Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#345923 - 08/13/08 04:11 PM Credibility of man's evolution
LordofDarkness Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/23/06
Posts: 757
Loc: Tennessee, U.S.
It has been a while since I have started a topic about Evolution vs Creationism. Since creationism is obviously a false beginning, these videos show that evolution from apes may also be false. Check these out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opX5s57MKIk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlaXHi3yPwQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TgBdDMKsgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w53BLnN0REg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6CVHCb5AS8
_________________________

"Any group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

"Laws are there for a reason. You may not agree with them but you gotta obey them. Nobody wants to be in court." - Sonic the Hedgehog

"Satanism is not a white light religion; it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal - all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand Path." - Magus LaVey

"Test Everything, Believe Nothing." -

Top
#345924 - 08/13/08 04:24 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: LordofDarkness]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11560
Loc: New England, USA
Quote:
evolution from apes may also be false

The only people I see who claim evolution proposes "man came from apes", are the creationists and other people who've never really researched the subject. Evolution demonstrates how modern-day apes, including humans, share a common ancestor. Actually, evolution shows how a common ancestor can be found between any two living species, but some pairs have more recent common ancestors than others.

The documentary has been debunked for a while now:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mom-review.html
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#345941 - 08/13/08 05:02 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: Bill_M]
Danielle Alicia
Unregistered


I just want to second Reverend Bill's observation. I live with a scientist (Ph.D from Cambridge), and we have many scientists over for discussions. There is no evolutionary discussion among professionals I am aware of that says we came from apes or their ilk.

We just share a common ancestor is all.

Hope Reverend Bill helped clear up any confusion on the matter for you!

Top
#345945 - 08/13/08 05:27 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: ]
HammerOfDoubt Offline


Registered: 01/26/05
Posts: 479
Loc: Miami, FL
People who criticize the theory of evolution are those who do not understand it. This is consistently proven true.
_________________________
Mistaking insolence for freedom has always been the hallmark of the slave.
-Wilhelm Reich

Top
#345963 - 08/13/08 06:46 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: HammerOfDoubt]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11560
Loc: New England, USA
Originally Posted By: HammerOfDoubt
People who criticize the theory of evolution are those who do not understand it. This is consistently proven true.

I find that this is most painfully revealed by the other phrases you hear them use so often: "It's just a theory", "Darwin recanted on this death bed", "Why do we still have monkies [sic]?", "It violates the 3rd law of dynamo-thermics, or something like that". When I hear these, I know I'm dealing with somebody who hasn't done their homework.

It's pretty sad when even Answers in Genesis, one of the biggest creationist sites, advises creationists not to use some of these lines!
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#345965 - 08/13/08 06:50 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: Bill_M]
Danielle Alicia
Unregistered


This is exactly right, Reverend. There isn't a single credible biologist on the planet who denies evolution. If he or she did, they would be laughed right out of any forum they entered. Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Top
#345967 - 08/13/08 06:57 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: ]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: DanielleAlicia
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.


Well, technically it is a theory.

To say it is a fact, and mean that statement 100%, would mean actually having faith in evolution.

Now, I have plenty of confidence in the veracity of the theory of evolution, but not faith.

Charles Darwin isn't my god any more than Jehovah is.

(However, you're welcome to say I'm splitting epistemological hairs)

Top
#345968 - 08/13/08 07:01 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: ]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11560
Loc: New England, USA
Originally Posted By: Danielle Alicia
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Strictly speaking, it's a theory and a fact. Unfortunately people keep thinking that the word "theory" in science means "a guess", which it doesn't. A guess or conjecture is called a "hypothesis". Only after withstanding tests from the scientific method does it become a theory. I wonder if these people think the same way about music theory. "You can say that this song is in the key of D...but that's just a theory." crazy

I've always loved this quote from Stephen Jay Gould, which I was happy to see make it into Purging Talon's The Book of Satanic Quotations:

Quote:
"Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

[source]
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#345974 - 08/13/08 07:17 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: Bill_M]
Danielle Alicia
Unregistered


I think I will just do my artist thing and leave the science to the scientists! smile

Top
#346014 - 08/13/08 10:22 PM "modern-day apes, including man" [Re: Bill_M]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Not to quibble! But I don't see what is offensive or inaccurate about saying that man evolved from apes. Or am I confused about how the taxonomy works?

Quote:
The only people I see who claim evolution proposes "man came from apes", are the creationists and other people who've never really researched the subject. Evolution demonstrates how modern-day apes, including humans, share a common ancestor.

On either of two reasonable definitions of "ape" (one that includes man, one that does not), man evolved from apes.

You could define an ape as "any species in the family of Hominoidea". That family includes man, as well as the other apes. Their common ancestor would also be in this family, and so, would be an ape. On this definition, man is an ape.

You could define an ape as "any non-human species in the family of Hominoidea". In that case, man is not an ape. But the common ancestor would be an ape, because it would be in this family but would not be a human. By this definition, even the direct ancestors of man, postdating the split from the other apes (eg. genus Australopithecus), would still be apes — because they are in the family of Hominoidea, but not humans (genus Homo).

Man is not evolved from any of the existing ape species; but that's an historical accident. There is no reason in principle why the ancestor of man should not have survived to be contemporary to man. It just so happens that this did not occur.


Edited by reprobate (08/13/08 10:24 PM)
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#346018 - 08/13/08 10:32 PM Re: "modern-day apes, including man" [Re: reprobate]
Jack_Lantern Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 07/06/05
Posts: 2785
Loc: America
Well, this all really stems from the fact that biologists and naturalists are horrible at systematizing classifications. Always have been.
_________________________
"If a man empties his purse into his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." -Benjamin Franklin

Top
#346042 - 08/14/08 01:11 AM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: ]
mattie Offline


Registered: 01/16/08
Posts: 37
Loc: Tulsa, OK
"I think I will just do my artist thing and leave the science to the scientists!"

You should, of course, do what pleases you.

That being said, this statement hurts me a little, we few rational folks need to know science and fervently defend good science from the ever present barrage of pseudoscientific balderdash that permeates our culture.

It always pleases me to see people, like Reverend Bill in this case, step up to defend good science.

Top
#346047 - 08/14/08 01:28 AM Crazy or not? [Re: Jack_Lantern]
LordofDarkness Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/23/06
Posts: 757
Loc: Tennessee, U.S.
Many of us say that we have evolved from apes while some of us may question the theory. However this video will argue about humans being evolved from apes directly. I am bringing this up because I myself only believe what has been proven and not what is suppose to be or what is assumed to be. Yet I am interested in many different opinions because that gives me more information to take into account. I like to hear all of your opinions so I thank all of you for debating with me. To some, I would like to say that I ask you to have patience with me. I am not trying to prove anyone wrong or argue about this. This whole topic is meant to debate and to think outside of the box. In the first video of my post, Charlton Heston stated that nobody knows for sure where we came from. This gives all theories an equal validity as Darwin's theory. You have every right to believe whichever suits you best as it says in the The Satanic Bible. Thank you all again for debating with me.

In this video, there is a scientist by the name of Lloyd Pye arguing about humans not having any relation to apes around the video time of 8 minutes and 20 seconds. However I suggest watching all of this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0NTEFvQyxg&NR=1

Here is another video recorded in one of his teachings;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKjv9m_EE64




Top
#346070 - 08/14/08 07:23 AM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: mattie]
Danielle Alicia
Unregistered


Originally Posted By: mattie
"I think I will just do my artist thing and leave the science to the scientists!"

You should, of course, do what pleases you.

That being said, this statement hurts me a little, we few rational folks need to know science and fervently defend good science from the ever present barrage of pseudoscientific balderdash that permeates our culture.

It always pleases me to see people, like Reverend Bill in this case, step up to defend good science.



Thank you for your encouragement! I will always--as is my nature--keep growing and learning in life. smile

Top
#346097 - 08/14/08 10:32 AM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: ]
LordofDarkness Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/23/06
Posts: 757
Loc: Tennessee, U.S.
Thank you for the advice. I'll be checking those books out sometime this week. Are there any other books I should check out?

Top
#346098 - 08/14/08 10:54 AM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: reprobate]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
That has always been my understanding too, Reprobate. Humans are apes, just like the great apes, and the common ancestor was an ape of some kind.

The all-too-common misconception that I always have to refute, however, is that humankind evolved from the current-day great apes.

So, it's important to make that distinction.

Oh, and to add to Bill's list of common creationist arguments:
"What about the eye, smart guy?" and "What about the flagella, huh, huh, huh?"

Makes me want to flagellate them.


Edited by TrojZyr (08/14/08 10:55 AM)
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#346145 - 08/14/08 02:31 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: TrojZyr]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Quote:
So, it's important to make that distinction.

Why? How important is it, really?

I mean, sure, the common ancestor wasn't a chimp — but we have a common ancestor with chimps that was a hell of a lot like a chimp in pretty much every important way.

Overly subtle distinctions are lost on people who don't have a science background.
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#346151 - 08/14/08 03:23 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: LordofDarkness]
Dan_Dread Offline


Registered: 10/08/03
Posts: 523
Loc: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Quote:

In the first video of my post, Charlton Heston stated that nobody knows for sure where we came from. This gives all theories an equal validity as Darwin's theory.

Hmm

Do you actually believe this?

Do you not feel that such things as facts,evidence, and subsequent research may play even a small part in elevating one 'theory' above another?

What context are you are using the word 'theory' in? When you say theory do you mean 'guess', as the creationists tend to use it, or do you mean 'hypothesis firmly grounded in factual interpretations of evidence', as the scientific community does?
_________________________
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike and yet it is the most precious thing we have." - Albert Einstein --------------------

Top
#346152 - 08/14/08 03:27 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: TrojZyr]
Dan_Dread Offline


Registered: 10/08/03
Posts: 523
Loc: Vancouver, BC, Canada
LoL

Pointing out the many variations of independently evolved light sensing mechanisms generally shuts their yaps, if only for a second.

And ireducable complexity falls apart under any sort of scrutiny. Behe ftl
_________________________
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike and yet it is the most precious thing we have." - Albert Einstein --------------------

Top
#346156 - 08/14/08 03:58 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: reprobate]
Chess Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 1473
Loc: Chicago, IL USA
Quote:
I mean, sure, the common ancestor wasn't a chimp — but we have a common ancestor with chimps that was a hell of a lot like a chimp in pretty much every important way.

Overly subtle distinctions are lost on people who don't have a science background.


Your cousin is not the same person as your grandmother.* Even if your cousin happens to look more like dear old Grandma than you do.

That's an important distinction, and I fail to see how it's "overly subtle".

-Chess

* Note: this statement may not apply to residents of Alabama.

Top
#346163 - 08/14/08 05:02 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: Chess]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
My point is, what people have to come to grips with is that we evolved from an ape that was so much like a chimp, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if one plopped down in front of you right now.

Saying "man did not evolve from chimps" is technically true but seems to concede something to the enemy that you aren't actually conceding.


Edited by reprobate (08/14/08 05:03 PM)
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#346164 - 08/14/08 05:03 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: Dan_Dread]
LordofDarkness Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/23/06
Posts: 757
Loc: Tennessee, U.S.
I mean by hypothesis.
_________________________

"Any group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

"Laws are there for a reason. You may not agree with them but you gotta obey them. Nobody wants to be in court." - Sonic the Hedgehog

"Satanism is not a white light religion; it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal - all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand Path." - Magus LaVey

"Test Everything, Believe Nothing." -

Top
#346182 - 08/14/08 06:11 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: Dan_Dread]
LordofDarkness Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/23/06
Posts: 757
Loc: Tennessee, U.S.
Quote:

What context are you are using the word 'theory' in? When you say theory do you mean 'guess', as the creationists tend to use it, or do you mean 'hypothesis firmly grounded in factual interpretations of evidence', as the scientific community does?


You mean a hypothesis upgraded based on successful tests to scientific theory? Yes, I mean that exact context. Like I said before, I do not believe in anything without proof.
_________________________

"Any group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

"Laws are there for a reason. You may not agree with them but you gotta obey them. Nobody wants to be in court." - Sonic the Hedgehog

"Satanism is not a white light religion; it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal - all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand Path." - Magus LaVey

"Test Everything, Believe Nothing." -

Top
#346185 - 08/14/08 06:34 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: reprobate]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
The difference between chimpish-but-not-chimp and bonafide-chimp is pretty important, actually. Maybe not genetically, but certainly, conceptually and chronologically.

When people start spreading the stupid lie that humans evolved from pan troglodytes, or worse, that evolutionary theory claims that we evolved from them, a huge can of stupid worms gets opened.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#346186 - 08/14/08 06:34 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: LordofDarkness]
barrytheblade Offline
Banned Douche

Registered: 07/12/08
Posts: 48
Loc: WA
Just as a side-note, has anybody ever heard of the Stoned Ape Theory? It basically suggests that after the dinosaurs were extinct the ape-like animals came down from the trees and found that mushrooms grew out of cows' (I use cows loosely, as I'm not sure what type of cows lived then) excrement. They ate these and it made the brain grow rapidly since the mushrooms were hallucinogenic and the mind had to expand in order to try to take in and understand what was happening to it.

Joe Rogan is a big supporter of this theory. He's a comic and a brilliant guy. He's really into the mind-expanding aspect of drug use. (Of course, I know of the CoS policy concerning drug use and I have never even tried the lighter side of them, so don't panic.)

It's an interesting theory since science has had a hard time explaining the rapid brain growth that led up to the human brain.

Top
#346194 - 08/14/08 07:20 PM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: TrojZyr]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
I don't understand why you think it's important.

Creationists don't care about the difference. Any argument that is meant to point out that man didn't evolve from pan trog. is a red herring. Their resistance stems from an unwillingness to accept that man could evolve from ANY ape, and what ape in particular evolutionists claim man comes from is quite irrelevant to them.

It's important to make the distinction when you're clarifying the evolutionist position vs. creationist obfuscation, for people who are actually interested in the mechanism, but as far as capturing the popular imagination goes, as far as goes the job of reconciling people to the fact that man evolved from less intelligent apes, then the distinction is not especially helpful and threatens to be distracting.

An educated lay person can understand when a scientist says, "Man evolved from apes. Our ancestors were creatures much like this chimp. This chimp is like a distant cousin; if you were to trace our respective family trees backward for millions of years, you would reach creatures that, to any casual observer, would have been indistinguishable from a chimp."

What an educated lay person is less likely to understand, is when a scientist says, "Man did not evolve from apes. He evolved from ape-like creatures that were not apes. The apes evolved from the same ape-like creatures." That is overly complicated and doesn't clarify the situation at all.


Edited by reprobate (08/14/08 07:22 PM)
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#346247 - 08/15/08 12:57 AM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: barrytheblade]
Chess Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 1473
Loc: Chicago, IL USA
Quote:
Just as a side-note, has anybody ever heard of the Stoned Ape Theory? It basically suggests that after the dinosaurs were extinct the ape-like animals came down from the trees and found that mushrooms grew out of cows' (I use cows loosely, as I'm not sure what type of cows lived then) excrement. They ate these and it made the brain grow rapidly since the mushrooms were hallucinogenic and the mind had to expand in order to try to take in and understand what was happening to it.


I haven't heard of this particular idea before, but from your explanation it sounds downright Lamarckian. Rats' tails will not grow shorter in each succeeding generation if you slice them off, and hominids' brains will not totally expand, man if you feed them psilocybins.

-Chess

Top
#346279 - 08/15/08 08:42 AM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: Linguascelesta]
Zardex Offline


Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Originally Posted By: DanielleAlicia
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Well, technically it is a theory.

Say that to someone with AIDS.

Evolution happens in real time and is 100% provable, there is no need to call it a theory.

Also yes we are "apes", and so was the ancestor of us and chimps.
Just like someone already said it was an ape rather like the chimp, indeed something you probably would mistake for a chimp if you would see it.

And to whoever suggested our brains grew with mushrooms or whatever. Nice imagination game but there are multiple very solid theories about why our brains evolved if you care to study.

Most likely the most significant reasons for bigger brains have to do with a pressing need for unlimitedly better social skills for the need for advanced social structure that came about with two main reasons:

1.
Need to adapt to hunting meet and developing an energy conserving food culture with social aspects and more specialized tasks.

2.
The invention of systematically using weapons for hunting and for power (throwing weapons especially, like rocks) made social status more important then pure strength as a value in hierarchy, because now two weak individuals could easily overpower one strong individual.
The more easily we can hurt each other, the more need we have to feel we care about each other and have friends on our side.

It seems the more violent we were the smarter we were, that could be one of the reasons why Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had more brain capacity then the modern human does, perhaps once we refined a superior ability to speak it became less necessary to be so violent, and perhaps a more specialized brains eventually shrank slightly, apparently something about lacking speech required more brain capacity, hard to say, but our brain has shrank none the less.

Cro-Magnons on the other hand probably had some form of speech, and they survived while Neanderthals with bigger muscles, better evolved hips for walking, bigger brains but no good voice box, died. It's likely they couldn't compete with hunting tactics, and some early form of warfare may have a role too.
_________________________
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#346281 - 08/15/08 08:46 AM One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Zardex]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: Zardex
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Originally Posted By: DanielleAlicia
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Well, technically it is a theory.

Say that to someone with AIDS.

Evolution happens in real time and is 100% provable, there is no need to call it a theory.


It is a theory. By definition. Whatever you might think, and whatever you might like to think, it is a theory. Don't blame me. I didn't make the word mean what it does wink That's just reality.

Oh, and I'd happily say that evolution is a theory to someone who has AIDS, if it were the slightest bit relevant in the conversation (unlike them having AIDS, which I don't see as relevant to whether or not evolution is a theory).

Top
#346282 - 08/15/08 08:59 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Linguascelesta]
Zardex Offline


Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta

It is a theory. By definition. Whatever you might think, and whatever you might like to think, it is a theory. Don't blame me. I didn't make the word mean what it does wink That's just reality.

Oh, and I'd happily say that evolution is a theory to someone who has AIDS, if it were the slightest bit relevant in the conversation (unlike them having AIDS, which I don't see as relevant to whether or not evolution is a theory).

The precise form that evolution by natural selection of all life from earliest forms over the course of about 4 billion years has taken is a theory backed by facts.
Among those facts is the fact of evolution of species by natural selection that we can see in every single cell of our bodies.

The reason I mentioned AIDS is because the AIDS virus can evolve within minutes so that it is unrecognizable as the same virus.
In fact if it wasn't for the fact of evolution AIDS would not be a problem at all, so for someone with AIDS, saying evolution is a theory is like saying their illness is a theory and not a fact.
_________________________
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#346285 - 08/15/08 09:12 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Zardex]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: Zardex
Evolution of all life by natural selection over the course of about 4 billion years is a theory backed by facts.


If it weren't backed up in such a manner, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. Then it'd merely by a hypothesis (literally, hypo+thesis, less than a theory, or a proposition, pro+ponere, a thing put forwards).

Quote:
Among those facts is the fact of evolution by natural selection that we can see in every single cell of our bodies.


Again, if it weren't backed up by anything, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. These things you're saying are just underlining its rightful claim to "theory" status.

Quote:
The reason I mentioned AIDS is because the AIDS virus can evolve within minutes so that it is unrecognizable as the same virus.


AIDS isn't a virus, it's a syndrome. That's what the "S" stands for.

You mean HIV, which is a virus. That's what the "V" stands for.

That HIV causes AIDS is at least assumed to be the case here. Whether or not it does is debatable, but I for one do not have an opinion on that, and as such am not going to debate it, especially as I don't see what difference it makes to anything (since the same actions are still to be avoided, just for other reasons).

Quote:
If fact if it wasn't for the fact of evolution AIDS would not be a problem at all.


Now that, I think, is a hypothesis wink

Top
#346288 - 08/15/08 09:24 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Linguascelesta]
Zardex Offline


Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Again, if it weren't backed up by anything, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. These things you're saying are just underlining its rightful claim to "theory" status.
Quote:
If fact if it wasn't for the fact of evolution AIDS would not be a problem at all.

Now that, I think, is a hypothesis wink

The HIV virus among other things evolves in real time, thank you for correcting the virus part, but no it is not a hypothesis or a theory but a fact what I said about AIDS.

Just like evolution is a fact, the only theory part is exactly how we evolved, not if we evolved. Just like you said, if it weren't for the fact of evolution there wouldn't be a theory of evolution.

Just because there is a theory of evolution doesn't make evolution a theory, no more then the theory of gravity makes gravity itself a theory.

Have we evolved? Yes in fact we have.
How exactly did we evolve? Now there we need a theory of evolution.
_________________________
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#346296 - 08/15/08 09:42 AM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: barrytheblade]
Mr. Obsidian Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 3120
Loc: Ohio
I haven't heard about any substantive "theory" regarding psilocybin and expanding brains, but I believe Terrence McKenna postulated the idea that primitive hunters who ingested psilocybic mushrooms experienced an increase in visual acuity that directly improved their hunting ability and the hunters, in turn, took the mushrooms with them, spreading their spores as they moved about. A symbiotic relationship of sorts. Is there any truth to this? Who knows... McKenna was a fucking loon.

As for drugs and mind expansion, I'm not buying it.

Just look at any pothead, crackhead, or alcoholic. Are they like evolving, dude?
The only time their brains expand is when they contract some form of staphylococcal meningitis.

The Yanomamo Amazonians spend most of their time smoking powerful hallucinogens and they've never even made it to the bronze age.

I'll take sobriety and a tangible weapon, thank you.
Let the druggies have their expanded perception and universal love.
We'll see who comes out alive when the chips are down.
_________________________
~ Mr. Obsidian (JP)

Olio/Etcetera

Flesh and Bones
_______________

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
~ Charles Bukowski


Top
#346298 - 08/15/08 09:46 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Zardex]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: Zardex
The HIV virus among other things evolves in real time, thank you for correcting the virus part, but no it is not a hypothesis or a theory but a fact what I said about AIDS.


Good grief, you call a lot of things facts with little or no actual epistemological basis.

Quote:
Just like evolution is a fact, the only theory part is exactly how we evolved, not if we evolved. Just like you said, if it weren't for the fact of evolution there wouldn't be a theory of evolution.


I didn't say that at all. I said that if it weren't for there being some kind of empirical findings backing up the theory, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. That's quite different to saying if it weren't a fact it wouldn't qualify as a theory.

Hence why so many theories have been shelved once better ones come along.

Actually, often about a hundred years or so after the better ones come along, mainly because people like you are so stubborn and cling to old beliefs on the grounds of them being popular.

Quote:
Just because there is a theory of evolution doesn't make evolution a theory, no more then the theory of gravity makes gravity itself a theory.


Isaac Newton is not God any more than Jehovah is wink

And he's been proved wrong at least as much as Christian teachings have.

Seriously, stop having so much faith!

Top
#346301 - 08/15/08 10:03 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Linguascelesta]
Zardex Offline


Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Originally Posted By: Zardex
The HIV virus among other things evolves in real time, thank you for correcting the virus part, but no it is not a hypothesis or a theory but a fact what I said about AIDS.


Good grief, you call a lot of things facts with little or no actual epistemological basis.

There are as much epistemological basis as there can be for any fact of science.
If you go to philosophy you can't say much more then "thinking occurs".
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Quote:
Just because there is a theory of evolution doesn't make evolution a theory, no more then the theory of gravity makes gravity itself a theory.


Isaac Newton is not God any more than Jehovah is wink

And he's been proved wrong at least as much as Christian teachings have.

Seriously, stop having so much faith!

See there you go again. Theory of X is not X itself.
X is a fact yet there is a Theory of X.
Your theory of gravity can have an error, yet gravity remains a fact regardless.

The theory of Evolution, or more accurately the many different theories of evolution, are all theories, but that does not make evolution itself a theory, rather it requires the fact of evolution to have these theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
_________________________
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#346304 - 08/15/08 10:15 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Zardex]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: Zardex
There are as much epistemological basis as there can be for any fact of science.


You managed to err in the fields of grammar, semantics, and reason. All in the one sentence. I salute you.

Quote:
If you go to philosophy you can't say much more then "thinking occurs".


Yes, I can. I see what you've done there is taken Descartes' Cogito and correctly removed the false assumptions from it. However, Descartes doesn't have a monopoly on the use of the concept of the axiom, and he neglected to shoot for the more useful one.

If you scrap Descartes completely, and start again, you might stumble upon a more useful axiom that you can actually take somewhere.

Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
See there you go again. Theory of X is not X itself.
X is a fact yet there is a Theory of X.


X being a fact is simply an assumption that you make.

Quote:
Your theory of gravity can have an error, yet gravity remains a fact regardless.


It's not my theory of gravity. It's Newton's theory of gravity.

Newtonian physics died in the seventies, by the way, hence my reluctance to have it associated with me.



Attachments
deadthings.JPG

Description: Also applies to dead theories.



Top
#346308 - 08/15/08 10:35 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Linguascelesta]
Zardex Offline


Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 310
As you probably know I didn't remove Descartes' false assumptions. That's already been done by Lichtenberg and later echoed by Nietzsche and now even the modern philosophers of this day.

Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Quote:
See there you go again. Theory of X is not X itself.
X is a fact yet there is a Theory of X.

X being a fact is simply an assumption that you make.

Of cause it is, it was supposed to be an assumption in my example that points out your fallacy that a theory of X would prove that X is not a fact.

Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Quote:
Your theory of gravity can have an error, yet gravity remains a fact regardless.

It's not my theory of gravity. It's Newton's theory of gravity.

Newtonian physics died in the seventies, by the way, hence my reluctance to have it associated with me.

Do you really think I literally meant "your" theory? It is just a very perfect example of the difference between theory and fact you seem to have trouble associating correctly.
Theory does not prove a fact, but that does not immediately follow that you cannot make a theory based on a fact.

I understand this is a heated discussion but I am not impressed by references to children playing.
I expect if you feel you do not enjoy the discussion and perceive me as an arguable child you might want to consider how smart it is to continue.

I on the other hand enjoy a heated discussion as I would love it if you could bring out error in me, but insults will not get you there, only intellectual superiority like in the case of the HIV virus which was most enjoyable.
_________________________
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#346311 - 08/15/08 10:48 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: reprobate]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Creationists don't care who we evolved from, that's true, because they don't want to have evolved from anything. BUT, Creationists do have in their bag of tricks a collection of dumb arguments and cute remarks that specifically address the idea of us evolving from chimpanzees. It's at least satisfying to me to deprive them of that pleasure and that easy out, if only for a moment in time. It also lets them know that they can't just spew out any old rumor, lie, or cute remark without being challenged or corrected by somebody who's watching.

I view creationists as sneaky, obnoxious, dumb-but-arrogant children. I think it's important (and often fun) to discipline them whenever and wherever they get squirrely in any way.

Well, and if people can't handle the distinction, I guess they're doomed to be confused and upset. They sure seem to be able to tell the difference between George H.W. Bush and George Bush, and between the varied flavors of Cheetos, so I think they can handle the idea of chimps being our cousins, rather than our parents.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#346313 - 08/15/08 10:52 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Zardex]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: Zardex
As you probably know I didn't use a time machine and become the philosopher that removed Descartes' false assumptions. That's already been done by Lichtenberg and later echoed by Nietzsche and now even the modern philosophers of this day.


And doubtlessly any of Descartes' contemporaries who had an ounce of sense between them.

The point is, you removed them on this occasion. Just because somebody else did it previously is irrelevant. You were the philosopher that removed his false assumptions on this occasion, in this conversation. Credit where it's due!

Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Of cause it is, it was supposed to be an assumption in my example that points out your fallacy that a theory of X would prove that X is not a fact.


You're actually talking gibberish now, I'm afraid, and are very far removed from the point.

Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Do you really think I literally meant "your" theory?


No, I think you were simply being careless and sloppy, like you have been with everything else in this thread.

Quote:
Theory does not prove a fact, but that does not immediately follow that you cannot make a theory based on a fact.


I've not negated, debated, or denied this. Or even mentioned it. You seem to be wittering about irrelevancies now.

Top
#346317 - 08/15/08 11:03 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: TrojZyr]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Quote:
I view creationists as sneaky, obnoxious, dumb-but-arrogant children. I think it's important (and often fun) to discipline them whenever and wherever they get squirrely in any way.

It's not them I'm concerned with. It's their well-meaning but ignorant audience.

And it's not so much about what distinctions they can handle — it's a question of what most clearly and vividly communicates the upshot of evolutionary theory to them with the minimum of complication.


Edited by reprobate (08/15/08 11:04 AM)
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#346320 - 08/15/08 11:10 AM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: reprobate]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
OK, that's fair enough. I also think things ought to be conveyed--as accurately as possible--with a minimum of complication.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#346329 - 08/15/08 12:03 PM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Linguascelesta]
Zardex Offline


Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 310
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Quote:
Theory does not prove a fact, but that does not immediately follow that you cannot make a theory based on a fact.

I've not negated, debated, or denied this. Or even mentioned it. You seem to be wittering about irrelevancies now.

I agree I have been sloppy, and in this you have taught me through today's discussion about something I can improve myself on.

Perhaps we have both been sloppy then. To refresh your memory, while you may now submit that the "theory of evolution" does not make evolution itself a theory. This is what you stated before.
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Originally Posted By: DanielleAlicia
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Well, technically it is a theory.

The way I understood this is that you called evolution itself a theory instead of properly stating that the "theory of evolution" is a theory while evolution itself is a fact.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould
_________________________
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#346378 - 08/15/08 04:48 PM Re: One good reason to call it a "theory". [Re: Zardex]
Linguascelesta Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 11/01/05
Posts: 2352
Loc: Europa
Originally Posted By: Zardex
I agree I have been sloppy, and in this you have taught me through today's discussion about something I can improve myself on.


You are welcome.

Quote:
Perhaps we have both been sloppy then. To refresh your memory, while you may now submit that the "theory of evolution" does not make evolution itself a theory. This is what you stated before.


You seem to think I have contradicted myself, which I have not.

Originally Posted By: Zardex
Originally Posted By: Linguascelesta
Originally Posted By: DanielleAlicia
Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact.

Well, technically it is a theory.

The way I understood this is that you called evolution itself a theory instead of properly stating that the "theory of evolution" is a theory while evolution itself is a fact.


I say: "Evolution is a theory and may or may not also be a fact."

Is my position now sufficiently clear?

Top
#346405 - 08/15/08 09:09 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: Linguascelesta]
Unknown Offline
Unknown

Registered: 03/31/05
Posts: 1649
one of my favorite quotes that I have read can be found in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins; Today the theory of evolution is about open as much to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun, but the full implications of Darwin's revolution have yet to be widely realized.
_________________________









Top
#346475 - 08/16/08 04:43 AM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: TrojZyr]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11560
Loc: New England, USA
Originally Posted By: TrojZyr
Oh, and to add to Bill's list of common creationist arguments:
"What about the eye, smart guy?" and "What about the flagella, huh, huh, huh?"

Makes me want to flagellate them.

I actually saw one creationist call it the "flatulum". grin
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#346501 - 08/16/08 08:47 AM Re: Crazy or not? [Re: Bill_M]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Ha!

Ah yes, the irreducible complexity of the human bunghole--could blind nature have created such an intricate work of beauty? No, friends, for it bears upon its cheeky hide the subtle signs of having been held, and forged, and loved, and ever-so-softly squeezed, by Greater Hands, yes, by an Intelligent Designer (who just so happens to bear an uncanny resemblance to the Biblical Deity, but that's just a coincidence, kids) who yet still moves among us in the world, as we speak--silent as a cloud, but deadly to those who deny him.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#346601 - 08/16/08 05:09 PM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: LordofDarkness]
TheAbysmal Offline


Registered: 09/22/06
Posts: 1024
LordOfDarkness,

I would definitely recommend, as others have already, that you read some of the authoritative texts on the subject, particularly of Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin. I would also recommend reading "Skeptic Magazine" and "The Skeptical Inquirer", two magazines that often feature articals and debates on the subjects of evolution, creationism, and ID. The last issue of "Skeptic Magazine" featured great (IMO) discussions on Ben Stein's "Expelled" and other sources of misinformation.

Speaking of misinformation, there is much of it out there. So much, in fact, it is rather easy to read much on the subject of evolution and still have an entirely wrong, or more charitably, uninformed view. All it takes is to read much from the wrong sources.
_________________________

Refuse to die.

Top
#354836 - 10/09/08 12:02 AM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: TheAbysmal]
LordofDarkness Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/23/06
Posts: 757
Loc: Tennessee, U.S.
Thank you Vitaeviternus for your advice. I will look into it as soon as I go to the book store.
_________________________

"Any group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

"Laws are there for a reason. You may not agree with them but you gotta obey them. Nobody wants to be in court." - Sonic the Hedgehog

"Satanism is not a white light religion; it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal - all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand Path." - Magus LaVey

"Test Everything, Believe Nothing." -

Top
#354986 - 10/10/08 12:25 AM Re: Credibility of man's evolution [Re: LordofDarkness]
Cel Offline


Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 127
If you would like a step by step explanation of how the theory of Evolution maps human evolution you should really look into "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins. That is an amazing read and very helpful when you are trying to understand Evolution a little better.

As to the evolution fact or theory discussion that was going on I just want to point out one more things. Someone mentioned that AIDS can evolve. I know it was pointed out that AIDS is a Syndrome but I just wanted to make one more thing perfectly clear.

AIDS is not a physical thing, technically, for all intents and purposes it DOES NOT exist. It is a classification given to a group of illnesses found in the body of a person who is infected with HIV. Generally it is determined by the presence of four or more of a set of opportunistic diseases. As such AIDS is incapable of evolution. However HIV is damn good at it. I hope I am not being redundant in posting this but HIV and AIDS research is something I am passionate about.


Edited by Cel (10/10/08 12:26 AM)

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >


Forum Stats
12201 Members
73 Forums
43984 Topics
406069 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements