|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:34 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 There are some flaws in the video: 1. They didn't give you "All the facts" straight out. 2. They didn't give you an "unbiased" "opinion". 3. They completely bashed evolution and acted all high and mighty. She was right about one thing though: You can't prove evolution. You can give theories about it; you can run tests and all of that stuff, but you can't prove it. Also, why doesn't evolution happen today? Why did we suddenly just "stop" evolving? Even some evolution must have happened within the time between the 1400's and the 2000's. Only micro-evolution happened - we got more intelligent. I think whether we got "more intelligent" (Whatever THAT means... rolleyes ) or not is very debatable. I meant we acquired more intelligence within six hundred years. Did they know how to make cars back then? Did they know as much about mathematics back then as we do now? That's what I'm talking about. Micro-evolution. No, it's not. There's nothing biological about the invention of cars and mathematics. That's human discovery, not human evolution. Quote: Lethkar If you can't prove evolution through tests, then I suppose you can't prove gravity by dropping a ball? "Prove" is such a messy word... It has to do with time. We can prove gravity because it only takes a few seconds to drop something and watch it fall. It supposedly takes millions of years to measure evolution. It's practically impossible to measure something over millions of years. And by then we would be dead, so it wouldn't matter to us. Evolution can be tested in a relatively short amount of time using types of bacteria that have extremely short lifespans. Quote: Lethkar Well, the argument could be made that because we have invented things like wheelchairs that people born with "weak" genes will get a chance to pass on their genes nonetheless. "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Yes, but it does apply to animals. That's the flaw in that argument. Who ever said anything about evolution not applying to other animals besides humans? Ever heard of London's Peppered Moths?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:04 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 There are some flaws in the video: 1. They didn't give you "All the facts" straight out. 2. They didn't give you an "unbiased" "opinion". 3. They completely bashed evolution and acted all high and mighty. She was right about one thing though: You can't prove evolution. You can give theories about it; you can run tests and all of that stuff, but you can't prove it. Also, why doesn't evolution happen today? Why did we suddenly just "stop" evolving? Even some evolution must have happened within the time between the 1400's and the 2000's. Only micro-evolution happened - we got more intelligent. I think whether we got "more intelligent" (Whatever THAT means... rolleyes ) or not is very debatable. I meant we acquired more intelligence within six hundred years. Did they know how to make cars back then? Did they know as much about mathematics back then as we do now? That's what I'm talking about. Micro-evolution. No, it's not. There's nothing biological about the invention of cars and mathematics. That's human discovery, not human evolution. Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. Quote: Lethkar If you can't prove evolution through tests, then I suppose you can't prove gravity by dropping a ball? "Prove" is such a messy word... It has to do with time. We can prove gravity because it only takes a few seconds to drop something and watch it fall. It supposedly takes millions of years to measure evolution. It's practically impossible to measure something over millions of years. And by then we would be dead, so it wouldn't matter to us. Quote: Evolution can be tested in a relatively short amount of time using types of bacteria that have extremely short lifespans. Evolution of bacteria that are alive now. Not the supposed evolution of the at the beginning of timebacteria (or whatever they were) that into us. Quote: Lethkar Well, the argument could be made that because we have invented things like wheelchairs that people born with "weak" genes will get a chance to pass on their genes nonetheless. "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Yes, but it does apply to animals. That's the flaw in that argument. Quote: Who ever said anything about evolution not applying to other animals besides humans? Ever heard of London's Peppered Moths? I'm all confused now. What were you making the argument against?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:49 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 There are some flaws in the video: 1. They didn't give you "All the facts" straight out. 2. They didn't give you an "unbiased" "opinion". 3. They completely bashed evolution and acted all high and mighty. She was right about one thing though: You can't prove evolution. You can give theories about it; you can run tests and all of that stuff, but you can't prove it. Also, why doesn't evolution happen today? Why did we suddenly just "stop" evolving? Even some evolution must have happened within the time between the 1400's and the 2000's. Only micro-evolution happened - we got more intelligent. I think whether we got "more intelligent" (Whatever THAT means... rolleyes ) or not is very debatable. I meant we acquired more intelligence within six hundred years. Did they know how to make cars back then? Did they know as much about mathematics back then as we do now? That's what I'm talking about. Micro-evolution. No, it's not. There's nothing biological about the invention of cars and mathematics. That's human discovery, not human evolution. Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. And you think we acquired that intelligence within the past few hundred years? You think people have become more intelligent within the post few hundred years? You don't think it has anything to do with people of similar intelligences building on previous discoveries by people of similar intelligences? Quote: Quote: Lethkar If you can't prove evolution through tests, then I suppose you can't prove gravity by dropping a ball? "Prove" is such a messy word... It has to do with time. We can prove gravity because it only takes a few seconds to drop something and watch it fall. It supposedly takes millions of years to measure evolution. It's practically impossible to measure something over millions of years. And by then we would be dead, so it wouldn't matter to us. Quote: Evolution can be tested in a relatively short amount of time using types of bacteria that have extremely short lifespans. Evolution of bacteria that are alive now. Not the supposed evolution of the at the beginning of timebacteria (or whatever they were) that into us. What exactly do you mean? Quote: Quote: Lethkar Well, the argument could be made that because we have invented things like wheelchairs that people born with "weak" genes will get a chance to pass on their genes nonetheless. "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Yes, but it does apply to animals. That's the flaw in that argument. Quote: Who ever said anything about evolution not applying to other animals besides humans? Ever heard of London's Peppered Moths? I'm all confused now. What were you making the argument against? You said that the flaw in my argument, "'Survival of the the fittest' hardly applies to humans anymore", was the fact that "Survival of the fittest" applies to animals. I merely questioned how on earth animals' application made my argument, which was purely about humans, flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:49 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 There are some flaws in the video: 1. They didn't give you "All the facts" straight out. 2. They didn't give you an "unbiased" "opinion". 3. They completely bashed evolution and acted all high and mighty. She was right about one thing though: You can't prove evolution. You can give theories about it; you can run tests and all of that stuff, but you can't prove it. Also, why doesn't evolution happen today? Why did we suddenly just "stop" evolving? Even some evolution must have happened within the time between the 1400's and the 2000's. Only micro-evolution happened - we got more intelligent. I think whether we got "more intelligent" (Whatever THAT means... rolleyes ) or not is very debatable. I meant we acquired more intelligence within six hundred years. Did they know how to make cars back then? Did they know as much about mathematics back then as we do now? That's what I'm talking about. Micro-evolution. No, it's not. There's nothing biological about the invention of cars and mathematics. That's human discovery, not human evolution. Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. And you think we acquired that intelligence within the past few hundred years? You think people have become more intelligent within the post few hundred years? You don't think it has anything to do with people of similar intelligences building on previous discoveries by people of similar intelligences? Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Quote: Quote: Quote: Lethkar If you can't prove evolution through tests, then I suppose you can't prove gravity by dropping a ball? "Prove" is such a messy word... It has to do with time. We can prove gravity because it only takes a few seconds to drop something and watch it fall. It supposedly takes millions of years to measure evolution. It's practically impossible to measure something over millions of years. And by then we would be dead, so it wouldn't matter to us. Quote: Evolution can be tested in a relatively short amount of time using types of bacteria that have extremely short lifespans. Evolution of bacteria that are alive now. Not the supposed evolution of the at the beginning of timebacteria (or whatever they were) that into us. What exactly do you mean? I mean that you can test. . . wait, what do I mean? sweatdrop ummmmmm. . . Wait!!!! You can't prove the evolution millions (or billions) of years ago!!!! Quote: Quote: Lethkar Well, the argument could be made that because we have invented things like wheelchairs that people born with "weak" genes will get a chance to pass on their genes nonetheless. "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Yes, but it does apply to animals. That's the flaw in that argument. Quote: Who ever said anything about evolution not applying to other animals besides humans? Ever heard of London's Peppered Moths? I'm all confused now. What were you making the argument against? You said that the flaw in my argument, "'Survival of the the fittest' hardly applies to humans anymore", was the fact that "Survival of the fittest" applies to animals. I merely questioned how on earth animals' application made my argument, which was purely about humans, flawed. Yes, but what was your "Survival of the fittest hardly applies to humans anymore" argument to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:40 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I meant we acquired more intelligence within six hundred years. Did they know how to make cars back then? Did they know as much about mathematics back then as we do now? That's what I'm talking about. Micro-evolution. No, it's not. There's nothing biological about the invention of cars and mathematics. That's human discovery, not human evolution. Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. And you think we acquired that intelligence within the past few hundred years? You think people have become more intelligent within the post few hundred years? You don't think it has anything to do with people of similar intelligences building on previous discoveries by people of similar intelligences? Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Whoever said I was trying to "prove" evolution with that argument? I'm here to give you my perception of the truth, not to "help my evolution argument". That argument was to explain to you that hardly any evolution has ocurred in 600 years. Practically none, in fact. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Lethkar If you can't prove evolution through tests, then I suppose you can't prove gravity by dropping a ball? "Prove" is such a messy word... It has to do with time. We can prove gravity because it only takes a few seconds to drop something and watch it fall. It supposedly takes millions of years to measure evolution. It's practically impossible to measure something over millions of years. And by then we would be dead, so it wouldn't matter to us. Quote: Evolution can be tested in a relatively short amount of time using types of bacteria that have extremely short lifespans. Evolution of bacteria that are alive now. Not the supposed evolution of the at the beginning of timebacteria (or whatever they were) that into us. What exactly do you mean? I mean that you can test. . . wait, what do I mean? sweatdrop ummmmmm. . . Wait!!!! You can't prove the evolution millions (or billions) of years ago!!!! That's what fossil records do. And don't tell me that there are none. I've already effectively destroyed that argument twice. That's just a strange, yet common misconception you seem to find only in the U.S.. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Lethkar Well, the argument could be made that because we have invented things like wheelchairs that people born with "weak" genes will get a chance to pass on their genes nonetheless. "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Yes, but it does apply to animals. That's the flaw in that argument. Quote: Who ever said anything about evolution not applying to other animals besides humans? Ever heard of London's Peppered Moths? I'm all confused now. What were you making the argument against? You said that the flaw in my argument, "'Survival of the the fittest' hardly applies to humans anymore", was the fact that "Survival of the fittest" applies to animals. I merely questioned how on earth animals' application made my argument, which was purely about humans, flawed. Yes, but what was your "Survival of the fittest hardly applies to humans anymore" argument to? I was explaining to you why we seem to have "stopped evolving". My two reasons were lack of time to do so and the fact that "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:22 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I meant we acquired more intelligence within six hundred years. Did they know how to make cars back then? Did they know as much about mathematics back then as we do now? That's what I'm talking about. Micro-evolution. No, it's not. There's nothing biological about the invention of cars and mathematics. That's human discovery, not human evolution. Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. And you think we acquired that intelligence within the past few hundred years? You think people have become more intelligent within the post few hundred years? You don't think it has anything to do with people of similar intelligences building on previous discoveries by people of similar intelligences? Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Whoever said I was trying to "prove" evolution with that argument? I'm here to give you my perception of the truth, not to "help my evolution argument". That argument was to explain to you that hardly any evolution has ocurred in 600 years. Practically none, in fact. Geez, I have to stop assuming things, don't I? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Lethkar If you can't prove evolution through tests, then I suppose you can't prove gravity by dropping a ball? "Prove" is such a messy word... It has to do with time. We can prove gravity because it only takes a few seconds to drop something and watch it fall. It supposedly takes millions of years to measure evolution. It's practically impossible to measure something over millions of years. And by then we would be dead, so it wouldn't matter to us. Quote: Evolution can be tested in a relatively short amount of time using types of bacteria that have extremely short lifespans. Evolution of bacteria that are alive now. Not the supposed evolution of the at the beginning of timebacteria (or whatever they were) that into us. What exactly do you mean? I mean that you can test. . . wait, what do I mean? sweatdrop ummmmmm. . . Wait!!!! You can't prove the evolution millions (or billions) of years ago!!!! That's what fossil records do. And don't tell me that there are none. I've already effectively destroyed that argument twice. That's just a strange, yet common misconception you seem to find only in the U.S.. Wait. . . Why am I even arguing this? I don't care if evolution is right or wrong!!! I must slap myself!!!!! *slaps himself so hard that six different teeth fall out* Ah. . . that's better. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Lethkar Well, the argument could be made that because we have invented things like wheelchairs that people born with "weak" genes will get a chance to pass on their genes nonetheless. "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Yes, but it does apply to animals. That's the flaw in that argument. Quote: Who ever said anything about evolution not applying to other animals besides humans? Ever heard of London's Peppered Moths? I'm all confused now. What were you making the argument against? You said that the flaw in my argument, "'Survival of the the fittest' hardly applies to humans anymore", was the fact that "Survival of the fittest" applies to animals. I merely questioned how on earth animals' application made my argument, which was purely about humans, flawed. Yes, but what was your "Survival of the fittest hardly applies to humans anymore" argument to? I was explaining to you why we seem to have "stopped evolving". My two reasons were lack of time to do so and the fact that "Survival of the fittest" hardly applies to humans anymore. Oh, right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:29 am
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. And you think we acquired that intelligence within the past few hundred years? You think people have become more intelligent within the post few hundred years? You don't think it has anything to do with people of similar intelligences building on previous discoveries by people of similar intelligences? Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Whoever said I was trying to "prove" evolution with that argument? I'm here to give you my perception of the truth, not to "help my evolution argument". That argument was to explain to you that hardly any evolution has ocurred in 600 years. Practically none, in fact. Geez, I have to stop assuming things, don't I? Hey, it's the first step in getting to know your world properly. mrgreen It's why I'm a weak atheist instead of a strong atheist. Also why "prove' is such a messy word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:37 am
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Yes, but there is something biological about acquiring the intelligence to make those things. And you think we acquired that intelligence within the past few hundred years? You think people have become more intelligent within the post few hundred years? You don't think it has anything to do with people of similar intelligences building on previous discoveries by people of similar intelligences? Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Whoever said I was trying to "prove" evolution with that argument? I'm here to give you my perception of the truth, not to "help my evolution argument". That argument was to explain to you that hardly any evolution has ocurred in 600 years. Practically none, in fact. Geez, I have to stop assuming things, don't I? Hey, it's the first step in getting to know your world properly. mrgreen It's why I'm a weak atheist instead of a strong atheist. Also why "prove' is such a messy word. Even more so because once you "prove" something to someone, they probably won't belive in it anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:14 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Whoever said I was trying to "prove" evolution with that argument? I'm here to give you my perception of the truth, not to "help my evolution argument". That argument was to explain to you that hardly any evolution has ocurred in 600 years. Practically none, in fact. Geez, I have to stop assuming things, don't I? Hey, it's the first step in getting to know your world properly. mrgreen It's why I'm a weak atheist instead of a strong atheist. Also why "prove' is such a messy word. Even more so because once you "prove" something to someone, they probably won't belive in it anyways. True. 3nodding Truly reasonable people are few and far between. Even I don't claim to be one of them. I try, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:53 am
GuardianAngel44 Even more so because once you "prove" something to someone, they probably won't belive in it anyways. And therein lies the crux of humanity's greatest problem. No matter how many facts, figures and logistics are presented, you're still going to find those guys who stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalalalalala." You know. The ones that think "i've made up my mind, please don't confuse me with the facts." >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:46 pm
ryuu_chan GuardianAngel44 Even more so because once you "prove" something to someone, they probably won't belive in it anyways. And therein lies the crux of humanity's greatest problem. No matter how many facts, figures and logistics are presented, you're still going to find those guys who stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalalalalala." You know. The ones that think "i've made up my mind, please don't confuse me with the facts." >.< Like the "world is black and white" sort of people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:47 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Meh, doesn't really matter. Ok, there wasn't even micro-evolution. That doesn't help your evolution argument. Whoever said I was trying to "prove" evolution with that argument? I'm here to give you my perception of the truth, not to "help my evolution argument". That argument was to explain to you that hardly any evolution has ocurred in 600 years. Practically none, in fact. Geez, I have to stop assuming things, don't I? Hey, it's the first step in getting to know your world properly. mrgreen It's why I'm a weak atheist instead of a strong atheist. Also why "prove' is such a messy word. Even more so because once you "prove" something to someone, they probably won't belive in it anyways. True. 3nodding Truly reasonable people are few and far between. Even I don't claim to be one of them. I try, though. I'm the most reasonable person in the world. . . Pshh. That's like running through the streets, saying "I've conquered pride!!!!!" Hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
