Zelaron Gaming Forum  
Stats Arcade Portal Forum FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Zelaron Gaming Forum > The Zelaron Nexus > General Discussion > Opinion and Debate

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-20, 11:57 AM in reply to Jessifer's post starting "Hahaha...Inflatable..."
That's always everyone's favourite.

My new nickname: Lendrip Brocolli-Head on account of my hair spouting from my head like Brocolli, apparently.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Lenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
Lenny
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-20, 12:34 PM in reply to Lenny's post starting "That's always everyone's favourite. :(..."
They should teach about Lenny in the classrooms.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Willkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusion
 
 
Willkillforfood
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-20, 11:59 PM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting "They should teach about Lenny in the..."
Quote:
They should teach about Lenny in the classrooms.
LOL, that is pretty funny.Is that pic on you site(Lenny) really you?
Angels encamp around them that fear the LORD!
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
frosted_snow is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenfrosted_snow is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
frosted_snow
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-21, 11:47 AM in reply to frosted_snow's post starting "LOL, that is pretty funny.Is that pic..."
Inane grin? Giant hairdo? Weird hats?

'Tis indeed.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Lenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
Lenny
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-21, 08:07 PM in reply to Lenny's post starting "Inane grin? Giant hairdo? Weird hats? ..."
lol, I hate it when my hair gets curly...At one inch it's straight, 2 curly, 3 curly, 4 semi curly and 5(which actually looks like 3 because my hair is curly)
is my favorite. lol...guess I just can't have what I can't have!
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Atnas shows clear signs of ignorance and confidence; the two things needed to succeed in lifeAtnas shows clear signs of ignorance and confidence; the two things needed to succeed in life
 
 
Atnas
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-21, 09:31 PM in reply to Atnas's post starting "lol, I hate it when my hair gets..."
Alas. Twas a good thread while it lasted.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Sovereign enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHzSovereign enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHz
 
 
Sovereign
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-10-21, 02:02 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Out of sheer boredom, I've decided to reply to every one of Jesus' posts in this thread. Why? Because most of them make no sense. And I hate that. Lenny already did a hell of a job. I think I was on a temporary hiatus when all of this went down otherwise I would have been all over this. However the fact that this moron decided to copy and paste most of his shit bugs me.

Anyway. most of my replies are going to be what I like to call common sense. There's really no point reading anything I write past this point unless by some chance this guy decides to come back. I just feel like arguing with somebody, so I'll use the shit he's already posted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, we need to define what evolution is, so we can have some basic premise to build upon. In the biology community, evolution is defined as a gradual change in allele frequencies in a population. It's that simple. Macroevolution and microevolution are generally not distinguished in a biology class. They are based on the same mechanism. So-called macroevolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of microevolution.

Now that definitions are not in the way, we need to look at the ideologies driving the institutes that you quote, and what drives the scientific community. The scientific community looks for the truth. As new evidence comes in, scientists tweak and modify their theories to fit the truth to the best knowledge that humanity has gathered. We may not yet have a crystal clear picture of the truth, however the detail in the picture becomes finer and finer as new evidence piles on. Your institutes are driven by religion. They come in with a pre-conceived notion of the truth, and then try to find evidence to fit that. When that fails, they twist, or outright fabricate evidence to fit their pre-conceived ideas.

Scientists may seem dogmatic about their theories. That is because the evidence is so pervasive. Evidence found so far in nature fits the evolutionary paradigm. Any evidence found contradicting that paradigm is usually unverifiable, or only seems to contradict the paradigm on the surface. This is why scientists generally don't question evolutionary theory. Now, if there was any evidence against evolution, such as a human being born to a monkey, scientists would seriously have to rethink their position. However, no such evidence exists.

The arguments that the discovery institute advocates are simply tautologies of the past 50 years that are constantly being rephrased. Over the next few days I will point out these tautologies in the posts that you have copied and pasted, and I will also attempt to show how your evidence against evolution is either fabricated, as it contradicts an enormous amount of already verified evidence, unverifiable, or how it can fit the evolutionary paradigm.

Quote:
There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.
Before the questions presented in the article that follows the above quote are answered, I would like the creationist to consider a concern of my own. You want your theory in my science class? Fine. Make it a scientific theory, and follow the process of science. Convert your tautologies into a scientific theory. Submit your theory to peer-reviewed journals. Have it gain some acceptance in an academic setting before it is taught in school. That is, after all, the process that any scientific theory must go through before it becomes rightly acknowledged. You, however, want to skip this well established process, and simply have your theory accepted and taught as fact. This is not science. It is, however, the epitome of religion.

Quote:
Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
Creationist, you are too preoccupied with the details of the experiment, which has caused you to overlook its overall significance. What the real environment of the Earth was like 4 billion years ago is not all that important. The significance of this experiment is that it shows how organic matter can rise from inorganic matter through purely natural processes. It voids the prerequisite of a supernatural cause for abiogenesis.

Quote:
Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Creationist, you are maliciously deceiving those who read your article. Most textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion at length. Furthermore, they provide viable explanations of the Cambrian explosion that entirely fit the evolutionary paradigm. Creationist, I recommend you learn about punctuated equilibrium. I also suggest that you learn some basic geology so that you may understand the process of fossil formation.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?
One person exaggerated about embryonic similarity. That is shameful. However, it is also primal human instinct to desire fame, and thus this exaggeration may have been based on that. That said, no reputable biology books show that picture anymore except to point out that at one point in time someone over-exaggerated embryonic similarities. Though not quite to the extent of the pictures you allude to, many embryonic similarities do exist. Once again, I suggest that the creationist educate himself on modern embryonic anatomy of various species.

Quote:
Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
The archaeopteryx is almost certainly an ancestor to modern birds. You are simply decreeing by fiat that there is probably no link between the two. However, morphological homologies don't lie. A link almost certainly exists.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?
Creationist, why do you cite one esoteric piece of information, and then induce that if your guesses are true about this piece of information then the entire structure of science is overthrown? As a matter of fact, what does this have to do with evolution?

Quote:
Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?
Dear creationist, you are sadly misinformed. Nobody claims that beak changes in Galapagos finches explains the origin of species by natural selection. We simply say that it is an example of natural selection. It is also an example of the common lineage of the various finches. Also, beaks did not shrink after the drought ended. You need citation for this claim. It seems absolutely bogus to me. More likely than that happening, you are employing a mischievous tactic which has you fabricating some information on an esoteric subject making it difficult for me to verify. A citation on this particular claim would help explain your case.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
Textbooks use evidence of fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence for DNA mutation because probably is DNA mutation, if again, this isn't one of your "fabricated facts." Whether or not this mutation is deleterious is irrelevant. What is significant is that it is an example of a mutation.

Quote:
Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
Because all fossil experts agree that our ancestors were primates. They simply don't agree on detail. As an analogy to explain this phenomenon, consider the following question: What did one of your ancestors look like 6 generations back? We could ask you and a sibling of yours. If you were asked to draw, their would probably be certain similarities between your drawing and that of your sibling's. For instance, we can assume that both drawings would consist of arms, legs, hair, head, and other common features. We can assume that both drawings would be a depiction of a human. However the drawings would differ in detail. This is what happens when fossil experts try and understand who our ancestors were. Make no mistake, though, everybody agrees that they were primates. Everybody agrees that modern apes and humans descended from them.

Quote:
Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?
This is simply a lie. While it is true, Darwin himself was incorrect about certain things, those have been corrected over the last 150 years. Even in Darwin's time, the theory of evolution was based off of scientific fact. It is much more so in our time.

Quote:
I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."
Creationist, I find your ignorance on scientific vernacular disturbing, especially since your are advocating your own scientific theories. In science, the term theory does not necessarily imply any uncertainty.

Also, "this quotation has been lifted completely out of context. Darwin is not stating that his theory was no better than its opposite. Quite the contrary. Examine Darwin's full statement below, which includes the sentences that directly preceded the above quotation: "This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements...I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

In context, Darwin was merely admitting that it was "impossible" for him to state his case completely, and balance it out by raising and answering all possible objections, since the Origin was merely an "abstract." For instance, elsewhere in the introduction he stated, "...it will take me many more years to complete it [my work], and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this abstract." Being merely an "abstract," he expected that people would raise questions, "adducing facts...apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived." Note his use of the word "apparently." But once "both sides of each question" had been "fully stated," Darwin was confident that a "fair result" would vindicate his theory rather than "the opposite." Darwin also stated in his introduction, "I have not been hasty in coming to a decision," a "decision" built on many years work, many more examples, and finely tuned arguments, than he could possibly fit between the covers of his little "abstract."

In fact, Darwin was so certain that a "fair result" would favor his view, that he ended his introduction with these words: "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification." Why don't the editors of The Revised Quote Book cite that summation of his introduction? Don't they want their readers to know what Darwin said in full context? Perhaps they are ignorant of it themselves."

Quote:
Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.
This is a lie propagated by Lady Hope. Even if it is not, science does not rest on the authority of one man. We have great scholars, we don't have prophets. If Darwin considered his work akin to religion, it is most certainly not that anymore as it has been tested, and empirically verified.

Quote:
Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.
There is no scientific theory with more conclusive evidence than the theory of evolution. Germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity do not come close to being nearly as conclusive as the theory of evolution. I am deeply sorry that science contradicts your holy book, dear creationist, however it is not science's job to appease you, no matter how belligerent you become. If anything deserves scientific law status, it is the fact of evolution.

Quote:
Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?
I wholeheartedly concur. Investigate. When you have a proper scientific theory, we will have something to discuss.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-10-21, 12:38 PM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
How the hell did I miss this thread? Oh wait, I was internetless...right.

You obviously never understood evolution.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
KagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed it
 
 
KagomJack
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-11-01, 01:53 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
~JESUS~ said:
Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?
I was perusing some websites and found a rebuttal to all these:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...11_28_2001.asp
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-12-12, 04:48 PM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Are you only posting questions or are you also providing answers? Seems to me you're just a confused school child.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
areyoudaft is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenareyoudaft is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
areyoudaft
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-11, 04:43 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post starting "billions? That is another topic... ..."
~JESUS~ said:
dinosaurs were created and dwelled and lived with man. They all over the bible but not obviously called dinosaurs.
Jesus Christ, when will you fuckers understand that the Flintstones was not meant to be a documentary?
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-05-19, 05:42 PM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "Jesus Christ, when will you fuckers..."
Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just now writing an essay on this subject and your posts really have helped me along.
<script type="text/javascript">alert("remember when scripting attacks worked?");</script>
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Asamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darkness
 
 
Asamin
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-05-19, 05:56 PM in reply to Asamin's post starting "Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just..."
Asamin said:
Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just now writing an essay on this subject and your posts really have helped me along.
Heh, np.

I have a lot more information in the other thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41798

I'd be interested in reading your essay.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-05-19, 06:02 PM in reply to Asamin's post starting "Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just..."
Also, you could try this one: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44145
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-05-20, 06:40 PM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "Also, you could try this one:..."
Thanks a lot. I turned out to be one of only four people who handed the extra credit in.
<script type="text/javascript">alert("remember when scripting attacks worked?");</script>
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Asamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darkness
 
 
Asamin
 
 

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules [Forum Rules]
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:03 AM.
'Synthesis 2' vBulletin 3.x styles and 'x79' derivative
by WetWired the Unbound and Chruser
Copyright ©2002-2008 zelaron.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.