darwin really was, doesn't it? How sharp was he? Sharp enough to title his work on human evolution as "The DESCENT of Man." In other words, there is no "ascent of man" in any reputable biology textbook. At least not in relation to man's pre-human ancestry. Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" talks about man's intellectual ascent. Do you understand why Darwin didn't use "ascent" in the title of his book? Learn the answer to that question and you'll have a much deeper understanding of what evolution actually says. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 27 2006, 07:08 PM Post #185 |
![]()
Jane
|
ya got me. couldn't remember if it was ascent or descent, so I picked one. lol it doesn't matter which one it is. the pictures/graphs show us coming from apes |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 07:43 PM Post #186 |
![]()
Member
|
"It doesn't matter which one it is..." So, did Jesus start Islam or Christianity? It doesn't matter which one it is since they all get you to heaven, right? The pictures, if they even exist - which they don't in a REPUTABLE textbook - are wrong. They MAY exist in a book designed for elementary school children when the idea of common ancestry may be beyond their young minds, but I've never seen the picture in any reputable source. Evolution has NEVER taught man came from apes. From the very first book on the subject, Darwin's "Descent" to the most modern treatise on evolution - no one has ever said man came from apes. It's too bad your response to my point about ascent vs. descent resulted in nothing more than an "lol." Crying out loud would be more suitable. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 27 2006, 08:37 PM Post #187 |
![]()
Jane
|
what's jesus got to do with this particular issue? how about national geographic? that reputable enough for you. granted it's wrong, but there it is, impressing young impressionable minds. poor teaching? yes. ascent or descent.... the way I see it, I'm a descendent of my ancestors. now, question is, am I superior to them, physically? I dunno. I think we are taller, but mostly, we just have more knowledge. i think that physically, we've lost some things along the way... our "sixth sense" is retarded by our environmental upbringing, etc. spiritually or morally? again, I'm not sure. sometimes it looks to me like we haven't changed a bit from our "savage" ancestors. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 09:48 PM Post #188 |
![]()
Member
|
How about the National Geographic... what? I seriously doubt they showed man evolving from the apes, but if they did - how about a link showing it or some citation? Jesus was just thrown in to show the devil *IS* in the details and mixing up ascent and descent in terms of human evolution is as major a blunder as claiming Jesus founded Islam. And what's "superior" have to do with anything? Evolution makes no claims about what might be superior. The only thing that counts is reproduction. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 27 2006, 10:38 PM Post #189 |
![]()
Jane
|
re nat'l geographic.... sorry, I'd have to go dig it out of a big pile...not interested enough to do that. re ascent/descent. well, I don't see it, myself. i personally think we are ascending... evolving to a higher, or another level of life we regard as higher... following jesus, i guess some would put it. descent implies "going down" or backward to a more primitive level of life.... like the amoeba. evolution implies superiority in that it notes that adapability seems to be very important to the survival of a species, so the more adapable, the better chances for survival. of course, the cockroach will probably outlast us all. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 07:18 AM Post #190 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Eric "Does saying it's orderly teach us anything useful about the universe?" It's what allows science to do science, from formulating hypotheses, to making predictions, and conducting experiments, and discovering laws. It allows man to create order, be it manufacturing products, performing a service, honoring a contract, legislate laws, frame constitutions. I agree with your criticism it, "order", is perhaps too general as a concept to be useful in itself. But, to me, it is important to see that there is order and that the order we see is natural, and as such, may well be no more purposeful than, it is. Not sure it is a tautology, at least not religiously so, but it is a generalization. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 07:55 AM Post #191 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Catching up... No biology textbooks I have seen claim evolution as anything but theory. Confusion arises from the difference between scientific theory and religious theory. The only people I have ever heard claim man is descended, or ascended, from apes are creationists. It found its way into law in the Butler Act of 1925 in Tennessee:
This led, as we all know, to the Scopes Trial. Funny just how far a straw man like that can go, and continue to be argued to this day. The scientific interpretation of evolution does not include the notion of superiority that the more liberal religious interpretation does. Evoulution leads to adaptability, at least in the short run, but not always survivability in the long run. Dinosaurs being a well known example. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 28 2006, 08:35 AM Post #192 |
![]()
Member
|
I have been reading the National Geographic since getting my first subscription as a birthday present from my grandparents at in 1954 and have never seen it say anything like what you say. Again, you (like Teryt) may be misinterpreting what the articles ARE saying, but that's not the fault of the magazine. Look at all the wonderful articles by the Leakey's of their research and amazing discoveries at Olduvai - but not once will you see anything about man ascending or descending from the apes. Communications is a 2 way street - that which the author puts to paper and the understanding the reader takes from the author's words. It's interesting that you and teryt believe evolution says one thing, but are unable to produce any evidence (yeah, too much work and not enough interest) to show evolution actually says these things while the supporters of evolution say they've never seen these same things. Perhaps the problem is on the receiving side of the communications. You are not reading what the National Geographic is saying, but interpreting it, in light of your own internal filters, to say something completely different? And no, evolution does not "imply superiority." Never has, never will. That relates back to the ascent vs. descent usage we briefly touched upon where your contribution and understanding was "lol." |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 28 2006, 08:47 AM Post #193 |
![]()
Member
|
Can you imagine a universe in which all the laws we know are turned topsy-turvy? But imagine life - some absolutely unimaginable life - evolved within that universe. Would those beings consider their universe to be an orderly place? Would the weak anthropic principle be equally valid in that most-unordery place? Order implies the opposite of chaos; has the universe ever been in a state of chaos? For order to have meaning in the context of this discussion, it seems to me that the universe would have had to be in a state of chaos at some time in its past for order to emerge. I'm not aware of any time when the universe was in chaos. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 09:16 AM Post #194 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I've read some on possible universes, and think different laws are possible, theoretically. I think black holes undo some natural laws. I'm not sure if the beginnings of the universe where chaotic, but by the second law of thermodynamics it is how it will end. My understanding of these things is limited. I think I see what you're getting at. Is what seems chaotic so because we don't see its order? The weather seems chaotic. Society seems chaotic. But these examples lie outside the current context. If we stick to nature's laws, they simply exist, and nothing should lie outside them. Obviously I'm struggling with this at that level. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 28 2006, 09:42 AM Post #195 |
![]()
Member
|
Chaos, to me, would mean the complete absence of any natural laws. The universe, from the moment of it's bursting into existence, has always been subject to natural law. No, they may not have been the laws we now see - Inflation is a good example of that - but laws nonetheless. Because there have always been laws that constrained how matter and energy acted, does orderly convey any real meaning? Without a chaos against which to measure, how can we say there is order? Order, in the context you and Shadow are using it, appears to be more perceptual than conceptual. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |










1:28 PM Jul 11