|
4 registered members (M_D, AndrewAMD, Quad, Ayumi),
806
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: Alberto]
#78210
08/04/06 19:44
08/04/06 19:44
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
???? if a success ratio is 50% for an average person and 100% for the one who is willing to die for then from the mathematical point 100 average will kill 50 enemies and need 2 runs to kill the other horde, whilte the 10 heros from horde b will kill 10 others and need 10 runs to kill horde a. since 2 is smaller then 10 (as long no creationist phd´ist cant proof its the other way round) the horde a will win the battle. the ratio would need to be 1:5 to put them both equal. and i know only spiderman and superman whoe could manage this. though one evolved thru mutation into a hero and the other one is an alien life form ...think about that  cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: Grimber]
#78211
08/04/06 21:25
08/04/06 21:25
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution.
Nonsense..I have seen this repeated over and over, and it is so obviously wrong I can hardly imagine why anyone can argue such a point.
Love is perhaps the feature in human behavior that is most clearly evolutionarily derived. Obviously, love or close bonding between mates is needed to ensure that children can be raised and cared for. Similar pair bondings are seen in many other mammal and bird species. For the parents to work togetehr to rasi the young a close and trusting bond is essential.
Love between other family members, friends, etc, is also selectively advantageous, as close bonding encourages mutual protection within a population. This ensures not only the survival of young and indviduals, but of the population as a whole. All social animals have such bondings, from penguins to gorillas.
To argue that self-sacrifice is not consistent with evolution is also difficult, because clearly an individual's sacrifice may sometimes enable a larger group to survive.
So we see how these traits are all derived from evolution and selection. However, it is also a mistake to attempt to attribute all human behavior to evolutionarly advantgeous traits. Humans and animals do not always act in their best interests.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: Alberto]
#78213
08/04/06 21:39
08/04/06 21:39
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Selfish entities survive while generous entities die young
Wrong, see my above post.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: Grimber]
#78215
08/05/06 04:41
08/05/06 04:41
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Haha, I mentioned the evidence problem maybe a dozen times and you always ignored it.
Saying "The RATE findings don't work." Isn't very specific. What am I supposed to respond to?
Quote:
I don't care any bandwagon. I care logically to follow evidences like all the others do (and like the majority does). That does not have to do with any fallacy.
Good for you.
Quote:
I understand the problem. When we assume the majority to be silly then this "bandwagon fallacy" could make sense but that does not count for the majority of scientists at my mind.
Its only a fallacy (this applies to your comments JCL) in the context of a debate. Which is what I thought this was....but its apparent by the surgence of posts, all of which contain nothing but fluff, that this has degraded beyond anything useful, if it ever was.
Quote:
And we talk about active scientists that write articles and do researching. This kind of people are not that dumb that you could simply de-qualify them with a few of your thoughts. That would almost be like me saying: "Your god is not prudent and not open-minded since he made such a mess in this world".
Yet you do the same to creationists. When you're pointing your finger at me there are three fingers pointing right back.
Quote:
hope you see this problem. You seem to not understand all facts in this case as I might not understand your god (in the hypothetical case that he might exist).
"Evolution is true because God this and God that." Get a new argument.
Quote:
Just claiming that a follower has a Ph.D won't suffice for defending an otherwise failing theory.
I'm only answering your accusations. You just keep spinning the rules around trying to get me to run circles rather than actually debating. Its quite obvious by the evolutionist's tactics alone that you're wrong. In my experience, the ones who don't use shady tactics in general are usually correct. I'm sure you'll have a response to that, but I don't really care.
Quote:
he only way to defend "accelerated decay" would be to fix its contradictions and logical faults.
Which is why I said they were working on that. I think their goal was to find damaging evidence of a young earth and then continue to do research. That they haven't completed their research yet is simply an obvious fact.
Quote:
and the miracle requirement
Science doesn't concern itself with miracles, so if the earth is young and there's evidence that decay was accelerated then you can come up with whatever natural explanation you want. But that doesn't mean you automatically discard evidence that contradicts naturalism.
Quote:
and general problems like the incompatibility with all astronomical, physical and geological age observations, that seriously defending "accelerated decay" seems impossible to me. If you want to try, just go ahead.
I'll leave it to the professionals.
Quote:
It is amazing, I agree but it is also a prove in favour of evolution
Computer simulations have been made to test group behaviours, if you are a programmer you can try yourself, it is not so difficult.
Lets consider two comunities A and B which must defend themselves against a strong enemy
A) 100 % of the members of the comunity are normal people , neither cowards nor heros
B) 90 % of the members are selfish people but a 10 % are prepared to die for their comunity
Well ,group B have much more chance to survive than group A
The problem with this model is that you would have to evolve the behavior in order to determine whether or not it would evolve.
Quote:
What Evolution can't explain?
Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'.
( just a single example of one not too long ago)
http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.html
If you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god).
Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes.
And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives?
No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity.
Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).
This basically sums up why I feel absolutely no need at all to compromise my beliefs with people like you.
Quote:
Obviously, love or close bonding between mates is needed to ensure that children can be raised and cared for.
Self sacrifice that leads to no reproductive advantage would be the focus, not caring for young.
Quote:
Love between other family members, friends, etc, is also selectively advantageous, as close bonding encourages mutual protection within a population. This ensures not only the survival of young and indviduals, but of the population as a whole. All social animals have such bondings, from penguins to gorillas.
To argue that self-sacrifice is not consistent with evolution is also difficult, because clearly an individual's sacrifice may sometimes enable a larger group to survive.
If an animal lets self-sacrificing animals sacrifice themselves so that it can be selfish, what's to stop it from becoming dominant from the sacrifice of others?
Simply stating that sacrificial social interactions are advantageous doesn't show how they could have evolved.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
#78216
08/05/06 04:44
08/05/06 04:44
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
What Evolution can't explain?
Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'.
( just a single example of one not too long ago)
http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.html
If you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god).
Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes.
And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives?
No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity.
Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).
At least when Christians do these things, the worst you can say is that we're disobeying the absolute truths that should have kept 'christians' from doing these things.
The best that can be said for all of the atheists that have killed billions of people is that they played by your rules.
Its a subtle difference, but an important one.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
#78217
08/05/06 07:37
08/05/06 07:37
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Science doesn't concern itself with miracles, so if the earth is young and there's evidence that decay was accelerated then you can come up with whatever natural explanation you want. But that doesn't mean you automatically discard evidence that contradicts naturalism.
Science per se does not automatically discard miracles. Some novels describe worlds full of witchcraft and miracles, yet science would be possible in those worlds when the miracles follow rules.
However, all empirical observations so far in our world show that miracles don't happen. Therefore, if a theory explains some phenomenon with a miracle, it's considered unscientific.
If we had indeed found evidence for excess helium in zircons, science would come up with other theories than "accelerated decay". Humphreys paper is scientifically worthless, but someone could repeat his measurements, this time with zircons from several sources and taking in regard the 3He/4He ratio and the helium amount and pressure of the environment. If real evidence could be presented, a mechanism had to be found for explaining the helium - but even then it would be a natural mechanism, and not a miracle like "accelerated decay" that contradicts all other observations.
Quote:
At least when Christians do these things, the worst you can say is that we're disobeying the absolute truths that should have kept 'christians' from doing these things.
The best that can be said for all of the atheists that have killed billions of people is that they played by your rules.
Who told you that? There are lots of examples for mass murder in the name of Christianity, but I don't know of a single murder in the name of Atheism.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: Alberto]
#78219
08/05/06 08:04
08/05/06 08:04
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
A.Russell
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
|
Quote:
Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
|
|
|
|
