2 of 9
2
Great Resources for Info on Evolution and Darwin (Merged)
Posted: 16 June 2008 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21
awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

The fact that Darwinism is becoming more and more popular is because more and more people it seems are becoming less and less religious.

I sure hope so.  That is quite an uplifting notion regarding the future of humanity.

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

proof is only what you believe.

Then, I believe that I am a smurf.  Poof! 

SmurfIceCream.jpg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2008 10:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Sometimes beliefs are more important than facts.

Sure you’re going to reply, “How can you not believe Darwinism? The proof is all there!” However, to this I will say, proof is only what you believe.

Maybe its not a religious thing for me so much as it is I’d prefer to not think that we used to be damn apes. Why are there still apes if thats true? Why are there no half ape/human remains? How in the heck did a 6 ton, flesh eating, roaring dinosaur turn into a 8 ounce, singing, happy, vegetarian bird? Or is there all this pent up rage and desire to hunt in the birds I have in the next room?? Why haven’t sharks or alligators evolved? Surely they aren’t at the peak of their performance, I see plenty of room for improvement in their cases. People cry evolution but when you ask them to explain cases like birds and sharks and countless other species they reply, well they don’t need to.  Oh, alright then Mr/Mrs Scientist that explains it perfectly, they were asked but they didn’t feel like it.

I’d also like to point out that there was an elephant bird in Madagascar that became extinct in the 17th century that was over 10 feet tall and weighed about 1000 lbs, certainly the size of a small dinosaur. There were once Giant Sloths that weighed 5 tons, and were the size of elephants. Evolution favored smaller sized cousins and the larger animals died out. Bears and dogs are cousins, they even resemble each other. Evidence of evolution is all around us, and DNA has taken the evidence to a higher level.

  Personally I don’t choose to look into Darwinism as the beliefs I have are good enough and strong enough for me. 

You sound like men I know that refuse to ask for directions because they know where their going and ‘never get lost’, all the while driving around in endless circles. What you’re saying is that you don’t want to have the possibility of having your beliefs challenged, because perhaps you won’t have the answers that make sense. After all common sense is not all that common after all.

Surely all that discussion and debate could be spent better than deciding if Coco at the zoo could be your great great great (x100) aunt.

This is just a silly statement. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t believe it. They actually taught my sons a very well reasoned and complete study of Darwinism and evolution 20 YEARS AGO!!!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2008 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Sometimes beliefs are more important than facts.

Examples?

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Sure you’re going to reply, “How can you not believe Darwinism? The proof is all there!” However, to this I will say, proof is only what you believe.

Syllogism.

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Maybe its not a religious thing for me so much as it is I’d prefer to not think that we used to be damn apes.

Many pretty women like to pretend they never fart, piss or sweat. Does that explain why they are bitchy?

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Why are there still apes if thats true? Why are there no half ape/human remains?

Humans are 98.5% chimp. Close enough?

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

How in the heck did a 6 ton, flesh eating, roaring dinosaur turn into a 8 ounce, singing, happy, vegetarian bird?

Evangelicals?

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Or is there all this pent up rage and desire to hunt in the birds I have in the next room?? Why haven’t sharks or alligators evolved? Surely they aren’t at the peak of their performance, I see plenty of room for improvement in their cases.

Argue the case with them - in their environment. Humans are severely unevolved.

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

People cry evolution but when you ask them to explain cases like birds and sharks and countless other species they reply, well they don’t need to.

They are evolving. Hang around for a million years - you’ll see. Eventually they’ll be able to live on discarded plastic shopping bags.

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Oh, alright then Mr/Mrs Scientist that explains it perfectly, they were asked but they didn’t feel like it.

The fact that Darwinism is becoming more and more popular is because more and more people it seems are becoming less and less religious.

About time.

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

They are looking for answers and find it in theories like this. You cannot honestly say that you are a religious person and still believe in Darwinism.

Why would I want to say I was religious?

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Science and Religions aren’t good bedfellows, you’ve gotta pick which of your core beliefs you really rely on.  Personally I don’t choose to look into Darwinism as the beliefs I have are good enough and strong enough for me.

How do you feel about the Great Pumpkin and the Spagedeity?

awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

That and the fact that so much time and energy has been spend on deciding if we were once apes or not. Surely all that discussion and debate could be spent better than deciding if Coco at the zoo could be your great great great (x100) aunt.

Only if you are a monkey’s great great great (x100) nephew. Are you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2008 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

LOL  LOL  LOL  LOL GREAT!!! ROFLOL!!!!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2008 08:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2008-07-09

“Nobody needs to be at their “peak performance” in order to reproduce. “

As a teacher, I can tell you a truer statement has never been said.    LOL

 Signature 

“HUMAN BEINGS MAKE LIFE SO INTERESTING.  DO YOU KNOW IN A UNIVERSE SO FULL OF WONDERS, THEY HAVE MANAGED TO INVENT BOREDOM?  QUITE ASTONISHING.”  - DEATH

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2008 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  132
Joined  2008-07-14
awisemanoncesaid - 15 June 2008 11:05 PM

Sometimes beliefs are more important than facts.

Sure you’re going to reply, “How can you not believe Darwinism? The proof is all there!” However, to this I will say, proof is only what you believe.

Maybe its not a religious thing for me so much as it is I’d prefer to not think that we used to be damn apes. Why are there still apes if thats true? Why are there no half ape/human remains? How in the heck did a 6 ton, flesh eating, roaring dinosaur turn into a 8 ounce, singing, happy, vegetarian bird? Or is there all this pent up rage and desire to hunt in the birds I have in the next room?? Why haven’t sharks or alligators evolved? Surely they aren’t at the peak of their performance, I see plenty of room for improvement in their cases. People cry evolution but when you ask them to explain cases like birds and sharks and countless other species they reply, well they don’t need to.  Oh, alright then Mr/Mrs Scientist that explains it perfectly, they were asked but they didn’t feel like it.

The fact that Darwinism is becoming more and more popular is because more and more people it seems are becoming less and less religious. They are looking for answers and find it in theories like this. You cannot honestly say that you are a religious person and still believe in Darwinism. Science and Religions aren’t good bedfellows, you’ve gotta pick which of your core beliefs you really rely on.  Personally I don’t choose to look into Darwinism as the beliefs I have are good enough and strong enough for me. That and the fact that so much time and energy has been spend on deciding if we were once apes or not. Surely all that discussion and debate could be spent better than deciding if Coco at the zoo could be your great great great (x100) aunt.

Round Three. Few things that haven’t been corrected.

 

Darwinism is becoming more popular because less people are becoming religious? You’re right. Because anyone who can reason logically will probably delve into the scientific world.
People find answers in theories like this because they make sense.
Darwinism is not a system of beliefs, Social Darwinism is.

 Signature 

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius (and a lot of courage) to move in the opposite direction.
—Albert Einstein

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter
—George Washington

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2008 12:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Quote AWMOC:

Sometimes beliefs are more important than facts.

  WRONG.  Sometimes people accept beliefs rather than facts.  However, just because an innocent person is convicted doesn’t make the beliefs more valid than the facts.  We must recognize the difference between beliefs and facts.  That means we must always keep checking our beliefs against reality and be ready to change them as soon as they are shown to be at variance with the actual situation.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2008 01:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
Occam - 21 July 2008 12:17 AM

... However, just because an innocent person is convicted ...
Occam

“an innocent person is convicted” ???

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2008 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Yes.  Although this kind of miscarriage of justice occurs more frequently than we like to admit, let’s take examples from the ‘30s in the South.  Quite a few African American males were convicted of rape of white women by Caucasian juries even though there was clear evidence that the defendent was many miles away at the time of the rape.  The beliefs (in this case, prejudices of the juries) were accepted rather than the facts.  Leading to, as I said: “an innocent person is convicted.”

Just because the juries accepted beliefs over facts, doesn’t make them more important or more true than the facts. 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2008 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
Occam - 21 July 2008 01:48 PM

Yes. Although this kind of miscarriage of justice occurs more frequently than we like to admit, let’s take examples from the ‘30s in the South.  Quite a few African American males were convicted of rape of white women by Caucasian juries even though there was clear evidence that the defendant was many miles away at the time of the rape. The beliefs (in this case, prejudices of the juries) were accepted rather than the facts.  Leading to, as I said: “an innocent person is convicted.”

Just because the juries accepted beliefs over facts, doesn’t make them more important or more true than the facts. 

Occam

You don’t have to go back that far. Father Gerald Robinson, Phil Spector (almost), David Camm, Scott Peterson, Darlie Routier and many, many more; all convicted either with no evidence or despite the evidence. And a few who should have been convicted (Robert Durst, T. Cullen Davis) and weren’t despite the evidence. And then there are those who weren’t convicted but the public wrongly believes should have been.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2008 11:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Phil Spector????? Despite the evidence??? It seems that notoriety and fame allows you to get away with murder in Hollywood, despite the evidence!!!!!

Scott Peterson??? I’ve spoken to one of the experts who testified during that trial about the evidence, he was 100% sure Scott had done it—based on his examination of the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt means the doubt should be [reasonable/i]! Otherwise NO ONE would ever be convicted.

Circumstantial evidence can be as simple as finding the cookie jar empty of the chocolate chip cookies, and your two year old with chocolate all over his hands and mouth. You didn’t see him take them, he said he didn’t do it, but clear circumstantial evidence point to him as the culprit.

[ Edited: 01 August 2008 11:15 PM by asanta ]
 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2008 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
asanta - 01 August 2008 11:09 PM

Phil Spector????? Despite the evidence??? It seems that notoriety and fame allows you to get away with murder in Hollywood, despite the evidence!!!!!

The evidence here is solid for suicide. 55% of all gun deaths are suicide. The number of shot-in-the-mouth homicides is infinitesimally small (barring an unconscious or dead victim). The lack of blood or GSR on Spector is powerful proof of innocence. The fingerprint evidence is powerful proof of innocence. His body fluids on her breast, her eyelashes on his sink, all of these add to the case for innocence.

This does NOT mean I like Spector. He’s an annoying little asshole. If his wig was on fire I wouldn’t piss on his head. Lana Clarkson I believe was a wonderful friend to all she knew and I wish I had been one of them. However Hollywood is a cruel place and she was never going to make it. She had many problems all of which added up to a certain suicide.

asanta - 01 August 2008 11:09 PM

Scott Peterson??? I’ve spoken to one of the experts who testified during that trial about the evidence, he was 100% sure Scott had done it—based on his examination of the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt means the doubt should be reasonable! Otherwise NO ONE would ever be convicted.

Reasonable Doubt: If it was your son, father, brother who you cared for the evidence has to be strong enough to say to you that no matter how much you care for him he is, clearly, guilty. THAT is what it takes to overcome reasonable doubt. As I have pointed out there was NO evidence against Scott, NONE.

asanta - 01 August 2008 11:09 PM

Circumstantial evidence can be as simple as finding the cookie jar empty of the chocolate chip cookies, and your two year old with chocolate all over his hands and mouth. You didn’t see him take them, he said he didn’t do it, but clear circumstantial evidence point to him as the culprit.

I know what CE is. Neither you nor anyone on earth can or has pointed to even one piece. OTOH, her underwear is one single piece which proves she lived for weeks after Dec 23rd. That makes Scott innocent. Your ‘expert’ is full of sh*t. Many of those who testified actually lied under oath - I am not kidding. As one example, Devore invented a bullsh*t theory, never used before or since, just to ‘get’ Scott Peterson. His own reference, Jeanty, says it is total crap. I believe Jeanty. Dr Allison is another who just guessed. Far too many of these people were making up crap as they went along. Shame on all of them.

Why did the state spend $11 million? What did they find in 20,000 hours of police time? They didn’t even find the bodies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2008 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

I suppose OJ Simpson and Robert Blake did not murder their spouses either?  smirk
I know they were both found innocent, but that doesn’t mean they did not do it, it means the jury was either star struck or felt it wasn’t proved within a reasonable doubt.
However, I think that before every trial, the jurors should be read the dictionary definition of [reasonable/i].

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2008 12:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  669
Joined  2008-07-03
asanta - 02 August 2008 12:20 AM

I suppose OJ Simpson and Robert Blake did not murder their spouses either?
I know they were both found innocent, but that doesn’t mean they did not do it, it means the jury was either star struck or felt it wasn’t proved within a reasonable doubt.
However, I think that before every trial, the jurors should be read the dictionary definition of reasonable.

Either could have been.
In OJ’s case, the LAPD totally screwed up in every conceivable way. As a result, there was no trustworthy evidence to convict on.
In Blake’s case, there was no evidence of guilt. He could not be connected to the murder weapon.
In both cases, there were alternative suspects.

The definition of reasonable doubt read to the jury is as confusing as can be. You need to be a logician to follow it, but they are always stripped from the jury as are most intelligent people.
In Peterson’s case, the evidence was all in his favor.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2008 05:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  199
Joined  2008-04-04
A Voice of Sanity - 02 August 2008 12:41 AM

The definition of reasonable doubt read to the jury is as confusing as can be. You need to be a logician to follow it, but they are always stripped from the jury as are most intelligent people.

I apologize for going off topic, but I hadn’t considered before what you mention above. Turns out, from what I’ve read this morning, that you couldn’t be more right. What I eventually came around to surprised me at first, but then realized it does make sense.

The is from the Yale University Press as part of a review of a book titled, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt.

To be convicted of a crime in the United States, a person must be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But what is reasonable doubt? Even sophisticated legal experts find this fundamental doctrine difficult to explain.

The rule as we understand it today is intended to protect the accused. But Whitman traces its history back through centuries of Christian theology and common-law history to reveal that the original concern was to protect the souls of jurors. In Christian tradition, a person who experienced doubt yet convicted an innocent defendant was guilty of a mortal sin. Jurors fearful for their own souls were reassured that they were safe, as long as their doubts were not “reasonable.”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 9
2