# What do Aussies believe re: Evolution?



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

I'm curious to see if Aussies think the same way of Americans on the subject of evolution.
I found this chart of "What do Americans Believe"
three choices
a) God created the Earth in the last 10,000 years
b) God guided evolution of man over millions of years
c) Pure evolution - no God involved
no need for a lot of commentary (but up to you)
but would appreciate your time in voting, thanx.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

PS I decided not to give you the option of "don't know" 
lol - we'd all have to vote that in truth 
just your best guess based on your own philosophy. 

As for "didn't answer" - you mob of wits would all vote that as well if it was an option


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I suppose to answer truthfully one has to know the meaning/description of belief. Wik says ....



> *Belief is the psychological state *in which an individual is *convinced of the truth of a proposition*. Like the related concepts truth, knowledge, and wisdom, *there is no precise definition of belief on which **scholars agree*, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of belief.




My concise oxford says .... belief n. trust or confidence (in) ; *acceptance of **any received theology* ; acceptance (of thing fact statement etc.)

So for mine I can`t answer truthfully `cause I`m not a beaver.


----------



## explod (9 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

No God in my view, we are a freak of evolution, part of the big bang as part of the universe.  Some say they see wonderfull lights and great feelings when they have a near death experience.  I was knocked out once and I saw vivid stars and a sore head afterwards.

On average we seem to be differrent philosophically to Amerricans.  There was a report out of US last week of a youg lad gaoled for life for killing his Father who it was proved had physically abused his son throughout his childhood.  Certainly we must not condone murder but sometimes the circumstances need to be weighed in.

Religion seems to be more and more zero tolerance and is this perhaps some desperate attempt to avoid the big issues and how we are stuffing up the world.   Interesting hornets nest.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Wysiwyg said:


> I suppose to answer truthfully one has to know the meaning/description of belief. Wik says ....
> 
> My concise oxford says .... belief n. trust or confidence (in) ; *acceptance of **any received theology* ; acceptance (of thing fact statement etc.)   So for mine I can`t answer truthfully `cause I`m not a beaver



so just your best guess.... 

either at the answer  (no right or wrong) , or 
what the original Americans assumed "belief" meant  

PS I reckon your definition is spot on btw. 

Your call, but I would have thought if you can't answer questions that imply you believe in X, then maybe , .. ?? Y is a better answer 

Explod - I hear you - there was a case where an American who killed his father (granted with mitigating circumstances - bit like your case) was sent overseas as a missionary rather than do jail


----------



## Kathmandu (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I always liked this example of why there is no God.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/


Dave


----------



## kevo (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I would suggest that you guys read some history of philosophy. The notion that we evolved was know to the ancient greeks, there arguments were not the same ones we use today, but they were sound.
Since Darwin, we see that evolution is the central unifying idea in biology and have even been lucky enough to decrypt the mechanism.
A healthy civilisation requires people to have strong beliefs, beliefs strong enough to supress violence within a soceity and direct it outward. Our dying civilisation is christian, hence in the late denial phase we have a return to evangelism, which is essentially willfull stupidity, a counter reformation from modernity, which is why Americans go for it.
The irony is that reason alone will not sustain civilisation and what is true and what the mass of people beleive will always be at odds.

"Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past. For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and intellectual history takes on the character of a "conflict between science and religion" Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and -- after some hesitation -- the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike, to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end, a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile, among the oppressed, another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization."

By the way. Stocks are crashing as per 87 this week, take a look at 
www.kontentkonsult.com/supercycle.htm and download the citi pdf. If you like what you see you can always explore the site, its nothing special, but you will see some interesting stuff imo re the cdo mess.

I'm dirt poor so feel free to explore competitors offerings via the google ads on my site.

As a trader all you need to do here is buy gold stocks and hold on, imo.

Happy trading.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Found that passage you presented to be my thoughts also kevo.Something I understand.

Had one look at the site link you provide and hit the X in the top right hand corner of the screen.


----------



## explod (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Kevo, fantastic post, wish I could sum something up like that.     So we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place,  the rationals have thier hands bitten off and the irrationals promise the world


----------



## ZacR (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

The thing that I don't understand about evolution vs. creation is the whole 10,000 years vs. millions & millions of years. 

There is a massive difference between the two.

I would have thought with the technology and research available to man these days that scientists would be able to establish and agree on the approximate age of the earth.

Why is this fact never agreed on ??


----------



## mark70920 (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



ZacR said:


> The thing that I don't understand about evolution vs. creation is the whole 10,000 years vs. millions & millions of years.
> 
> There is a massive difference between the two.
> 
> ...




Science is the art of coming up with a theory and then trying to disprove it, if you can't you then publish the theory. Evolution has stood this test and hasn't been disproved scientifically, the biblical theories have failed this test repeatedly. 

When science fails to prove your religious faith, you just employ your own scientists to come up with theories that suit your agenda and change proven scientific method to give you the outcomes you want. Hence "intelligent design" the theory that we are to well designed to be an accident, the amercian christian right have embraced this failed theory as gospel and have started teaching it in schools. GW Bush is a supporter of this kooky rubbish.


----------



## stockGURU (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



ZacR said:


> The thing that I don't understand about evolution vs. creation is the whole 10,000 years vs. millions & millions of years.
> 
> There is a massive difference between the two.
> 
> ...




Fundamentalist Christians have determined the age of the Earth by counting up all the instances of someone begatting someone in the bible. This method of determing the age of the Earth can originally be attributed to Archbishop Ussher.

Scientists have determined an approximate age of the Earth by using radiometric dating which is based upon the decay rates of naturally occuring isotopes.


----------



## explod (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Well 2020 Hind... becoming pretty clear how a lot of us here on the forums think.   Interesting thread but what can we resolve?


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

not sure m8 - I want to stay impartial - (but I guess everyone knows my views - although I wonder about the middle option - as did Einstein I guess - except when he wondered about something, he was able to avoid his eyebrows getting in a knot - which is my main problem lol

as for the age of the earth bit , stockguru makes sense to me.  
(one estimate based on the decay rate
one on the birth rate )

well, better be-gatting along to Dan Murphy's before it closes lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



kevo said:


> "*Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men*; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; *it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past.* For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and *intellectual history takes on the character of a "conflict between science and religion*" Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and -- after some hesitation -- the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. *Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos*; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike, to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. *In the end, a society and its religion tend to fall together*, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. *Meanwhile, among the oppressed, another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization*."



thankx kevo
source of that quote maybe


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=200265&highlight=descartes#post200265

But these three (3) questions still are unanswered 
* was the first (1) kick-off taken by God? 
* who'll second (2) that first (1) page of Hansard?
* and third (3), was the first (1)  second (2) odd? 
(or even)

"well" - said the actress to the bishop - artyman: "I've come forth (4) - to have a fifth (5) over some six (6) while we thrash it out, sugar"


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

as stockguru posted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher 
amazing this bloke can calculate it (well , can keep a straight face and say he knows it) to the day !
23 Oct 4004 BC. 

Anglican Archbishop of All Ireland ? - may I suggest he was lost?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> to the day !
> 23 Oct 4004 BC.



Just a quick check 
let's pretend I'm the verifier. 
23 Oct 4004 BC.
what day of the week?

between 23 Oct 4004 BC and 23 oct 2007AD
we have 4004+2007-1 = 6010 years  (See below - delete zero year)
of which 6010 / 4 = 1502.5 were leap years, = 1502 (approx )
hence there were  6010x 365 + 1502 days = 2195152 days
hence 313593 weeks and 1 day

Now 23 Oct 2007 AD will be a Tuesday
therefore 23 Oct 4004 BC was a Monday 

*and CHECK!! “creation was the night preceding that " – i.e*. 
*early start *(or as they say these days , sparrow fart)* on the Monday*.  

PS since then man has evolved into a 38.5 hour per week animal
PS he has got meaner , 
and his erect demeanour now more resembles the shape of a lounge. 
PS a few more years of this and we'll be able to officially declare a new species 
 "the lounge lizard" 

PS seems that "BC" more accurately means "Before Conception" rather than  "Before Christ" (my words)


> The modern English term "before Christ" (BC) is only a rough equivalent, not a direct translation, of Bede's Latin phrase ante incarnationis dominicae tempus *("before the time of the lordly incarnation"), *which was itself never abbreviated. Incarnation means the conception, not the birth, of Christ, which since the 4th century has been celebrated on 25 March, nine months before the date on which the celebration of his birth at Christmas (25 December).




so ... does that mean that 24 March on year 1 is BC?
and instead of year 500BC, should we really say "  500 BTTOTLI ?"



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero
> Since Bede, historians have not counted with a year zero. This means that between, for example, 500 BC, January 1 and AD 500, January 1 there are counter-intuitively only 999 years:






> Bede (c.672–735) was the first historian to use a BC year, and hence the first to adopt the convention of no year 0 between the BC and AD epochs, in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical history of the English people, 731). Previous Christian histories used anno mundi ("in the year of the world"), or anno Adami ("in the year of Adam", beginning five days later, used by Africanus), or anno Abrahami ("in the year of Abraham", beginning 3,412 years later according to the Septuagint, used by Eusebius), all of which assigned "one" to the year beginning at Creation, or the creation of Adam, or the birth of Abraham, respectively. *All began with year 1 because the counting numbers begin with one, not zero*. Bede simply continued this earlier tradition relative to the AD era. Bede continued to use this zero epact in his De temporum ratione (On the reckoning of time, 725), but did not use it between dates BC and AD. .......
> 
> Bede did not sequentially number any other calendar units (days of the month, weeks of the year, or months of the year — but he was aware of the Jewish days of the week which were numbered beginning with one (except for the seventh which was called the Sabbath) and partially numbered the days of his Christian week accordingly (Lord's day, second day, …, sixth day, Sabbath in English translation).
> 
> In chapter II of book I of Ecclesiastical history, Bede stated that Julius Caesar invaded Britain "in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord", while stating in chapter III, "in the year of Rome 798, Claudius" also invaded Britain and "within a very few days … concluded the war in … the fortysixth [year] from the incarnation of our Lord".[1] Although both dates are wrong, they are sufficient to conclude that Bede did not include a year zero between BC and AD: 798 − 693 + 1 (because the years are inclusive) = 106, but 60 + 46 = 106, which *leaves no room for a year zero*.




PS gotta feeling that every now and again there's a slight adjustment of leap years - but lol
 don't have time for it now 


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_years Leap year rules
> In order to get a closer approximation, it was decided to have a leap day 97 years out of 400 rather than once every four years. This would be implemented by making a leap year every year divisible by 4 unless that year is divisible by 100. If it is divisible by 100 it would only be a leap year if that year was also divisible by 400.[2][3] So, in the last millennium, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. In this millennium, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900 and 3000 will not be leap years, but 2400 and 2800 will be. The years that are divisible by 100 but not 400 are known as "exceptional common years". By this rule, the average number of days per year will be 365 + 1/4 - 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425.





> Leap year algorithms
> Calculating leap years is simple, and is provided here by two different pseudocodes that determine whether a year is a leap year or not:
> 
> Standard
> ...


----------



## tech/a (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

2020.

I think it was something you wrote.
A statistic about each star in the universe being compared to the size of a hair folacle width.
10 to the pin head.
How much of the surface of the earth would they cover.
Of the estimated 25 trillion stars.
(1) Youd cover the whole surface of the earth.
(2) Plus every planet in our solar system
(3) 250 times!

Now for the human species to be so arrogant to suggest that ITS god/s created all. And that it cant even settle on a universal explanation of creation because it doesnt know and to find one would kill the power of religion. And STILL has to resort to faith to explain away the unknown.

Says to me that mankind is simply a very young naive species,which in many countries is led by the strong (Religions) by giving the vast majority of civilisation hope that there is more than their pitiful existance.
Belief,Faith and hope are as we have seen through centuries very powerful and manipulative indeed.

Yep we evolved and are still evolving,I think we are a very primative life form relative to what is likely to be out there.

*Must say*
Very suprised at the lopsided results here given the results on the poll on the Is there a God thread.


----------



## explod (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> thankx kevo
> source of that quote maybe




2020Hindsight,  a source is difficult when what Kevo has postulated has been built gradually on a chain of intellectual thinking going back 2500 years.   

My wife had a crack at reading the piece this morning over breakfast and in disecting the message it made me revisit a conclusion reached at uni. (when we knew everything and were going to force feed change on the world, struth, another missed opportunity) 

If you think about it there are two levels of education, the force fed repititious dogma and the free open campus to all possibilities.  They are led by our cultural circumstances with wealth and poverty playing a big part.  It has been resolved in societies where education all the way is an equal right to all individuals.  It falls down because the powerful become greedy and want to control.   

From the middle/dark ages the reawakening saw such uprisings as the commune of Paris, where people asserted themselves as individuals and for a right to have a say.  It has survivied well in that part of the world till the present but interestingly a lot of intellectual Europe is in regression.  I think we achieved it to some degree in Australia from the 60s through to the late 80s, 

Some peoples will always need guidance to cope, others will be greedy and want to control and others will want to allow the flowers to grow unnihibited and free;  getting it all  together is the great conundrum.

It has always been my view that there is no democracy without equal education for everyone, which is why your Bill Gates et. al put their life fortunes in these directions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



tech/a said:


> ... suprised at the lopsided results here given the results on the poll on the Is there a God thread.



yep those charts look kinda ..  different , heck they're practically inverted!
I've been practicing my preaching, but praps preaching to the practically converted ??

sorry , I'm a compulsive obsessive (bull****ter)

comment from the gallery .. explod's and kevo's posts are staring to sound more like prose than your average post imo 

I think it was 123billion billion billion stars btw.  = 123 trillion trillion (elsewhere given as "about 100 x 10^18") - like not sure if those lazy bugas in Canberra have finished counting them yet !!


----------



## tech/a (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Well seeing it takes around 11 days to count to 1 Million they could be a while!!

A usless question the answer of which astounded me.

If I could pack every human on the planet into a box like sardines.
What would be the cubic measurement of the box be?

After some answers I'll give the answer here. Bit off topic but You'll be suprised!


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



> since then man has evolved into a 38.5 hour per week animal
> he has got meaner ,
> and his erect demeanour now more resembles the shape of a lounge.
> PS a few more years of this and we'll be able to officially declare a new species
> "the lounge lizard"



THE EVOLUTION OF THE "LOUNGE HIENA" (New Species Just Evolved and Gazzetted!!)

there's a species half lounge half hiena
once the model of Gods of Athena
whose demeaner these days is less leaner
often leaning - and drinking is keener
you suggest to him " outside !! it's greener!!)
he grins "only for bludy Katrina"
and his wife calls him "t1ts-like-Sabrina"
--
how the king has evolved 
......................... .       to the queener


----------



## Julia (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> comment from the gallery .. explod's and kevo's posts are staring to sound more like prose than your average post imo




Indeed.  And very refreshing it is, too.  Keep it up Kevo and Explod.


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I didn't vote in this because the choices are inadequate.

*God created the Earth in the last 10K years -*

Clearly absurd

*God guided evolution of man over millions of years*

This is a very loaded statement, once again infected by the "dude in the sky" meme. The concept that some extraneous entity pulling strings to guide evolution has a number of philosophical and logical problems. It requires God to override the physical laws of the universe, which presumably, he put into place, to some end. Believers in this, arrogantly and self centeredly(?) presume humans are the end product and specific purpose of this evolution. pffffft

*Pure evolution - No God Involved*

Ah, the favoured theory of those who like to think themselves as thinkers. This theory as it stands in its various schools has a number of insurmountable challenges. Indisputably, there has been a gradual unfolding of life on this planet which could quite rightly be called evolution. But it's the "all by chance" part where the holes appear. 

It may seem in choice 3 that I'm arguing for choice 2. Not at all. I'm waiting for choice 4, 5 & 6.

I dare not suggest what these choices might be, but there are others which require us to set aside our religious and educational indoctrinations.

Perhaps "I don't know" should have been included in the survey, because anyone who thinks they "KNOW" without question is a muppet.


----------



## explod (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> I didn't vote in this because the choices are inadequate.
> 
> *God created the Earth in the last 10K years -*
> 
> ...




And perhaps you don't, it is a subjective area and one of the refreshing parts of this thread is that the views of all are heard and taken on board.

The thread is going along fine, I am with Julia


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Plod,

When adding your thoughts between the quote tags, do them in a different colour so we can differentiate.

Cheers


----------



## doctorj (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> Pure evolution - No God Involved
> Ah, the favoured theory of those who like to think themselves as thinkers. This theory as it stands in its various schools has a number of insurmountable challenges. Indisputably, there has been a gradual unfolding of life on this planet which could quite rightly be called evolution. *But it's the "all by chance" part where the holes appear.*



Can you elaborate on what you mean by the bolded statement - I'm curious because of all the planets in the solar system, ours (as far as we know) is the only one with life.


wayneL said:


> Perhaps "I don't know" should have been included in the survey, because anyone who thinks they "KNOW" without question is a muppet.



The question was asking what the respondant believed, not what they knew.  Belief, whether it be a belief in religion or belief in the theory of evolution, can exist in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Personally, I think most interesting thing is the descrepency between the results of this poll and the god one.  Are there that many people that believe in both god and god-free evolution?


----------



## mark70920 (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Holes in the Theory of Evolution? What holes? The theory has never been scientifically disproved. It still holds up today. 
It could be wrong but no one has proven it to be wrong. Therefore it has a chance of being correct and has evidence to back up the theory.

The earth was created in seven days by a mythical being???
All the evidence disproves this theory.
The earth is 10000 years old again all the evidence disproves this theory.
There is rock art in Australia older than this.

Is there a God?
There is no evidence to say there isn't, then again there is no evidence to say there is. Make up your own mind about this.


----------



## Happy (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Most of humans have tail bones to prove evolution.


----------



## Pat (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> I didn't vote in this because the choices are inadequate.



I didn't vote for the same reason. The word 'God' seems to describe a sentient being of some sort, which has immortal powers so to speak.

God is all around us, the food we eat and the dirt we walk on. God is anything and everything; it is the energy that binds us. To say ‘God’ had an influence on evolution of this world, or the universe for that matter, is incorrect to my thinking. 

Evolution? This is sciences (best) explanation for they way things are, have been and will be. I’m not saying evolution doesn’t exist, as it clearly does… “God” hasn’t made it happen, nor did he/she/it stand by and watch… God takes part and evolves too. 

God is Mother Nature, the earth, the sun, the stars


----------



## chops_a_must (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

A million monkeys at a million typewriters etc etc...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



doctorj said:


> ......
> 1. Belief, whether it be a belief in religion or belief in the theory of evolution, can exist in the absence of conclusive evidence.
> 
> 2. Personally, I think most interesting thing is the descrepency between the results of this poll and the god one.  Are there that many people that believe in both god and god-free evolution?



1. that was sure the intent - "best guess" I think I said
and particularly to limit the options to the same set offered in that other table from US - 
to compare Aust apples with US apples, if you like. 

2. reason for the difference with "Is there a God" thread? - maybe a small percentage of "strict genesis believers and/or fundamentalist religious people" voted there but not here?

maybe people thought that there was another option "God created the earth, but whoever calculated <10K was wrong (human after all )  I would say that if you're prepared to believe that the bible is "approx" on such issues, then you are also probably open minded to some "evolution" as well (as the Pope recently said he was for instance) - and those people would probably/ possibly / maybe be happy with the second option ?? (just a guess ) 

third option for the technocrats of course.  Does that mean they can't be pantheists? - mother nature etc? I wouldn't have thought that they were contradictory - getting subjective perhaps - but a "non-interventionist god" sits in there I would have thought 

3. also interesting the difference to the US results ( which was my main curiousity to be honest).  Anyone who watched Denton's recent show about the bible belt in US would I'm sure have been left scratching their head.

4. lastly lol, I'm sure I heard that it's an AUSSIE who has opened that Creationist Museum in USA lol (Cincinnatti?) - one of them anyway - scarey in my books. 

*AHHH
- you can see why he set up shop in USA - he'd already done his market research !! (ala this thread ) * 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html


----------



## Pat (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> Does that mean they can't be pantheists? - mother nature etc?



Wow! I'm one of them, according to the dictionary??? A single word describes my belief..... Anyone else out there like me? LOL


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



doctorj said:


> Can you elaborate on what you mean by the bolded statement - I'm curious because of all the planets in the solar system, ours (as far as we know) is the only one with life.



Doc,

There is not one single unified theory of evolution, there are several schools often vehemently disagreeing with each other. These disparate schools of thought take great delight in picking holes in each others theory. This highlights the fact there are holes.

Ultimately, the theory of evolution argues for none other than spontaneous generation. I argue that that is absurd.

Though I refrain from putting forth any alternative in the absence of any that are not equally absurd.


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Pat said:


> Wow! I'm one of them, according to the dictionary??? A single word describes my belief..... Anyone else out there like me? LOL



Yeah, if I had to pigeonhole myself Pat, that's about where I'd be too.


----------



## Joe Blow (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Just a general note on polls: I always find it very useful to include the option, "Other (stated below)". It allows those whose views aren't represented by the thread starter's poll options to participate in the vote as well as a give a more rounded and accurate poll result.

I have taken the liberty of adding this option to this poll.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



mark70920 said:


> Holes in the Theory of Evolution? What holes? The theory has never been scientifically disproved. It still holds up today.
> It could be wrong but no one has proven it to be wrong. Therefore it has a chance of being correct and has evidence to back up the theory.




Greetings mark.......isn`t evolution  observable?Does a life evolve from birth to death and create new life along the way?Evolution is in practice!



> Is there a God?
> There is no evidence to say there isn't, then again there is no evidence to say there is. Make up your own mind about this.




I wonder what people would believe in if this choice were not available.



p.s. I think what some are trying to say is "how did life on this planet _begin_."Evolution is in play now.


----------



## mark70920 (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Natural selection nothing absurd about it, happens all the time, it happening as we speak. Example of this can be seen in species with short life spans , where the creature with the favourable mutation lives and breeds ,the others die and become extinct. Evolution my friends.
Again this may all be an illusion but the evidence is strong that this is what happened on a large long term scale.
To call a theory with a strong body of evidence absurd is absurd. I not saying you shouldn't keep your minds open to other possibilities , I just saying to totally ignore something with such strong evidence is silly. But some people still think the earth is flat despite all the evidence to contrary.


----------



## tech/a (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



> I wonder what people would believe in if this choice were not available.




They would create something that was percieved as far greater than could be imagined.

B.C That was the likes of the Sun,Moon,Sea,Volcanic activity--blah blah.
Man will create something to explain that which he cannot.


----------



## son of baglimit (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

now what would the great pumpkin think ? (linus is crying)


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



mark70920 said:


> Natural selection nothing absurd about it, happens all the time, it happening as we speak. Example of this can be seen in species with short life spans , where the creature with the favourable mutation lives and breeds ,the others die and become extinct. Evolution my friends.
> Again this may all be an illusion but the evidence is strong that this is what happened on a large long term scale.
> To call a theory with a strong body of evidence absurd is absurd. I not saying you shouldn't keep your minds open to other possibilities , I just saying to totally ignore something with such strong evidence is silly. But some people still think the earth is flat despite all the evidence to contrary.



You're not building a straw man here are you?


----------



## Pat (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



tech/a said:


> Man will create something to explain that which he cannot.



I often wonder why. I suppose it it a source of power, manipulation etc. Why not worship the hand that feeds you? Keep it simple Simon LOL...
I just voted, thanks Joe.


----------



## spooly74 (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Hi Wayne,
Just curious, you seem to agree the life has evolved over a period of time here on Earth. 
Is the "all by chance" you have a problem with to do with the origin of life?


----------



## Pat (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> Yeah, if I had to pigeonhole myself Pat, that's about where I'd be too.



And if you let yourself be free to fly? Where are you now? (in a nutshell ???) 

And another point regarding the bible, religon etc. Perhaps the "spiritral leaders" teach as if the bible was/is an accurate account.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Pat said:


> Wow! I'm one of them, according to the dictionary??? A single word describes my belief..... Anyone else out there like me? LOL



lol - well Pat you can blame Dukey - he's the one who first mentioned it here (to my knowledge).  Then again, everyone knows he’s off on some oriental adventure – forget about sniffing the roses – he’s into much stronger stuff than that lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65397&highlight=pantheism#post65397


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

couple of contradictory quotes 

actually controversial - and arguably provocative, lol - 
AND my GUESS is that Wayne will like the first one, lol    



> "When all men think alike, no one thinks very much"   .......  Walter Lippmann




BUT I PERSONALLY PREFER THIS ONE  ...  i.e.  I personally think that thinking about such things as "whether evolution is a fact" is a thing of the past , and the concept of evolution is arguably "fait accompli"  viz:-



> "Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we perform without thinking "  .....  Alfred Whitehead



PS I just posted a poem on the poetry thread.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=201073&highlight=cincinnatti#post201073


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

coupla quotes - just for fun (dont blame me blame that Wilde Twain pair)

"Man - a creature made at the end of a week , when God was tired" ..... Mark Twain

"I sometimes think that God, in creating Man, somewhat overestimated his ability" ... Oscar Wilde


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> I think it was 123billion billion billion stars btw.  = 123 trillion trillion (elsewhere given as "about 100 x 10^18") -  !!



apologies
123 x 10^18 was correct
but this is 123 million million million ( not what I said back there ) 
the words are wrong, the number isn't 
- what's a few zeros between friends. lol. 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html
sheesh NASA say its 1,000 million million million = 10^21
(going up) 
in any event it's "heaps" 
and it's also pretty approximate etc


----------



## wayneL (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Pat said:


> And if you let yourself be free to fly? Where are you now? (in a nutshell ???)



Interesting wording Pat. I guess my involvement in these threads is to bowl a few googlies and hopefully promote some radical thought... to be free to fly, so to speak.

As to where I am... well that's something that is consistently "evolving"  Where I am now, I hope not to be next year, if that makes any sense.


----------



## spooly74 (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Another theory for evolution.

Basically, meteorites containing organic carbon fertilized the Earth ...


----------



## Lert (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

On a lighter note, the funniest cartoon I've seen was was done by Larsen 10 or so years ago titled 'God making snakes'. God was at the workbench with a heap of clay and was rolling out snakes and then hanging them up to dry.. God's voice balloon said "these are a cinch". Whenever I think about it I just crack up


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> Another theory for evolution.
> Basically, meteorites containing organic carbon fertilized the Earth



spooly what a brilliant youtube ( in fact set of youtubes) 
thanks man 
here's the "family" ( as you must already know) 
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=evolution+vs.+creationism

and , lert, lol - no need to post that cartoon - perfectly painted in the imagination lol.
Isn't the human mind bludy great  lol .


----------



## So_Cynical (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> Another theory for evolution.
> Basically, meteorites containing organic carbon fertilized the Earth ...




Nice vid and a twist on my theory of preference...cosmic bacteria.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



> The human cerebral cortex has grown rapidly over the last million years. With it, we've learned to use tools, industrialised, and built nuclear weapons. But the older, primitive parts of our brain are still there—fuelling our emotions, our fears, our greed, our impulse to destroy our neighbours.







> What separates us most from other creatures on the planet is the size of our brain. One hundred billion nerve cells, packed into 1400 cubic centimetres - bigger than any other species. Thanks to it, we're the dominant species on the planet—forget the huge jaws and the sharp spines running down the back, who needs them?
> 
> It's been a long time in the making though. About a billion years ago, brains were pretty basic—just groups of specialised cells with the ability to transmit electrical signals to move other groups of cells—primitive limbs. The idea was, in an environment where an organism needed to get away in a hurry from another on the lookout for a snack, mobility was a good idea.




http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/surviveourbrain/

Humans have the greatest ratio of brain to body mass of any animal.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Wysiwyg said:


> Humans have the greatest ratio of brain to body mass of any animal.



gday wys
and certainly the greatest ratio of unused brain to used body mass


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

G`morning 2020........Professor Colin Groves on current models ,  DNA and dogs.



> Q1: The is a current theory that all modern humans evolved from a small group in Southern Africa. What is the evidence for this and how convincing is it?
> Submitted by Dennis Murray







> A:The current model is that modern humans evolved from a small group in sub-saharan Africa. The group had to be reasonably small because there is strong DNA evidence to suggest that the common ancestor in the female line goes back to only 200,000 years ago. You would expect it to be much longer ago if the group was large. There is strong DNA evidence to support this, as DNA of all kinds, not just mitochondrial, is much more diverse in Africa. Basically, modern humans are a subset of Africans.
> 
> The group that gave rise to us possibly lived in North East Africa (Ethiopia or Kenya) and just spread out. This group had some sort of advantage over the other groups and species alive at the time - maybe they discovered a new tool type or formed a symbiotic relationship with the ancestor of the dog (dogs keep you warmer, look after kids, have an alarm bark, and possibly help with hunting). This meant they could out-compete the other groups as they spread out.
> 
> - Prof Colin Groves, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Wysiwyg said:


> G`morning 2020........Professor Colin Groves on current models ,  DNA and dogs.






> maybe they ..... formed a symbiotic relationship with the ancestor of* the dog*



love it lol
sounds like the dyslexic agnostic insomniac (sheesh - typos !!Lol)  was onto something after all  - and all this time I thought it was a joke 

sounds like "Dog made man" ?


----------



## Lucky (13 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Dinosaurs???


----------



## rub92me (13 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> Ultimately, the theory of evolution argues for none other than spontaneous generation. I argue that that is absurd.



Uhm, talking about a strawman.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



tech/a said:


> 1. Well seeing it takes around 11 days to count to 1 Million they could be a while!!
> 
> 2. If I could pack every human on the planet into a box like sardines.
> What would be the cubic measurement of the box be?
> After some answers I'll give the answer here. Bit off topic but You'll be suprised!



1. tech - you got me thinking .. number of stars - how long to count etc..

Assuming that its 1E21 (NASA) rather than 123E18 (that Guess based on Hubble photo I posted) i.e.  
*1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
and you have to count them.... *

Now the population of the world is currently about 6.6 billion people
you enlist the help of ALL of em 
to count the stars 
each concentrating (teamwork) on the smallest dot the heavens ( I'll get back to how big that is) 
for the term of their natural life
pretend that they start as a 1 day old baby
and live to 80 years (counting 24/7 - no sleep, night and day )
and do nothing else but count bludy stars
*then each and every one of them will have to count at a rate of 60 stars per second *!!!

check...  
60 per sec x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 x 80 x 6.6E9 = 1E21

*How fast is that counting !?
compare a "high flow" petrol bowser counting cents these days lol.* 

*PS and if they lose track they have to start again !!!! :eek3:*

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

Next how big was the area that each one had to concentrate on with their counting in that time ? 
put your arm out at full length (say 700mm)  and look at your little-fingernail (lets say 10x10mm) - there are 65,000 fingernails in the area of the sphere you are looking at. (area of sphere = 4 pi r^2 as I understand it)

(Incidentally, that's roughly the size of a full moon btw i..e. little-fingernail at arm's length  - but let's not get off the track) 

But you have 6.6 billion people counting so 
100,000 people have to share that fingernail !!!
*i.e. each person would be counting FLAT  out for their ENTIRE life on an area 1/100,000 the size of their little fingernail at arms length!!*

Thirdly / fifthly whatever...
*behind a full little fingernail at arms length, (very approx behind a full moon - though I havent used a circle, I have used square fingernail 10mm x 10mm) you would expect to find 1E21 / 65E3 stars = 15 E15 stars 
i.e. 15,000,000,000,000,000 stars!*

Finally, the answer to your question on the total volume of 6.6 billion people ?
mmm say 500mm wide, 200mm thick, 1600mm tall (average all ages?)
1 billion cub m
say MCG = melbourne cricket ground


> http://www.mcg.org.au/default.asp?pg=themcgdisplay&articleid=70
> The MCG arena has a total of approximately 20,290 square metres in area and measures 174 x 149 metres in length, from fence to fence



so that would be a prismatic pile covering the *MCG x 52km high *(I think lol)
I'll let you set me straight . 

PS E & O E errors and omissions excepted
as a stuttering m8 I knew used to say "I could well have fu-fu- screwed up again"

*Imagine a world of mad mutterers
with everyone counting flat out
ignoring the 2% stutterers 
or drunkards or people who shout
some 6 billion people near tears
at a rate of 60 per second 
it would take them all 80 years
That's a lot of stars - you'd reckon *


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



rub92me said:


> Uhm, talking about a strawman.



Why is that a straw man?


----------



## rub92me (14 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> Ultimately, the theory of evolution argues for none other than spontaneous generation. I argue that that is absurd.





wayneL said:


> Why is that a straw man?



It is a straw man argument for the following reasons:
a) There are many theories on evolution; to lump them all together as _the_ theory of evolution is misleading.
b) Evolution argues for many things; one of them may or may not be spontaneous generation, but that's certainly not all of it.
c) You then refute that notion as absurd.
Classic example of a straw man argument in my opinion.

On a side note you haven't _argued_ that spontaneous generation is absurd (i.e. you haven't put forward any facts as to why you think that, you've just stated it), but that's a different debate.


----------



## wayneL (14 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

A straw man argument is an argument that intentionally misrepresents an opponents position



rub92me said:


> It is a straw man argument for the following reasons:
> a) There are many theories on evolution; to lump them all together as _the_ theory of evolution is misleading.



Point taken, though the various theories of evolution are popularly lumped together as a generalized concept as "the theory of evolution". In the vernacular of the non-scientific community, i.e. the majority here, it is not, and was not intended to be misleading in the slightest.

Strike one



rub92me said:


> b) Evolution argues for many things; one of them may or may not be spontaneous generation, but that's certainly not all of it.




Perhaps I should have used the term "abiogenesis" rather than spontaneous generation, which refers to a specific 17th and 18th century theory. I accept that this is a semantical inaccuracy, but most certainly not an intentional attempt to mislead. Both terms refer to the formation of life from non-living matter.

Strike two



rub92me said:


> c) You then refute that notion as absurd.



Yes I do. This accurately represents my position. No attempt to misrepresent here either.

Strike three.



rub92me said:


> Classic example of a straw man argument in my opinion.



You're out! 

Not a hint of a strawman argument at all. In fact your accusation of a straw man argument, is in itself a strawman argument. as you intentionally misrepresent my position.



rub92me said:


> On a side note you haven't _argued_ that spontaneous generation is absurd (i.e. you haven't put forward any facts as to why you think that, you've just stated it), but that's a different debate.



Isn't that argumentative? My argument is an argument then, innit?


----------



## rub92me (14 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> A straw man argument is an argument that intentionally misrepresents an opponents position
> 
> Point taken, though the various theories of evolution are popularly lumped together as a generalized concept as "the theory of evolution". In the vernacular of the non-scientific community, i.e. the majority here, it is not, and was not intended to be misleading in the slightest.
> I can't prove intent. You can't prove no intent. Wide.
> ...



...


----------



## wayneL (14 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

:sleeping:


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

gee whiz ... 
what it is to have seniority round here


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

back to the thread
and the complete insignificance of all of us
if you look at the moon tonight, you'll see a small sliver of "new moon"
let's say it is 1 / 15 th of the full circle of the moon.

behind that there are 1/ 15 th of 15E15 stars = 1 million billion stars.

so , if you could split it into 1 million pieces, each would have 1 billion stars behind it 

have a look at the moon, as see if you don't get a sense of your own insignificance in the scheme of things - lol a grain of sand would be big noting oneself


----------



## Happy (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

If we are insignificant part of enormous being, we could actually be a start of cancerous growth on that being.


Imagine, if this is possible and we manage to expand to other planets and galaxies, we could eventually kill the host and this could kill us in return.


----------



## megla (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I voted other, reasons:

I make the assumption that just because we believe there are beginings, middles and ends - doesn't mean the universe does.

I make the assumption that the lack of proof is a direct result of regilious fundamentalists destroying it because it didn't fit in with their beliefs.

I also make the assumption that this is not the first time we have been on this sphere in a semi-controlling fashion as a race, but perhaps its a repeating proceedure that we stuff up each time.

I also make the assumption that because we concentrate on the numbers and facts, no one will agree with my assumptions


----------



## numbercruncher (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I realised we had something to do with monkeys when hair started growing out of my back and Banannas began to taste better than ever.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



numbercruncher said:


> I realised we had something to do with monkeys when hair started growing out of my back and Banannas began to taste better than ever.




Good observation there .... an undoubtable sign of maturity.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



numbercruncher said:


> I realised we had something to do with monkeys when hair started growing out of my back and Banannas began to taste better than ever.




yep - I cut my forehead shaving during the recent full moon eclipse episode. 

re bananas - the only difference between us and apes when it comes to bananas is that we take the trouble to peel em.
then again (as already posted elsewhere), bananas PROVE divine intervention according to this bloke (a kiwi incidentally) - I mean, no way did the banana evolve - it was made to fit man's hand. 

 The atheist's nightmare: the banana


> Kirk Cameron learns why the design of such a well-thought-out fruit PROVES that 'God' is responsible for all of creation. Surely He made the banana with humans in mind. Surely He wanted us to drink daquiris, too.
> Also, how does this guy explain the artichoke?


----------



## spooly74 (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> re bananas - the only difference between us and apes when it comes to bananas is that we take the trouble to peel em.




LOL twenty, where did you find that fruit cake :silly:

The actual difference is only 2 less chromosones


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> LOL twenty, where did you find that fruit cake :silly:



just looked up "banana cake" on google m8 lol

heck - that explains that nightmare I had last night 

this reviewer takes that "bananas theory" of his .....  and "RUNS WITH IT !!!"
like, lol - he proves that god is a PNG native.  
 Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort/Kirk cameron

more on fruitcake :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort
I couldn't believe it the first time I saw that lol - I was so sure it was a pisstake lol - spot on with your smiley icon lol .... >>  :silly:

Gee but I'd love to know the facts about how many Yanks believe that the world is only 6K years old.(note last jpeg)
Not sure I'd trust the church to be honest on this lol.
Too busy pushing that barrow 



> Born Jewish, Comfort was raised with next to no religious experience; in his words: "I went through life without any Christian instruction at all. I think I went to church about three times in about twenty years. I hated it. I* found it an insult to my intellect*. I remember joking, 'If I couldn't sleep one night, I'd employ a preacher to come preach to me; and it would send me off.' I was serious; it seemed to me to be completely boring, except for one church, where they had communion; and they brought around real wine."[1]
> 
> He says he became a Christian on April 25, 1972, "... at 1:30 A.M. in the morning", aged 22. For many years, he served as an itinerant minister and associate pastor in his former hometown of Christchurch, teaching around New Zealand and Australia. ..............
> he accepted an offer from Hosanna Chapel (of the Calvary Chapel fellowship) in Bellflower, California, to begin full-time ministry in the United States. *Comfort has no theological degree *and has had no formal training.[3]



"no theological degree" - go on ! - you sure couldda fooled me !! - I guess , who needs  a degree when you've got a fruit shop next door!


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 September 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> just looked up "banana cake" on google m8 lol
> this reviewer takes that "bananas theory" of his .....  and "RUNS WITH IT !!!"
> like, lol - he proves that god is a PNG native.
> Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort
> ...



Since the Creation Museum was started by an Aussie in USA (I'm guessing he'd go broke in Aus - simple market research based on the results of this poll for instance), 
and this bloke is a Kiwi and has moved to USA , presumably for bigger gigs, 
.........
I just thought there was a poem in there somewhere 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=203300&highlight=bananas#post203300


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

great story on today's news 
chimps have better memory than men .  

  Chimps outperform humans at memory task


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> great story on today's news
> chimps have better memory than men .




I`ve always been intrigued about how a brain works without words.Purely sensory driven, but what happens when the image,noise etc. hits the brain.What process takes place without words/thought?


----------



## aaronphetamine (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

That Banana story isnt entirely true, the banana didnt evolve persay, from the ones that produced seeds in india to the domesticated variety we all eat today

The real banana plant that produces a fruit with seeds wasnt very good tasting and quite bitter, however in the jungle there was some mutant plants, that were also producing mutant bananas, but as a result didnt produce any seeds. these fruits tasted alot better and were searched out and reproduced by splitting.

So all these years later we are eating bananas on an ancestral path from ones patch of mutant bananas in the indian jungle a very long time ago.

The banana is a mutant of the real species of banana plant.

There is very very very little genetic variation in banana plants at the moment, and many articles have been written about a genetic disease breaking out and destroying every banana plant potentially as they all have the same genetics - as opposed to organisms which reproduced sexually, and increase genetic diversitiy - humans for an example.

Its kinds of like say, the resulting genetic mutant animal resulting from the reproduction of a horse with a zebra, the resulting animal cannot reproduce, therefore the species can never get started.. but imagine if you could cut of a part of that mutant animals body and a whole now animal would grow from it.. thats all that is done with bananas.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



aaronphetamine said:


> That Banana story isnt entirely true, the banana didnt evolve persay, from the ones that produced seeds in india to the domesticated variety we all eat today
> 
> .. we are eating bananas on an ancestral path from ones patch of mutant bananas in the indian jungle a very long time ago.
> 
> The banana is a mutant of the real species of banana plant.



aaron
you're probably right - India vs PNG etc
but the bottom line is..

when you look at a hand of bananas, you are not (as this bloke claims) looking at the hand of god -  designed to fit a man's hand - making it with 3 grooves etc, plus a flip-top lid lol.   the evolutionist's or atheist's nightmare whatever?? :confused


Incidentally, I guess he made slightly different shaped ones for chimps - but without the fliptop because chimps usually skip the "peeling" bit. 

Maybe also he made em long and thin so that elephants could wrap their trunks around em.  

Arguing with this banana bloke would be about as useful as arguing with a chimp - or an elephant.    Then again a chimp - or an elephant - might win the argument because he had a better memory than any man (seems to be proven for chimps - at least short term photographic memory - see last post but one) 

PS I always thought bananas came from Qld - as they say up there , "we know how to bend 'em, now do you know how to straighten em ?"  

PS what did you think of last night's story about the (young) chimps outperforming the students by a country mile on the memory test.  Their brain is somewhere around one third to half ours, but they have much better skills in some areas 



Wysiwyg said:


> I`ve always been intrigued about how a brain works without words.Purely sensory driven, but what happens when the image,noise etc. hits the brain.What process takes place without words/thought?



wys - as skint's granpa used to say . , "in one ear and gathers no moss" 

PS YOu can even take the test yourself at BBC news here :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm


> Chimps beat humans in memory test
> By Helen Briggs
> Science reporter, BBC News
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

....


> She said the importance of these primates for understanding the skills necessary for the evolution of modern humans was unparalleled.
> 
> "*They are our closest living relatives and thus are in a unique position to inform us about our evolutionary heritage," said Dr Parr*.


----------



## gilbo (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

IMO the funny thing about Humans is that we just can't bear to say "er..I dunno". We have to come up with a theory that seems to fit the facts the best and conclude it's the truth.

How we came to be here, how we evolved etc is just a huge question that, if we were just a teensy weensy bit honest with ourselves we should by saying "er....I dunno"

A lot of what is thought to be the truth about evolution on both sides of the argument (creationist v Darwinist) rings true, so shouldn't we be looking to devising an even better theory that fits all pints of view better? It seems to me that both sides of the argument have strengths & weaknesses that suggestsa better unifying theory exists?


----------



## ithatheekret (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

How long is a day to God ?

I lean more to the adaptation theory than the evolution theory .


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



gilbo said:


> IMO the funny thing about Humans is that we just can't bear to say "er..I dunno". We have to come up with a theory that seems to fit the facts the best and conclude it's the truth.
> 
> How we came to be here, how we evolved etc is just a huge question that, if we were just a teensy weensy bit honest with ourselves we should by saying "er....I dunno"



Ding Dong! Get this man a beer. Spot on there.



gilbo said:


> A lot of what is thought to be the truth about evolution on both sides of the argument (creationist v Darwinist) rings true, so shouldn't we be looking to devising an even better theory that fits all pints of view better? It seems to me that both sides of the argument have strengths & weaknesses that suggestsa better unifying theory exists?




er... I dunno about that. 

(But seems to make a lot of sense)


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Further to post #80 (which concerned those test where chimps outperformed students at memory tests
...


2020hindsight said:


> You can even take the test yourself at BBC news here :-
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm



here's another (similar) result ... (this time involving addition) 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/18/2122232.htm?section=justin


> Chimps calculate as well as some uni students
> Posted 23 minutes ago
> 
> Researchers from Duke University in the United States have found that chimpanzees can perform mental addition as well as some university students.
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

This section i cut out is about how civilisation come to be.Man is every bit the likeness to the rest of this planets inhabitants.I find false communication via words the biggest disappointment of all.




> “Having been forced into civilized communities as a last resort, people found themselves faced with increased social inequality, greater violence in the form of organised conflict, and at the mercy of self-appointed elites who used religious authority and political ideology to bolster their position. These models of government are still with us today, and we may understand them better by understanding how civilisation arose by accident as a result of the last great global climatic upheaval.”




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060910143119.htm


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2007)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

The Evo is a much better car than the Lancer it is replacing, beautiful gear changes, torque to die for and would give Darwin's beard a twig if he were still alive. Overall 5 stars for this beautiful car.

gg


----------



## spooly74 (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Evo is a much better car than the Lancer it is replacing, beautiful gear changes, torque to die for and would give Darwin's beard a twig if he were still alive. Overall 5 stars for this beautiful car.
> 
> gg




LOL gg,

For some more humour, SBS @ 8.30 have 'Intelligent Design on Trial' .... should be a hoot.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> ... SBS @ 8.30 have 'Intelligent Design on Trial' .... should be a hoot.



Rats lol - I had the mother-in law here (very religious) - not allowed to watch it lol - still I'm hoping I can track it down on their website.  

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
embedded:-
 "Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman


----------



## CoffeeKing (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Where we (humankind) came from, will probably be never known...
We are on this earth from somewhere, either evolved or left behind...

It's how we approach the future in order to maintain our survival


----------



## spooly74 (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



CoffeeKing said:


> Where we (humankind) came from, will probably be never known...



It is very well understood if you care to look.

2020, yes the first part will be available on their website. Can't find it either just yet ... the ID'ers are quick off the mark


----------



## Glen48 (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Now you have all sorted out one God what about this one?
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.  
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component 
is a springboard for all of the other components.  Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a 
Country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their 
Religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.  Here's how it works. 

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in 
Any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a 
Peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is 
The case in:


           United States -- Muslim 0.6%
           Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
           Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
           China -- Muslim 1.8%
           Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
           Norway -- Muslim 1.8%


At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, 
Often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.  This is happening in:


           Denmark -- Muslim 2%
           Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
           United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
           Spain -- Muslim 4%
           Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%


From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.  
For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby 
Securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to 
Feature halal on their shelves --  along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:


           France -- Muslim 8%
           Philippines -- Muslim 5%
           Sweden -- Muslim 5%
           Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
           The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
           Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%


At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves 
(within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.  The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish 
Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means 
Of complaint about their conditions.  In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings.  Any non-Muslim 
Action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition 
To Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.  

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:


           Guyana -- Muslim 10%
           India -- Muslim 13.4%
           Israel -- Muslim 16%
           Kenya -- Muslim 10%
           Russia -- Muslim 15%


After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, 
And the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

           Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%


At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia 
Warfare, such as in:


           Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
           Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
           Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions 
(including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, 
And Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:


           Albania -- Muslim 70%
           Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
           Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
           Sudan -- Muslim 70%


After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even 
Some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been 
Experienced and in some ways is on-going in:


           Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
           Egypt -- Muslim 90%
           Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
           Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
           Iran -- Muslim 98%
           Iraq -- Muslim 97%
           Jordan  -- Muslim 92%
           Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
           Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
           Palestine -- Muslim 99%
           Syria -- Muslim 90%
           Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
           Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
           United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%


100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.  Here there's supposed 
to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the
 only word, such as in:


           Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
           Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
           Somalia -- Muslim 100%
           Yemen -- Muslim 100%


Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate 
and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.  
''Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life.  It was me against my brother; me and my 
brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe 
against the world, and all of us against the infidel". ----- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, 
such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, 
and within which they live by Sharia Law.  The national police do not even enter these ghettos.  
There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities.  In such situations, 
Muslims do not integrate into the community at large.  The children attend madrasses.  They learn 
only the Koran.  To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.  Therefore, 
in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the 
national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population.  But their birth rates dwarf the 
birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers.  Muslims will exceed 
50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

--------------------------------------------
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: 
"Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Glen48 said:


> Now you have all sorted out one God what about this one?
> Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.



hi glen - intresting post / article , but ...
you sure you picked the right threat, lol ?


----------



## noirua (30 November 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> hi glen - intresting post / article , but ...
> you sure you picked the right threat, lol ?



Hi 2020, As the thread has gone a bit off topic it opens the way for me.
Are most people who call themselves Aussies really Australians, or are they really against their own country due to a could not care less attitude.

Do they take AUD's abroad and spend it on holidays and not care to stay here in harder times?
Do they just buy from shops items made in other countries in times when they should think about Australia?
A good idea to work abroad and send back foreign currencies in difficult times. Do they do that?

Evolution places us by chance in a particular country and we should bat for our team and take all the catches.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



noirua said:


> Hi 2020, As the thread has gone a bit off topic it opens the way for me.
> Are most people who call themselves Aussies really Australians, ... etc



noi, the topic's evolving you reckon


----------



## jonojpsg (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



mark70920 said:


> Science is the art of coming up with a theory and then trying to disprove it, if you can't you then publish the theory. *Evolution has stood this test *and hasn't been disproved scientifically, the biblical theories have failed this test repeatedly.
> 
> When science fails to prove your religious faith, you just employ your own scientists to come up with theories that suit your agenda and change proven scientific method to give you the outcomes you want. Hence "intelligent design" the theory that we are to well designed to be an accident, the amercian christian right have embraced this failed theory as gospel and have started teaching it in schools. GW Bush is a supporter of this kooky rubbish.




Can't see how evolution has stood the test?  There is NO evidence to show that one species can evolve into another species, unless you consider changes in a finch's beak because they live on a different island to make them a different species!?

No fossil evidence to show inbetween species, no hard evidence of inter-species species if you know what i mean.  How can there have been all this evolution from one species into the next and so on without ANY evidence of the in between stages.

Also no evidence that you can create life from non-life so where did life come from.

Also, DNA is the basis for all life and is information - information implies an intelligent source, so where did the information come from.

etc etc. lots of arguments against MACRO evolution.  This is where the crux of the matter lies IMO - the anti-God coalition grabbed Darwins theory, which was based on evidence of MICRO evolution (changes due to environment) and thought "we can use this to put an end to creation and hence God by using it to imply that we all evolved from pools of inert chemicals"

Just my


----------



## gordon2007 (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

What if a person has dual australian\american citizenship. If he\she votes on here, is same person voting with american thoughts or australian thoughts?


----------



## Beej (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Can't see how evolution has stood the test?  There is NO evidence to show that one species can evolve into another species, unless you consider changes in a finch's beak because they live on a different island to make them a different species!?
> 
> No fossil evidence to show inbetween species, no hard evidence of inter-species species if you know what i mean.  How can there have been all this evolution from one species into the next and so on without ANY evidence of the in between stages.
> 
> ...




That's rubbish - you need to have watched the documentary "Intelligent Design on Trial" on SBS last night (mentioned up above in this thread) that went through in detail the court transcripts of a case in the US where all the points you raised above are debunked by expert scientists.

Eg - there are NUMEROUS examples of "in between" species fossils have now been found and analysed. It's a creationist myth that there are none. 

Eg - Molecular biology provides many situations where Theory of Evolution could be dis-proved, but instead it provides an ever increasing mountain of evidence to SUPPORT evolution. One example of this creationists always used is the Chromozone count in great apes vs humans (24 vs 23). Where did the extra Chromozone go? Well it turns out that analysis of human DNA can show exactly where 2 Chromozones have mutated and joined to form a single one - the science behind this discovery is widely accepted and undisputed. There are many more examples, but that's a good one.

Beej


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Last night there was a documentary on SBS called "Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial." Part 1

Around four out of ten Americans believe in creationism as set out in Genesis. Because of the separation of church and state religion cannot be taught in schools, whilst evolution is taught in science classes. This is based on the Darwinian principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Naturally this is anathema to the the religious fundamentalists who are trying to introduce a pseudo science called Intelligent Design into the school curricula. They sneakily make no mention of a god in their textbook.

I recommend this program to those who wish to know more about what the nutters are up to.

It can be seen on www.sbs.com.au    Go to Television - Watch Full Episodes.


----------



## jonojpsg (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Beej said:


> That's rubbish - you need to have watched the documentary "Intelligent Design on Trial" on SBS last night (mentioned up above in this thread) that went through in detail the court transcripts of a case in the US where all the points you raised above are debunked by expert scientists.
> 
> Eg - there are NUMEROUS examples of "in between" species fossils have now been found and analysed. It's a creationist myth that there are none.
> 
> ...





Alright Beej, what about origins of life then?

Where did DNA come from - and please don't say it built itself up from nothing!!!!  or appeared from another planet!!!!

Where did life come from - and don't tell me it came from non-life!!!


----------



## Beej (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Alright Beej, what about origins of life then?
> 
> Where did DNA come from - and please don't say it built itself up from nothing!!!!  or appeared from another planet!!!!
> 
> Where did life come from - and don't tell me it came from non-life!!!




Well I'm no molecular biologist etc, but I am aware of experiments that started back in the 50s and have been confirmed many times where simple self-replicating organic/RNA based "life forms" (amino acids) can be created from a "primordial sludge" plus the application of large electrical currents. Ie, "life" has been created in labs from nothing but carbon compound sludge (compounds that could have easily existed on the earth back in the time when all this would have occurred). One theory goes that lightning strikes may have provided the electrical current source needed to "spark" these earliest and simplest life forms into existence, then of course evolution takes over for billions of years from there.

Lot's of info on the science/theory here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

The thing that really erks me is why religious people see evolution/darwin etc as anti-religion? Personally, I think that there is so much evidence for the process of evolution that if you do believe in god, then you better come to terms with evolution as the process by which god created life on earth. 

To me it is neither here nor there whether that was the case or not, however I don't see why a belief in the overwhelmingly supported theory of evolution in and of itself necessarily precludes a belief in the existence of god?

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Sean K (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Life originated from somewhere, but why make up some old grey bearded man in the sky (or any other of the gods) and worship Him when we don't really have any proof other than the words of schitzophrenic 'prophets'. 

Perhaps God is simply a term for what we don't understand or have proof for, including the origin of life, and what started evolution...

I'm going out to build an idol to worship that idea. Perhaps it'll make the sun shine tomorrow too.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Alright Beej, what about origins of life then?
> 
> Where did DNA come from - and please don't say it built itself up from nothing!!!!  or appeared from another planet!!!!
> 
> Where did life come from - and don't tell me it came from non-life!!!




Jono Jono Jono. 

Why is it that whenever I see someone of a religious leaning talk about their imaginary friend, they try to find the biggest gap they can and stuff HIM into it?

A while ago religion had all the answers - and if you didn't believe those answers, there's this handy fire over here you can step into.

Then science started to figure out the real reasons behind things and suddenly the imaginary friend couldn't live there any more. The gaps get smaller and smaller, and people seem desperate to stuff that imaginary friend as far back into that gap as possible.

You seem like you are spoiling for a fight because someone doubted the existance of your imaginary friend and are looking for the biggest gap you can find to stuff him into. But just like YOU can find gaps where science hasn't explored and stick you fingers in your ears and go "la la la - see my imaginary friend exists in that gap.", science comes up with the occassional gem that when you mention it to those of a religious leaning, they tend to either a) shout even louder about their imaginary friend or b) slink off and sulk.

So here it is Jono.

Go investigate something called endogenous retroviruses. 

Have fun

Sir O


----------



## windy (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

If we evolved from the apes, then what happened to the apes left behind?


----------



## rub92me (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



windy said:


> If we evolved from the apes, then what happened to the apes left behind?



They're still around. Occasionally you see some of them posting on this forum too.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



windy said:


> If we evolved from the apes, then what happened to the apes left behind?




God didn't love them and they went to a hot place.

Sheesh Windy if you can't be bothered to ask an intelligent question I can't be bothered to give you an intelligent answer.


----------



## jonojpsg (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Jono Jono Jono.
> 
> Why is it that whenever I see someone of a religious leaning talk about their imaginary friend, they try to find the biggest gap they can and stuff HIM into it?
> 
> ...




Ossi Ossi Ossi (Oi Oi Oi ), 
I love a barney as you have pointed out - I also love it when people take up the challenge 

WHy is it whenever I see someone of an atheistic leaning say they don't have an imaginary friend they try and shout down those who do?  Is is because they are jealous and want to find something to fill their gap?

Yeah yeah, I know science is "discovering" more and more all the time about things that fundamentalists have put forward as reasons to believe in God, and endogenous retroviruses are a part of that.  However when you look at the overall picture, the more science discovers, the more gaps there will be to fill (for fun, investigate infinite sequences )

I'm not going la la la, I'm just putting forward the point of view that science doesn't and cannot by definition have all the answers.

Oh and Beej, those 50s experiments are so, well, 50s.  

There has never been a scientific experiment that has produced pure samples of the correct type of proteins or nucleotides necessary for the production of life. However, in 1953 the famous Miller/Urey experiment proved that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane, and energy can combine to form some amino acids which are required for life. Yet the highly praised Miller/ Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced *85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid,* 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.[11] 

Mmm, sounds yummy


----------



## numbercruncher (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

After having a good look around the place of come to the conclusion that most people evolved from Monkeys and a small handful of us were created by god.


----------



## cbacamden (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

For those that beleive in evo - Where do you stand on right and wrong? Is there such a thing ?


----------



## spooly74 (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Jono,

Abiogenesis, the origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Don't confuse the two.


----------



## cbacamden (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

What was Darwins book called again ?

Wasnt it - "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or, the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"


----------



## Beej (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



			
				Jonojpsg said:
			
		

> Some creationist propaganda/drivel.... plus this little gem: "Oh and Beej, those 50s experiments are so, well, 50s. "




Jono - are you a genetic scientist? A micro-biologist perhaps? Or are just spouting creationist propoganda because you are actually a religious person who finds their beliefs somehow threatened by the revelations of modern science?

Oh and by the way, early Abiogenesis experiments might be "oh so 50s", but creationist BS is just so, well, medievil by comparison! 

Beej


----------



## derty (1 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Religion. It's a placebo.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I see the argument is still extremely polarized and dogmatic (with a couple of exceptions).

I don't know what happened, but I'm pretty sure the truth is not at the extremes. How about thinking outside the square? How about an evolution of thought on the subject that can include all possibilities?

FWIW, both sides are still labouring under the "Old dude in the sky" meme. Are there other possibilities as to what {insert favourite term here} is?

Of course there are... an infinite number in fact, many with creation/evolution congruency.

BWTFDIK (only my own experience)


----------



## Bushman (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Wow what a boring and pointless argument. Let him or her believe what they wish to believe. Then we can all have some peace on this planet! 

My view: random probability at play. Not very mystic but I find my mysticism in nature. Off to Wilsons Prom soon for some real energy - the ocean, the tides, the moon, the sun, the solar system. The wonders of physics! Bliss.


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Bushman said:


> Wow what a boring and pointless argument. Let him or her believe what they wish to believe. Then we can all have some peace on this planet!
> 
> My view: random probability at play. Not very mystic but I find my mysticism in nature. Off to Wilsons Prom soon for some real energy - the ocean, the tides, the moon, the sun, the solar system. The wonders of physics! Bliss.




Thanks for adding to the mundane pointlessness.


----------



## Bushman (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> Thanks for adding to the mundane pointlessness.




T'is what I do the best.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Ossi Ossi Ossi (Oi Oi Oi ),
> I love a barney as you have pointed out - I also love it when people take up the challenge



 You know Jono I'm not surprised, because I had to ask myself, when the poll reads that nearly 3/4 of people say it's not your imaginary friend, why would come spoiling for a barney? Now me I'm not into self flagellation, but won't you shouting louder and louder at this crowd (which you KNOW don't share your beliefs) just make you seem ...well like a jerk? And consequently the philosophy you are attempting to espouse... attractive to jerks?







> WHy is it whenever I see someone of an atheistic leaning say they don't have an imaginary friend they try and shout down those who do?  Is is because they are jealous and want to find something to fill their gap?



Oh wow Jono. Your witty turnaround of my own words has made me realise that I have a huge whole in my life that I now must rush out and fill by devoting myself utterly to Islam. Bring me my Koran so that I may call Jihad against you you filthy heathen Christian....What you wanted me to find religion didn't you?  Hmmm perhaps you shouldn't project Jono...it makes you look silly.







> Yeah yeah, I know science is "discovering" more and more all the time about things that fundamentalists have put forward as reasons to believe in God, and endogenous retroviruses are a part of that.  However when you look at the overall picture, the more science discovers, the more gaps there will be to fill (for fun, investigate infinite sequences )



Hey I know a lot of maths, what particular aspect of infinite number sequences would you like to examine and how exactly do they relate to your imaginary friend? Of course when you look at the "overall picture" you filter it through the rose colored glasses of your religion, so something as basic as math has religious significance.  No wait...hang on...I know this tactic  This is about First Cause right? Before infinity what was there? There has to be something right? Cause and effect rules absolutely, there can't have been just nothing, that doesn't make sense. So therefore it can't be natural so it has to be supernatural. Yea and Yaweh did stretch forth his hand and made the heavens move and caused the universe to start. Oh darn I read the last bit wrong from the holy text, let me try again. And the flying spagetti monster did stretch forth his noodly appendage and stirred the sauce which caused all of us to become one with the cosmic taste.  No that doesn't sound right either how about... and the great jet of steam from Russells teapot did cause the heavens to move and make us inexplicably attracted to tea.

Wow that was fun Jono.  So did you even look at ERV's or did you just right them off as another "discovery" that doesn't gel with your personal belief system and can therefore be ignored? 







> I'm not going la la la, I'm just putting forward the point of view that science doesn't and cannot by definition have all the answers.




And so you fill the unanswered questions with....... C'mon it's not that hard.... starts with S....say it with me Jono... superstition.  Well done. I tell you you hide your imaginary friend in gaps and you nod you head and show us how it's done. Brilliant tactic Jono. I'm in awe.

Well that was entertaining Jono, let me know when you've had enough self flagellation.

Sir O


----------



## jonojpsg (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

This is great!  I love it when I get flagellated - which is what you are doing, not what I am doing.  So because I am trying to explain what facts point to there being a God even in the face of 3/4 of survey respondents *believing* otherwise, I am making myself look like a jerk??  I hope that ASFers don't think that people holding alternative opinions, beliefs, etc to them think that they are jerks.  I certainly don't think you are a jerk, just that you think differently to me

Ok ok, turning your words around was a bit trite, but I couldn't help myself.  Fact is there are plenty more people in the world that believe in a supernatural creator than that don't, so I'm not sure that I am projecting.  Surely there must be something in it.  And no I'm not trying to convince myself here, just pointing out the stats.

And the infinite sequences thing was just pointing out that as you divide a sequence up into more and more pieces, eg the classic half way to the door scenario, you never quite get there.  And yes, FIRST CAUSE is a valid argument - if there was a big bang, what caused it?  And if you want to propose multiple universes, then where did the mechanism for creating the multiple universes appear from.  I mean seriously, how can a universe just appear?  How can one believe that it was simply "nature"?  Or chance?

Yeah I had a look at ERVs - very interesting.  Where did the ERVs come from though?

So yep, I'm filling my gap with ... hang on... it starts with G... yep, God.  Sorry if I've disappointed Sir O


----------



## spooly74 (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> And the infinite sequences thing was just pointing out that as you divide a sequence up into more and more pieces, eg the classic half way to the door scenario, you never quite get there.




*YES YOU DO* ...that is a convergent series.

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> *YES YOU DO* ...that is a convergent series.
> 
> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!




Can you show me the total equation that proves this?  :batman:

Answer on a postcard please. LOL


----------



## Sean K (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> 3/4 of survey respondents *believing*



Interesting discussion can be had on what makes us believe, and it's bound not to end in that there actually IS something, but some sort of evolutionary adaption that casues us to create, or need, or require, religion.

It's based around; respectively, agent detection, causal reasoning and theory of mind.

Interesting article on it here.

Those anti Dawkins don't be put off by his mention on the first page.


----------



## jonojpsg (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> *YES YOU DO* ...that is a convergent series.
> 
> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!




No Spooly it converges on 1 - never actually gets there.


----------



## spooly74 (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> No Spooly it converges on 1 - never actually gets there.



Source please 

Try this experiment .... Punch yourself in the nose and see if it never actually gets there.


----------



## jonojpsg (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> Source please
> 
> Try this experiment .... Punch yourself in the nose and see if it never actually gets there.




Ouch! Why did you tell me to do that???!!! That really hurt - I thought you said it would never get there.

Couldnt you find a picture of the series without the 1 in it?

I stand corrected too - does equal 1.  It's the thought that counts


----------



## spooly74 (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Ouch! Why did you tell me to do that???!!! That really hurt - I thought you said it would never get there.



I said see......you said it would never quite get there. 


> Couldnt you find a picture of the series without the 1 in it?



 Happy now


----------



## AlterEgo (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> I said see......you said it would never quite get there.
> 
> Happy now




What's the last number in your series?


----------



## spooly74 (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



AlterEgo said:


> What's the last number in your series?




jeez ..you want a postcard too? :

Short answer below.
My last post on this off topic discussion.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> This is great!  I love it when I get flagellated -




You know you can get therapy for that







> which is what you are doing, not what I am doing.  So because I am trying to explain what facts point to there being a God even in the face of 3/4 of survey respondents *believing* otherwise, I am making myself look like a jerk??



 Excuse me? Did you say "facts" How interesting. Which facts would these be Jono? Why is it that your "facts" if they are so clear and decisive as to *prove* the existance of your imaginary friend are not believed by 2/3 rds of the rest of us.  Or do we simply the lack your insight? Cough*indoctrination* cough.  







> I hope that ASFers don't think that people holding alternative opinions, beliefs, etc to them think that they are jerks.  I certainly don't think you are a jerk, just that you think differently to me



Of course this is where we differ greatly. You think religion is a subjective topic and I think it is an absolute one. Subjective difference of opinion would be me saying that the market has bottomed and you saying no I think it still has more to go down. Absolute is me saying "The sky is blue" and you saying "No it's pink with purple spots." "Just look up it's blue" "No Sorry you're wrong, it's pink with purple spots I have the facts" "Look if you just examine the evidence in front of you and look up you can see I'm not making it up. the sky really is blue" "Pink and Purple!!" "Why don't you just look up?" "no no I'm happy staring at my belly button"


> Ok ok, turning your words around was a bit trite, but I couldn't help myself.



 I try not to leadeth you into temptation







> Fact is there are plenty more people in the world that believe in a supernatural creator than that don't, so I'm not sure that I am projecting.



 Fact? hey there's that word again without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Fact and belief are different. I may believe that an invisible pink Unicorn named Betsy skates around my house. My belief is independant of the facts. Now I'm sure you've heard your Mommy say something along these lines. "If 33% of the worlds population named johnny decided to jump off a bridge, do you think that is a good idea? Peer pressure as an argument? Ahuh yeah that's a convincing argument. Here have some heroin all the _cool_ kids are doing it. 







> Surely there must be something in it.  And no I'm not trying to convince myself here, just pointing out the stats.



 And if you say that 50 million times you'll REALLY believe it. Of course it could also mean that all those people believe something that is independant of the facts. But hey hand over the dessicated Tiger penis as a cure for a flagging libido will you. A Billion Chinese people can't be wrong, surely there must be something in it. **** now I did the trite thing. 







> And the infinite sequences thing was just pointing out that as you divide a sequence up into more and more pieces, eg the classic half way to the door scenario, you never quite get there.  And yes, FIRST CAUSE is a valid argument - if there was a big bang, what caused it?  And if you want to propose multiple universes, then where did the mechanism for creating the multiple universes appear from.  I mean seriously, how can a universe just appear?  How can one believe that it was simply "nature"?  Or chance?



 No first cause is a gap and a logical trap. Because was was the cause of the first cause? Oh darn. What was the cause of the first cause that caused the first cause? Blast. Who caused the first cause that caused the first cause and caused the first cause? Damn I think I have too many causes there. If all that flew by a little fast, go think about it for a while, I mean seriously, how can a first cause just appear? DARN IT that damn trite thing again. 







> Yeah I had a look at ERVs - very interesting.  Where did the ERVs come from though?



 Wait so you read about ERV's and THAT was the question you came up with? Hmm, Well if you look at ALL viruses where do you think they come from? Surely a benevolent and loving imaginary friend wouldn't create Aid's right. I mean what a vindictive sod if he did right? 







> So yep, I'm filling my gap with ... hang on... it starts with G... yep, God.  Sorry if I've disappointed Sir O




Hey I'm not disappointed here, you wanna display your ignorance and admit that instead of learning the facts you wanna believe in superstition go right ahead.

This was fun, your turn.

Sir O


----------



## jonojpsg (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Damn that's good!!  If it wasn't my anniversary and I didn't have to go and have dinner with my beautiful wife I would respond right now - as it is you'll have to wait.

Hang on, can't resist - I didn't say anything about *proving* the existence of God, just that facts point to there being a God, eg the existence of DNA.  And don't tell me some ERV made DNA


----------



## MS+Tradesim (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> No first cause is a gap and a logical trap. Because was was the cause of the first cause? Oh darn. What was the cause of the first cause that caused the first cause? Blast. Who caused the first cause that caused the first cause and caused the first cause? Damn I think I have too many causes there. If all that flew by a little fast, go think about it for a while, I mean seriously, how can a first cause just appear? DARN IT that damn trite thing again.




There are two possible modes of existence for any given entity...dependent (contingent or caused) or independent (non-contingent or uncaused). Not everything can be dependent. The fact that even one dependent entity exists requires a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the set of all dependent entities. Ergo, some independent entity must exist. This need not imply a god. It simply recognizes that at the end of the chain exists an uncaused first cause that grounds the existence of all contingent entities.

It's much nicer all round when all sides admit that every worldview ultimately rests on untestable assumptions. The polemics are ugly and only exacerbate the problems of this world, rather than progressing solutions.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Damn that's good!!  If it wasn't my anniversary and I didn't have to go and have dinner with my beautiful wife I would respond right now - as it is you'll have to wait.
> 
> Hang on, can't resist - I didn't say anything about *proving* the existence of God, just that facts point to there being a God, eg the existence of DNA.  And don't tell me some ERV made DNA




I eagerly await your response in full Jono, I'm sure it will be fascinating.

Regarding your last bit.... HUH? You're not trying to *prove* the existence of your imaginary friend, just highlight "facts" that "point to" there being a God.

Wait hang on I need to run that past the flimflammery filter.

/logic mode on. Engage dictionary

Facts - used to prove or disprove a stated position. Knowledge or information based on real occurances. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence.

Point - A particular aim, end or purpose

Disengage dictionary

Prove a stated position = Point to factual evidence.  

XXXXXXLogic errorXXX reinstall universe - XXXOut of cheeseXXX

/logic mode off

Oh yeah that made perfect sense. You broke my filter.

Sir O


----------



## AlterEgo (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> jeez ..you want a postcard too? :
> 
> Short answer below.
> My last post on this off topic discussion.




Sorry, but the series is infinite, therefore has no end.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Wow Tradesim did you swallow a dictionary?



MS+Tradesim said:


> There are two possible modes of existence for any given entity...dependent (contingent or caused) or independent (non-contingent or uncaused).



How about emergent?


> Not everything can be dependent.



Why? 


> The fact that even one dependent entity exists requires a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the set of all dependent entities. Ergo, some independent entity must exist.



Nice assumption. Of course as you've said...it's untestable, so why is there an absolute in that statement? An "entity" (which evokes a consciousness and directive intelligence) *must* exist? You sure? You ABSOLUTELY sure? Coz you'd need to prove that and how exactly were you planning on proving that when you can't test for it? 


> This need not imply a god. It simply recognizes that at the end of the chain exists an uncaused first cause that grounds the existence of all contingent entities.



That's some good babble their tradesim, but as I said to Jono...  what caused the uncaused first cause? I mean what caused the cause of the uncaused first cause? Son-o-va-logical-trap.







> It's much nicer all round when all sides admit that every worldview ultimately rests on untestable assumptions. The polemics are ugly and only exacerbate the problems of this world, rather than progressing solutions.




I admit nothing!! NOTHING!! I tells ya. I'm sure I can test the worldview of a young earth creationist just fine.

Sir O


----------



## MS+Tradesim (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Wow Tradesim did you swallow a dictionary?



I'm sorry. I thought that if you considered yourself sufficiently versed to debate philosophy you'd know the language.



> How about emergent?



It reduces to 'dependent' - prior conditions are necessary for an emergent state of affairs to come about.



> Why?



Umm. Basic philosophy. If everything is dependent then no necessary and sufficient conditions exist to ground even one dependent entity let alone a vast set of them.



> Nice assumption. Of course as you've said...it's untestable,



A conclusion is not an assumption. A conclusion is true if the argument is logically sound and the premises true.



> An "entity" (which evokes a consciousness and directive intelligence) *must* exist?



Once again, I'm sorry, I thought you were versed in standard philosophical semantics given your absolute surety regarding your beliefs about first cause. An entity exists where some property obtains for a referent. Or, to put that a little more simply - Y exists because some positive property about Y exists. eg. "the apple" is an entity because all of the properties that belong to "apple-ness" belong to the object sitting on my bench. It does not imply consciousness or directive intelligence. Of course, if you believe the first cause must be intelligent that may go some distance in explaining why you so strenuously reject it.



> You sure? You ABSOLUTELY sure? Coz you'd need to prove that and how exactly were you planning on proving that when you can't test for it?



You seem confused about a number of things here. I said all worldviews rest ultimately on untestable assumptions. Try researching Descarte's demon or the brains-in-vats problem. Try thinking about the self-referential nature of logical first principles. Contemplate the inescapability of physical laws in this universe for minds that belong to this universe in order to externally examine this world. In short, do some study on epistemology.



> That's some good babble their tradesim, but as I said to Jono...  what caused the uncaused first cause? I mean what caused the cause of the uncaused first cause? Son-o-va-logical-trap.



Ummm....think about what you've said. _"What caused the uncaused first cause?"_ 



> I admit nothing!! NOTHING!! I tells ya. I'm sure I can test the worldview of a young earth creationist just fine.




No doubt you could. But you probably need to put a little more thought into some of your own views as well. Intellectual humility is called for on all our parts.


----------



## spooly74 (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



MS+Tradesim said:


> It's much nicer all round when all sides admit that every worldview ultimately rests on untestable assumptions. The polemics are ugly and only exacerbate the problems of this world, rather than progressing solutions.




Untestable assumptions? Could you expand a little on this?
You don't necessarily have to observe something to explain what occurred. 
(I have assumed  'assumptions' and 'hypothesis' to carry the same meaning)

And on the polemics ( Googled it ) of evolution, the theory did not evolve to dispute or disprove anything. It's simply a stand alone theory which explains the mechanics of direct empirical evidence.



AlterEgo said:


> Sorry, but the series is infinite, therefore has no end.



No need to apologise!
I am well aware of the concept of infinity, but you have not taken into account that there are addition symbols between the fractions.
The *SUM* of the absolute convergent series (above) is a *FINITE *number.


----------



## tommymac (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

I can't believe there is so much arguing going on in this thread. Okay, we could have all guessed some people would like to "push" their beliefs.

Evolution is only a theory.  Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it is correct.  Therefore surely evolution is just a belief system just as is religion.

I believe in God, not because God has stood in front of me, but because I believe it is correct based on what I read, feel, learn.

I dare say neither can be disproven and we can only prove it within ourselves.

PS. Sir Osisofliver, you seem to be making arguments without any real facts or knowledge of religion.


----------



## Happy (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



tommymac said:


> I believe in God, not because God has stood in front of me, but because I believe it is correct based on what I read, feel, learn.
> 
> I dare say neither can be disproven and we can only prove it within ourselves.
> 
> PS. Sir Osisofliver, you seem to be making arguments without any real facts or knowledge of religion.





In Australia more than 140 religions are registered, there would be more world wide, hope there is enough room up there or down here for all of them.

Of course there is possibility that there is just one GOD and so many thousands of interpretations, making it remotely possible that there is none, as surely so many people cannot be wrong.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



MS+Tradesim said:


> I'm sorry. I thought that if you considered yourself sufficiently versed to debate philosophy you'd know the language.



 Don't worry on my part Tradesim. I can keep up OK, of course simplification and examples always help with communication rather than complexity and jargon.







> It reduces to 'dependent' - prior conditions are necessary for an emergent state of affairs to come about.



 Wow sounds so simple and so logical. Of course if emergence were an intrinsic characteristic of energy, matter, dark matter and all the other wonderful bits that make up the universe yet to be found, does this remove the need for independence?







> Umm. Basic philosophy. If everything is dependent then no necessary and sufficient conditions exist to ground even one dependent entity let alone a vast set of them.



Let me continue to challenge this tradesim.  How can we make that statement with any surety? How do we _know_ that conditions for emergence didn't exist? Define "Conditions" Is it matter, sub atomic particles exotic energy states or some form of energy we are currently unaware of perhaps? It's such a simple thing to say that before there was anything there was nothing. So some "thing" must be outside of "everything" to cause everything to happen. And yet where did this "thing" (call it an entity if you must) emerge from itself? How can it be "uncaused"? How did the entity emerge with no prior conditions for it's emergence? It's infinity +1 and to make  _any_ absolute statements along the lines of "before everything there was nothing and whatever entity caused everything" is flawed. This is the trap that the bible bashers and God Botherers leap onto and claim direction and intelligence for. I'm quite happy to say I don't know because it's the only true position to hold. 







> A conclusion is not an assumption. A conclusion is true if the argument is logically sound and the premises true.



 the assumption is that an entity must exist. You assume that before everything there was nothing and whatever caused everything.







> Once again, I'm sorry, I thought you were versed in standard philosophical semantics given your absolute surety regarding your beliefs about first cause.



 No I challange the standard philosophical semantics and as for absolute surety... I'm absolutely sure I don't need an imaginary friend. 







> An entity exists where some property obtains for a referent. Or, to put that a little more simply - Y exists because some positive property about Y exists. eg. "the apple" is an entity because all of the properties that belong to "apple-ness" belong to the object sitting on my bench. It does not imply consciousness or directive intelligence. Of course, if you believe the first cause must be intelligent that may go some distance in explaining why you so strenuously reject it.



 It's not that I believe first cause as you put it is intelligent, that's the BS that the God botherers propaganda machine puts out. Sorry I arced up about the use of the word entity, to me it still evokes a personality







> You seem confused about a number of things here. I said all worldviews rest ultimately on untestable assumptions. Try researching Descarte's demon or the brains-in-vats problem. Try thinking about the self-referential nature of logical first principles. Contemplate the inescapability of physical laws in this universe for minds that belong to this universe in order to externally examine this world. In short, do some study on epistemology.



 Heh I think it's funny that above, to paraphrase Descarte, I've asked you to throw out your barrel of apples and get go of your preconceived idea structure of "basic philosophy" eh? 







> Ummm....think about what you've said. _"What caused the uncaused first cause?"_



 yep i've thought about it..have you? infinity +1







> No doubt you could. But you probably need to put a little more thought into some of your own views as well. Intellectual humility is called for on all our parts.




Hey I'm always thinking, and happy to admit it when I am wrong. Shame the Young Earth Creationists don't think the same way.

Sir O


----------



## MS+Tradesim (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> Untestable assumptions? Could you expand a little on this?(I have assumed  'assumptions' and 'hypothesis' to carry the same meaning)




"Untestable" wouldn't be the best word I could have used. I should have said "not externally provable". At the base of all belief systems are certain assumptions...things we just take for granted as true because we cannot get outside of them nevertheless they are internally consistent and we build all of our beliefs on top of them. An example I pointed out to osis are logical first principles. They work and we accept them as foundational to all fields of knowledge but they themselves cannot be tested or proven without reference to themselves. At the base of all belief systems is circularity. 



> And on the polemics ( Googled it ) of evolution, the theory did not evolve to dispute or disprove anything. It's simply a stand alone theory which explains the mechanics of direct empirical evidence.




I agree. But that doesn't stop both defenders and detractors from polemicising around the issue and trying to turn it into something it isn't.....ie. a religious debate.


----------



## derty (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



tommymac said:


> Evolution is only a theory.  Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it is correct.  Therefore surely evolution is just a belief system just as is religion.





Your understanding of what a theory is and what a theory is accepted to be in science are two different things. Evolution is much more than a belief system. Creation wishes it could only be a theory.



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
> 
> Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]
> 
> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.



from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



tommymac said:


> I can't believe there is so much arguing going on in this thread. Okay, we could have all guessed some people would like to "push" their beliefs.
> 
> Evolution is only a theory.



 You know I just love hearing this from people that think they know something about evolution. Tell me honestly Tom...have you spent as much time studying evolution as you have religion?







> Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it is correct.  Therefore surely evolution is just a belief system just as is religion.



Belief system? Oh most holy Darwin, we who were quite literally worms in our ancient bloodlines do most humbly beg you to interceed with the laws of chance so that I might win the lottery. I promise to tithe much wealth to your noble priests and phrophets and promise to recite Mendels Mechanisms most devoutly. Sorry Tommy couldn't resist responding frivolously.







> I believe in God, not because God has stood in front of me, but because I believe it is correct based on what I read, feel, learn.
> 
> I dare say neither can be disproven and we can only prove it within ourselves.
> 
> PS. Sir Osisofliver, you seem to be making arguments without any real facts or knowledge of religion.




Bring it on Tommy, tell me about your Real Facts. Do they differ from everyday ordinary facts?


Sir O


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Anyway as much fun as this is I should get going,

See you peeps on the morrow


----------



## derty (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Just to add to the previous information about what a scientific theory is to assist those who think that theories are mere hypothesis and speculation. 

all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory



> "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."



The fact that the Theory of Evolution still stands as a theory implies that there have been no observations made to date that disagree with the theory. A stark contrast to creation science that is continually backpedalling into the ever diminishing gaps.

Theory vs Law


> Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
> 
> A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. This is not true, as scientific theory and scientific law have different definitions. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.




compare with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



derty said:


> The fact that the *Theory of Evolution *still stands as a theory implies that there have been no observations made to date that disagree with the theory. A stark contrast to creation science that is continually backpedalling into the ever diminishing gaps.



derty, Or this one mate  - the Theory of Gravity 
Poetry #1151

For those who thinks warming’s "just theory"
it’s "unproven"; it’s "making you weary",
for a bit of quick levity
test the *Theory of Gravity*
(just try jumping off cliffs without making a cavity)...
praps you’ll float down to earth feeling cheery.

(It's based on something I read on some website, so not 100% original).


----------



## MS+Tradesim (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Wow sounds so simple and so logical. Of course if emergence were an intrinsic characteristic of energy, matter, dark matter and all the other wonderful bits that make up the universe yet to be found, does this remove the need for independence?Let me continue to challenge this tradesim.  How can we make that statement with any surety? How do we _know_ that conditions for emergence didn't exist? Define "Conditions" Is it matter, sub atomic particles exotic energy states or some form of energy we are currently unaware of perhaps? It's such a simple thing to say that before there was anything there was nothing. So some "thing" must be outside of "everything" to cause everything to happen. And yet where did this "thing" (call it an entity if you must) emerge from itself? How can it be "uncaused"? How did the entity emerge with no prior conditions for it's emergence? It's infinity +1 and to make  _any_ absolute statements along the lines of "before everything there was nothing and whatever entity caused everything" is flawed.




I'll try and avoid jargon as much as possible...and as you consider this, bear in mind that Quentin Smith, one of the brightest atheistic philosophers on the planet, argues similarly.

If conditions for emergence existed, that means emergence reduces to dependence as emergent properties or entities *depend* on the prior conditions. Without such conditions, nothing can emerge. What those conditions are is irrelevant to the point at hand.

An uncaused entity did not emerge nor was it caused by something else. That's a basic fact of definition. If it emerged or had a cause than it would not be uncaused. Speaking of emergent uncaused entities is incoherent. 

In the backwards chain of causation one can easily grasp how each link depends on the prior link. Link 0 Can be explained by link -1 as providing the conditions for its existence. And link -1 can be explained by link -2 and so on. As an example, evolution as a process is understood like this. But as each link is dependent on the prior link then we constantly need another explanation for each link we come across. This is the question at hand. Does the chain of links regress infinitely or is there an end to the chain? If we come to an end, how do we understand that first link?

It's actually impossible (though theoretically conceivable) for the chain to extend backwards infinitely for that would mean an infinite past chain would have been traversed by successive addition...ie.....-> Link x -> link y -> link z -> so on all the way to the present. But an infinite past set cannot be traversed by successive addition because it has no starting point and no matter how many links are crossed an infinite number still remain prior to reaching the present. There must be an initial link that is not infinitely behind us. This link cannot be emergent for that just begs the question. It if is emergent then we still haven't found the first link and need to keep going backwards. It cannot be dependent for the same reason. It must be independent. That means it does not depend on any prior conditions for its own existence. It just is and has always existed. It's difficult to conceive of how such a thing can be as our experience is limited to observing finite things. But lack of imagination should not prevent us from acknowledging its necessity.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



gordon2007 said:


> What if a person has dual australian\american citizenship. If he\she votes on here, is same person voting with american thoughts or australian thoughts?



Gordon -
I'd be interested in your opinion - do you find a different attitude in AUS compared to USA?

Assuming you live in Aus these days - recent influences being mainly Aussie, etc ...
would you give the same answer if put under hypnosis and taken back to your US youth?  (assumed)


----------



## Dowdy (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> I'm curious to see if Aussies think the same way of Americans on the subject of evolution.
> I found this chart of "What do Americans Believe"
> three choices
> a) God created the Earth in the last 10,000 years
> ...




Americans aren't a bright bunch


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> *YES YOU DO* ...that is a convergent series.
> 
> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!



:topic
Also off topic spooly, but I seem to recall you also pointing out that 
1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 etc diverged.  (i.e. didn't converge the way your example does.) 

It's great that someone (Nicole Oresme?) proved that back in 1350 
http://faculty.prairiestate.edu/skifowit/htdocs/harmapa.pdf

It has also amazed me that in 1670, a Dane (Ole Roemer - ? - sounds like a Spaniard - or maybe an Italian  ) was able to measure speed of light correctly at 300,000 km/sec 



> http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html
> 
> Well...during the 1670's, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer was making extremely careful observations of Jupiter's moon Io. The black dot is Io's shadow. Io makes one complete orbit around Jupiter every 1.76 days; the time it takes to make each orbit is always the same, so Roemer expected that he could predict its motion quite precisely. To his astonishment, he discovered that the moon didn't always appear where it was supposed to be. At certain times of the year, it seemed to be slightly behind schedule; at other times, it was slightly ahead.
> 
> ... etc etc Now, knowing how much Io's timing seemed to change and how much the distance from earth to Jupiter varied, Roemer was able to calculate a value for the speed of light. The number he came up with was about 186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second.


----------



## mayk (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> :topic
> Also off topic spooly, but I seem to recall you also pointing out that
> 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 etc diverged.  (i.e. didn't converge the way your example does.)
> 
> ...





Hindsight, the sequence does converge to 2.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



mayk said:


> Hindsight, the sequence does converge to 2.



mayk
my money's on Nicole Oresme - 
mind you he's been dead for 600 years 

PS please don't confuse 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 etc  (which converges) 

with the harmonic series 
1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 etc   (which doesn't)

BTW proof of the former converging ( suitable for a postcard if you wish ...)

H5 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32
1 - H5 = 1/32

Hn = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ... 1/2^n
1 - H5 = 1/2^n


Hence as n approaches infinity, the distance to "1" is 1/2^n , i.e. approaches zero .
QED


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

all this E= mc squared stuff
man has had to work out for hissuff
you'd expect there'd be clues
in the biblical news
but JC didn't know (strangely enough)


----------



## noirua (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> noi, the topic's evolving you reckon



Welllllllllll 2020, I saw a poem somewhere that said the world is evolving as it should.

In my view, and as you know it must be right, we will stay on this planet for about 10 thousand years and then move steadily to the moon and other planets.
They will refer to the old planet and its gradual decline.

The most talked about concern will be certain spaceships going off course and sending people into outer space. Anyway, just a few will find new planets and set up new life there. 

I believe the human occupation of outer space will be very slow but continue for at least 5 billion years.

As to god and religion. Views will be completely modernized and all the dated services in churches, synagogues, mosques - you name it - will be things of the ancient distant past.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

noi - 

I think this bloke says it -  more poetically (and more accurately) ... 
but you'd have to take the time to listen to it - all of it 



> "the Earth is where we make our stand !
> the folly of human conceit-
> the pale blue dot - the only home we've ever known"




http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
embedded:-
 Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot


----------



## wayneL (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



noirua said:


> Welllllllllll 2020, I saw a poem somewhere that said the world is evolving as it should.
> 
> In my view, and as you know it must be right, we will stay on this planet for about 10 thousand years and then move steadily to the moon and other planets.
> They will refer to the old planet and its gradual decline.
> ...




Life imitating art and for no other reason than you mentioning the distant future: 

As a result of Hollywood, there already is a modern, workable religion... Jeddiism. As far as I can make out, many of the adherents are quite serious about it. To me it seems like a modernized Tao Te Ching, which is quite cool IMO, if one likes that sort of thing.

May the force be with you... or not, as the case may be.


----------



## noirua (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



wayneL said:


> Life imitating art and for no other reason than you mentioning the distant future:
> 
> As a result of Hollywood, there already is a modern, workable religion... Jeddiism. As far as I can make out, many of the adherents are quite serious about it. To me it seems like a modernized Tao Te Ching, which is quite cool IMO, if one likes that sort of thing.
> 
> May the force be with you... or not, as the case may be.



I can't remember the exact figures now but the UK has enough Jeddiis voting to make it a classified religion. A neighbour put himself down as a Jeddi in the last UK survey because they shut the post office down in the village.
Australia and NZ have nearly as large a following.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



MS+Tradesim said:


> I'll try and avoid jargon as much as possible...and as you consider this, bear in mind that Quentin Smith, one of the brightest atheistic philosophers on the planet, argues similarly.
> 
> If conditions for emergence existed, that means emergence reduces to dependence as emergent properties or entities *depend* on the prior conditions. Without such conditions, nothing can emerge. What those conditions are is irrelevant to the point at hand.
> 
> ...




Great Link Tradesim - I'll be busy reading this for a while

Sir O


----------



## jonojpsg (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

It's all too much for me at the moment - my four year old keeps waking up in the middle of the night and crying at us for no apparent reason, how does evolution explain that??!!  

Just to throw something more into the mix, how does the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy fit into an evolutionary point of view?  When the energy in a closed system is inevitably going to reach its most useless form, where does that leave us?


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

While we worry that that man-made pollution will eventually make the planet uninhabitable, I consider that man's interference in the laws of natural selection poses a greater threat to our survival. Consider this scenario;

If the Bush family had been share-croppers instead of the inheritors of of ill-gotten wealth, George Junior would not have been President for the last eight years. If he had survived childhood he would have been drafted for Vietnam. If he had survived Vietnam he would now, given his lack of talent, be safely employed as a garbo or roadworker.

As a result of man-made decisions and manipulations he was put in charge or the world's most influential country and allowed to put all our futures in doubt.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> It's all too much for me at the moment - my four year old keeps waking up in the middle of the night and crying at us for no apparent reason, how does evolution explain that??!!
> 
> Just to throw something more into the mix, how does the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy fit into an evolutionary point of view?  When the energy in a closed system is inevitably going to reach its most useless form, where does that leave us?




With a finite past.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> ..  When the energy in a closed system is inevitably going to reach its most useless form, where does that leave us?



hotter
and with a finite future.


----------



## spooly74 (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Just to throw something more into the mix, how does the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy fit into an evolutionary point of view?  When the energy in a closed system is inevitably going to reach its most useless form, where does that leave us?




Earth is not a closed system :


----------



## jonojpsg (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



spooly74 said:


> Earth is not a closed system :




No but the universe is, so it still begs the question.  The 2nd law also leads to the idea that without direction (external input) a system wil tend to disorganisation rather than organisation.


----------



## gordon2007 (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



2020hindsight said:


> Gordon -
> I'd be interested in your opinion - do you find a different attitude in AUS compared to USA?
> 
> Assuming you live in Aus these days - recent influences being mainly Aussie, etc ...
> would you give the same answer if put under hypnosis and taken back to your US youth?  (assumed)




I am not a believer of organised religion, hence I don't pay any attention to it nor religious headlines. I can't really answer either of those questions with certain knowledge. Mostly, I was just pointing out that the voting option was slightly flawed because this forum is open to many other nationalities.


----------



## spooly74 (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> No but the universe is, so it still begs the question.  The 2nd law also leads to the idea that without direction (external input) a system wil tend to disorganisation rather than organisation.




Are you implying the 2nd Law of thermodynamics disproves evolution


----------



## nulla nulla (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

After totaly stuffing up Mars we sent an Ark to Earth 4000 years ago and commenced to totally stuff up this planet also. The irony is we are now atempting to recollanise Mars.


----------



## rub92me (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> It's all too much for me at the moment - my four year old keeps waking up in the middle of the night and crying at us for no apparent reason, how does evolution explain that??!!



Ah, that's an easy one. Crying evokes parental response. I.e. the child's needs are taken care of. So its genes will stand a better chance replicating. It's therefore very useful behaviour for the child, but unfortunate for the parents


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

For anyone interested in human evolution the following online documentary series makes for interesting viewing.

http://www.becominghuman.org/


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Calliope said:


> As a result of man-made decisions and manipulations he was put in charge or the world's most influential country and allowed to put all our futures in doubt.




Maybe consider that all of us play roles in life.Every day the role of electrician, soldier, waiter or politician for example is performed by people who are acting out a role, following a script or dancing to someone elses tune.

This exteriorisation process disguised as `purpose` or `meaning` is in my opinion a thinly disguised operatic performance.It is what we call intelligence.It`s what sets us apart from non thinking animals.The common denominator beneath everyones role playing is survival, to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



nulla nulla said:


> After totaly stuffing up Mars we sent an Ark to Earth 4000 years ago and commenced to totally stuff up this planet also. The irony is we are now atempting to recolonise Mars.



you suggesting nulla .. that in 4000 years we'll be back here again


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Wysiwyg said:


> Maybe consider that all of us play roles in life.Every day the role of electrician, soldier, waiter or politician for example is performed by people who are acting out a role, following a script or dancing to someone elses tune.
> 
> This exteriorisation process disguised as `purpose` or `meaning` is in my opinion a thinly disguised operatic performance.It is what we call intelligence.It`s what sets us apart from non thinking animals.The common denominator beneath everyones role playing is survival, to a greater or lesser degree.




wysiwyg , So true.

In the words of Shakespeare.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms;
Then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin'd,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav'd, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

gg


----------



## jonojpsg (4 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



rub92me said:


> Ah, that's an easy one. Crying evokes parental response. I.e. the child's needs are taken care of. So its genes will stand a better chance replicating. It's therefore very useful behaviour for the child, but unfortunate for the parents




Nonononono - this behaviour makes us want to put her out the front door and leave her there!!!  We are trying hard not to favour her younger sister but if she keeps it up, that's exactly how we will end up thinking.


----------



## rub92me (5 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



jonojpsg said:


> Nonononono - this behaviour makes us want to put her out the front door and leave her there!!!  We are trying hard not to favour her younger sister but if she keeps it up, that's exactly how we will end up thinking.



So maybe she's looking for (even) better parents? 
In a similar vein, saw this gem on another forum:
"On a completely unrelated topic, I just felt like asserting without evidence that it's a well documented medical fact that Young Earth Creationists are born with a condition known as cranial-rectal inversion (CRI). Infants in which this condition is discovered are known as CRI-babies. Sometimes they never grow up and thus remain CRI-babies all their lives."


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

wowo
wassies - you gotta watch SBS tonight "Intelligent Design " 

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
Sunday, December 7, 8.30pm
Channel: SBS
Duration: 65 minutes
Country: USA
This series captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools.

Lol the judge who rules that it's unconstitutional to teach a religion-based creed on Creationist , repackaged as " Interlligent Design" or whatever - ends up getting death threats


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

PS ... 

one thing I've noticed is that older US Presidents were more inclined to say that the State and the Church should not be confused - (and then along came GW Bush lol)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District



> Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to "evolution" as an "explanation of the origin of life."
> 
> The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
> ...
> ...







> Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787






> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should *'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State*.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802






> The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. *In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds*. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson on The Gospels, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

http://rwaxman.org/id58.html



> If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....
> 
> George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784






> I wish it were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.
> - Benjamin Franklin on Christianity, Works, Vol. VII, p. 75






> Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson on Jesus, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

From the wedge strategy ...



> The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.
> 
> Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science.
> 
> ...




Do we believe what these `thinkers` portray and  what of observable physical data proving up the evolutionary process that "all" living organisms go through?

Is it folly to believe that human species development is a different process from other life form development?

Is intelligence purely a development of communication?Like we teach intelligence through communication. Like if the child grew up in the bush with no human contact would the adult be intelligent, would it be human?


----------



## Calliope (8 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

2020 - I refer to your post #175. Last night I watched part 2 of  "Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial."

After Judge Jones handed down his ruling against Intelligent Design he received so many threats against his life from the god-fearing creationists that he and his family had to be given police protection.

These are scary people


----------



## Doris (8 December 2008)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*



Calliope said:


> 2020 - I refer to your post #175. Last night I watched part 2 of  "Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial."
> 
> After Judge Jones handed down his ruling against Intelligent Design he received so many threats against his life from the god-fearing creationists that he and his family had to be given police protection.
> 
> These are scary people




It was so incredulous that this court case was so recent!

Scary too when almost half the population in the US believe in creationism.
Scary... when a person is judged by them to be 'good' ONLY if they are god-fearing!
Scary... when the 'infidels' (non-believers) have their lives threatened.
... scary parallels with radical Islamists.



> The trauma of modern history that began 200 years ago involved failure. Failure began when Napoleon landed in Alexandria and has continued since then in almost every walk of life -- in health, wealth, literacy, culture, and power. Muslims are no longer on top. As the mufti of Jerusalem put it some months ago, "Before, we were masters of the world, and now we're not even master of our own mosques." Herein lies the great trauma, as Wilfred Cantwell Smith pointed out forty years ago in his ground-breaking book Islam and Modern History.
> 
> There have been three main responses to this trauma -- three main efforts to make things right again: secularism, which means openly learning from the West and reducing Islam to the private sphere; reformism, which means appropriating from the West, saying that the West really derives its strength by stealing from Muslims, therefore Muslims may take back from them, a middle ground; and Islamism, which stressed a return to Islamic ways but in fact takes hugely and covertly from the West -- without wanting to, perhaps, but still very much doing so.
> 
> ... Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.



http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954


----------



## derty (12 January 2009)

*Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?*

Very early days at the moment. Scientists have taken a significant step in starting to fill the biggest gap of all; How did/could evolutionary life begin? 



> How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
> 
> ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2009) ”” One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform biochemical questions about how life began.
> 
> ...



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm


----------



## weatherbill (22 November 2009)

*Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*

made a 2 part youtube video on this.

Tell us what you believe and why.

I firmly believe in creation and find the evolutionist view quite unscientific.
One of those evidences is the jagged mountians. For instance, the rocky mountains in the US  evolutionists say are 50-100 million years old, but that cannot be because with that amount of time, they would have worn down, due to the laws of the thermodynamics, physics and gravity. They would be much more rounded. 
   there are also many geologic clocks that tell us the earth is relatively young and not millions of year sold, such as meteoric dust layers on the moon where there is no erosion, population growth rates, oil deposit pressures, recession of the moon, earth's magnetic fied weakening...... and many others, giving us a time of the earth of no more than 10,000 years.
evolutionists radiometric dating methods are filled with numerous assumptions, such as not accounting for water, heat and origional element amounts.
    It is utterly redicoulous when you fully understand it all.


----------



## Nyden (22 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*

....Creation theory is nonsense, religion is nothing but lies.....

Even religion is now starting to embrace evolution, for fear of losing their 'flocks'. 10,000 years old, huh? Wow, pretty rapid recovery of life after the event that wiped out the dinosaurs, but oh, of course - "god" willed us all into existence! 

How I pity those that cannot live without the security blanket of an 'afterlife'


----------



## Dunger (25 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*

As a follower of evolution which observes natural phenomena and then explains this through a hypothesis which can then be verified by peers and not of creation which is only concerned with the accuracy of the bible, (because if the bible is wrong about creation then how can the rest of it be correct?) I can provide rebuttals for all of your 'theories'. 



> Indicator 3: Pressure of oil deposits: M.A. Cook claimed in his book "Prehistory and Earth Models" that if underground oil was as old as geologists claim that its pressure would have dissipated long ago. The fact that oil is found under pressure indicates that it is 10,000 years or less old. Presumably all of the natural gas would have escaped as well if the earth was old.
> 
> Rebuttal: Gas and oil accumulate gradually, as pressure and heat work on organic matter over long periods of time. If the rocks holding in the reservoirs of gas and oil were as leaky as creation scientists indicate, then this pressure never would have built up in the first place.
> 
> ...








> "To scientists who are not religious conservatives, creation science is not a part of science for a number of reasons:
> Its conclusions cannot be falsified. The essence of the scientific method is that any hypothesis, conclusion, belief, or theory can only be considered tentative truth. It may be falsified at any time in the future as new evidence surfaces. Creation science, in North America, is generally based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Bible as inerrant truth. Thus it cannot be falsified. As courts have agreed, this deficiency alone is sufficient to classify creation science as a non-science or pseudo-science."


----------



## Solly (25 November 2009)

The answer is obvious.
Going Kirk with bananas.


----------



## derty (25 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



weatherbill said:


> One of those evidences is the jagged mountians. For instance, the rocky mountains in the US  evolutionists say are 50-100 million years old, but that cannot be because with that amount of time, they would have worn down, due to the laws of the thermodynamics, physics and gravity. They would be much more rounded.



50-100 million years is not that long a time when talking rocks wb. Mountain ranges are produced from the crust by severe compressive events (orogeny's). The mountain range comprises the visible part that we see and there also exists a mountain root that extends into the mantle. A bit like an iceberg. As the mountains slowly erode the entire system re-balances or lifts as the material is removed from the mountains (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy). The constant lifting of the mountain system allows the erosional surfaces to remain quite jagged for a very long time. Rounding will only start to occur once that much materiel has been eroded that the core of the mountain range is now exposed at the surface (may have been originally 5 to 6 km below the surface) and the root level is now equivalent to the bulk of the adjacent crust. 

oh and btw - evolutionists have bugger all to do with estimating the ages of mountains. That is the domain of geochronologers and structural geologists.


----------



## drsmith (25 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



weatherbill said:


> made a 2 part youtube video on this.
> 
> Tell us what you believe and why.
> 
> ...



Where there are gaps or even anomalies in our scientific understanding of the universe around us it does not automatically equate to a higher power being the only explanation for any such gaps or anomalies.


----------



## nunthewiser (25 November 2009)

I was born under a wandering star.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



Dunger said:


> As a follower of evolution which observes natural phenomena and then explains this through a hypothesis which can then be verified by peers and *not of creation which is only concerned with the accuracy* *of the bible, (because if the bible is wrong about creation then* *how can the rest of it be correct?)* I can provide rebuttals for all of your 'theories'.



And collapse the whole religious system? Not on your life. Suddenly there would be billions of people looking for something to believe in, let alone the clergy lining up in dole queues.


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



Wysiwyg said:


> And collapse the whole religious system? Not on your life. Suddenly there would be billions of people looking for something to believe in.




That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.


----------



## akkopower (25 November 2009)

I feel the results here are skewed. People that use this site are probably not a good indication of the entire australian population. If the quiz was given at aldi supermarket the results would be different. I choose evolution by the way.


----------



## nunthewiser (25 November 2009)

akkopower said:


> I feel the results here are skewed. People that use this site are probably not a good indication of the entire australian population. If the quiz was given at aldi supermarket the results would be different.  .





Totally agree actually .

Most of the people that are in this forum are of high intelligence and show there free thinking and individual thought out opinions................Unlike 90% of the population which is happy to be fed whatever tastes best at the time.


----------



## Julia (25 November 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> .....Unlike 90% of the population which is happy to be fed whatever tastes best at the time.



I think that's pretty right.  I'm not meaning to divert this thread back to climate change but in a conversation with two friends today (both intelligent and reasonably well educated btw) they are convinced that the earth is getting hotter, and that this is due to CO2, which is due to human beings' profligate behaviour.

When I asked what they had read in order to form this view, neither had actually read a single scientific report/book/anything, but had simply absorbed the information from what is floating around from politicians and the media.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 November 2009)

Julia said:


> When I asked what they had read in order to form this view, neither had actually read a single scientific report/book/anything, but had simply absorbed the information from what is floating around from politicians and the media.



The information circulating does seem to be aimed at persuasion. Everything via agreement.


----------



## derty (26 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



Calliope said:


> That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.



While we are discussing evolution, I think I found the missing link in your ancestral lineage Calliope.


----------



## wayneL (26 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



Calliope said:


> That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.




I seem to recall that when reading some NWO conspiracy theories some time ago, that "they" would form some sort of new global religion. 

"Rots of Ruck" I thought to myself, thinking one dimensionally that the religion would involve the supernatural.

Little did I realise.....


----------



## Mr J (26 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



Calliope said:


> That is why hordes of people are clamouring to worship at the altar of Global Warming and are desperately seeking a new messiah to save the world from the apocalypse. St Kevin has put his hand up and expects to be anointed at Copenhagen.




It's sad, but true. Most people are happy being part of the herd. Doesn't matter whether it is religion, politics, environment, fashion, or pop culture. Not only does there seem to be the need for most to follow, but also to try and force others to join their herd. 

As for evolution versus creation, they're not properly comparable. Creation addresses existance, while evolution addresses change. I will say that choosing to believe in a religion is not a logical action, so I hope whoever has made that choice hasn't made it because of logic.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 November 2009)

*Re: Evolution vs Creation - What is the truth?*



Mr J said:


> It's sad, but true. Most people are happy being part of the herd. Doesn't matter whether it is religion, politics, environment, fashion, or pop culture. Not only does there seem to be the need for most to follow, but also to try and force others to join their herd.



Interesting you exclude yourself as a herd member. Are you suggesting you have no beliefs in line with a majority of people? If you don't  believe in "religion, politics, environment, fashion, or pop culture" as per example then would you not be in the herd that doesn't believe? 
Bit like the sheep calling others sheeples.


----------



## Mr J (26 November 2009)

> Are you suggesting you have no beliefs in line with a majority of people?




That doesn't seem relevant to me, it is how those beliefs are formed that matters.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> That doesn't seem relevant to me, it is how those beliefs are formed that matters.



Yes I agree.


----------



## Mr J (26 November 2009)

That said, I'm sure we are all influenced by society to an extent, just that some of us think for ourselves, some don't think, and some think for those who don't!


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> That said, I'm sure we are all influenced by society to an extent, just that some of us think for ourselves, some don't think, and some think for those who don't!



Not to mention those that think they think for themselves and those that think they are doing the thinking for others.


----------



## Happy (26 November 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Totally agree actually .
> 
> *Most of the people that are in this forum are of high intelligence and show there free thinking and individual thought out opinions................*Unlike 90% of the population which is happy to be fed whatever tastes best at the time.





There is additional gagging dimension > moderators < and irrespectively of what you think it will be removed. So we have to post what is acceptable to owner. 

Most of the times there is no collision, but some subjects seem to be too hot to handle. 

Reminds me our Government leaders, too difficult? 
Head in sand, it might go away.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 November 2009)

Happy said:


> There is additional gagging dimension > moderators < and irrespectively of what you think it will be removed. So we have to post what is acceptable to owner.
> 
> Most of the times there is no collision, but some subjects seem to be too hot to handle.
> 
> ...



Happy mate.  You and I are free to say and do whatever we want within good morals and the laws of the land. Right now you can go outside and shout I love Australia and all will be fine.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2009)

The organisms from primordial soup theory is the starting point of life on this planet according to evolutionists. The very beginning when the right ingredients came together to create a semblance of life.


> What's more, as biologists, we do not presuppose that life begun with a non-complex cell, nor with one solitary fragment with the ability of copying itself, *but numerous self replicating molecules surrounded by enough* *food to sustain them in an uninterrupted self replication.*



Yes the planet has become more supportive of life and indeed life has made the planet more supportive. One organic feeding on another organic works fine and with a biological clock installed in every  organic then the life cycle repeats until food or environment become non-existent or cell death is complete.

Everything observable has an existence cycle and over time this planet will die but before then all the living organisms will be systematically broken down and die first. The reason for life to even begin, only to eventually die, is a reason with no answer. Our concept through drawings of life forms on other planets may well be true but in the probability laws of a coin flip, probably not. (only one flip allowed bellenuit)



> Some four billion years ago, the Earth had an atmosphere saturated with toxic gases (acetylene, ethane, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, etc.) and it lacked oxygen. It had a vast amount of water vapor. The atmospheric heat was intense and the Earth was agitated by violent volcanic eruptions.
> 
> Our Moon would be seen four times larger than at present day, the giant exterior planets and our moon acted like protective screens against the meteorites (recent reports upon the date of the earliest meteorite bombardment against the system Earth-Moon reveal that it took place 3.9 billion years ago. Life appeared on Earth one hundred million years after), and the Sun shone dimly. *In the tepid water of the oceans the organic compounds* *were dissolved, forming a "nutritious soup".*



Our microbial brothers and sisters must be envious of the rapid pace our species has increased intelligence. What's that? Only one species can develop intelligence! Hmmm, very suspicious I think.


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Our microbial brothers and sisters must be envious of the rapid pace our species has increased intelligence. What's that? Only one species can develop intelligence! Hmmm, very suspicious I think.



Something has to be first.

Plus if two similar species were evolving towards intelligence at the same time, one may out compete the other. Consider Neanderthal Man for example.

Even amongst our own species we have historically done a fairly good job of killing each other based on differences in race and religion.

Perhaps there are no truely intelligent species on the planet as yet.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Even amongst our own species we have historically done a fairly good job of killing each other based on differences in race and religion.
> .




And now we don't even have to do that. We are killing ourselves by overeating.

The thin will inherit the earth.


----------



## Julia (3 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> And now we don't even have to do that. We are killing ourselves by overeating.
> 
> The thin will inherit the earth.



Apparently quite true.  A particular example is the Okinawans of Japan who consume considerably fewer calories than the average person.  They live much longer and are more healthy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> And now we don't even have to do that. We are killing ourselves by overeating.



"I heard one person starve I heard many people laughing"


----------



## WaveSurfer (19 March 2010)

What!?!?!?!?!

No SCIENTOLOGY options 

LOL, just kidden.

Man that Hubbard dude must of been smokin' some real crazy stuff (magik mushies).

Believe what you want, but don't push it on me


----------



## newbie trader (20 March 2010)

Julia said:


> Apparently quite true.  A particular example is the Okinawans of Japan who consume considerably fewer calories than the average person.  They live much longer and are more healthy.




Are these the people who live in the mountains (away from all of the polution) consuming mainly rice, vegetables and soup and within their communities they have an extremely high life expectancy?

N.T


----------



## derty (20 March 2010)

newbie trader said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes fascinating stuff, Dan Buettner talks about them and other pockets of long lived humans around the globe in a TED lecture. I'm sure this was posted up here somewhere before but here it is again:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html


----------



## newbie trader (20 March 2010)

derty said:


> Yes fascinating stuff, Dan Buettner talks about them and other pockets of long lived humans around the globe in a TED lecture. I'm sure this was posted up here somewhere before but here it is again:
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html




Also look at this - http://www.oprah.com/health/Dr-Oz-on-Living-Longer-with-a-Calorie-Restriction-Diet/1 (maybe some outlandish claims, but you never know). 

N.T


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2010)

Religion Scholar RESIGNS After Endorsing Evolution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/bruce-k-waltke-resigns-af_n_535776.html


----------



## bellenuit (24 June 2011)

*Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity*

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641891-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity


----------



## Country Lad (24 June 2011)

WaveSurfer said:


> Believe what you want, but don't push it on me




Agree, you can all believe what you like, but the earth is flat, the sun revolves around us and we are the product of aliens so don't tell me any different.


----------



## Boggo (24 June 2011)

Teacher to class "Children, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve"
Pupil "But Miss, my mummy and daddy said we came from the apes"
Teacher "Stay out of this one Leroy, I'm not talking about your family"


----------



## Glen48 (24 June 2011)

Adam said to Eve ....stand back I don't know how big this thing it's going to grow


----------



## trainspotter (24 June 2011)

Undisputed proof right here. Real life piccys of myself over a 30 year period.


----------



## white_goodman (24 June 2011)

there are large gaps of knowledge in a lot of species with relation to evolution theory and I wouldnt be surprised if there was, in particular reference to humans, some form of intelligent design, not a God but maby some form of superior beings...


----------



## pixel (24 June 2011)

white_goodman said:


> not a God but maby some form of superior beings...



 to all intents and purposes, these "superior beings" might then well enough be labelled with the four-letter term "G-O-D-S".
And there lies my problem: If these gods are supposed to be so vastly superior, why couldn't they make a better fist of it? Their oh so "intelligently designed" organisms - culminating in humans as self-confessed "crowning glory of creation" - are anything but:
We breed at rates this planet cannot sustain.
We destroy the planet and all the organisms it contains by poisoning the environment.
We invent thousands of local "gods", to whom we attribute a mix of properties and commandments that are as conflicting and irrational as our own selfish nature.

IMHO, that's a crazy way to run a Universe. But of course I can be wrong and there are indeed a myriad of "superior beings", each of whom design their own Universe - in some weird kind of competition along the lines of "The Multiverse's Got Talent" 
(Read R.A. Heinlein "Job - a comedy of Justice")


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 June 2011)

white_goodman said:


> I wouldnt be surprised if there was, in particular reference to humans, some form of intelligent design, not a God but maby some form of superior beings...



Then superior beings would be what we define as insane. Highly unlikely superior beings came about in the first place by unintelligent behaviour. Why only one species has developed on this planet to the present combined state of mind is more perplexing. There are other creatures that have the form to support a greater intelligence than they presently possess. We aren't balanced with nature so one can only draw the conclusion that as a species we won't exist for a comparatively long period of time unless balance is regained. Have to drop the locust mentality too.


----------



## Glen48 (24 June 2011)

God's are  man made to help explain things people could not understand just like scientist are trying to do today. 
Which DNA sequence is turn on/off determines the characteristics of the animal. Nothing else.


----------



## white_goodman (24 June 2011)

pixel said:


> to all intents and purposes, these "superior beings" might then well enough be labelled with the four-letter term "G-O-D-S".
> And there lies my problem: If these gods are supposed to be so vastly superior, why couldn't they make a better fist of it? Their oh so "intelligently designed" organisms - culminating in humans as self-confessed "crowning glory of creation" - are anything but:
> We breed at rates this planet cannot sustain.
> We destroy the planet and all the organisms it contains by poisoning the environment.
> ...





maby they are jsut superior but not all knowing all powerful just plainly superior (technologically, science etc) and just as susceptible not failings as we are


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2011)

The missing link? If not WHY oh WHY did a "GOD" or superior being create this?


----------



## Glen48 (25 June 2011)

DNA is like  DIP switch's it all depends which one's are on or off  makes all turn out differently.
Embryo chicken can be x rayed and you can see teeth and a  tail starting to form  . Birds evolved from a certain small Dinosaur  whoch had feathers to control their body temp.
 Dinosaurs had a wish bone, their arms evolved into wings over the years.


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The missing link? If not WHY oh WHY did a "GOD" or superior being create this?




Or did He/She/It have a few parts leftover and threw it together?


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The missing link? If not WHY oh WHY did a "GOD" or superior being create this?



Well observation shows that form is infinitely varied. At least one sense to exist.


----------



## motorway (25 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Something has to be first.
> 
> Plus if two similar species were evolving towards intelligence at the same time, one may out compete the other. Consider Neanderthal Man for example.
> 
> ...




Interesting take on Human Evolution

http://www.themandus.org/



> Put aside everything you thought you knew about being human - about how we got here and what it all means. After five years of rigorous scientific research, Danny Vendramini has developed a theory of human origins that is stunning in its simplicity, yet breathtaking in its scope and importance.
> 
> Them and Us: how Neanderthal predation created modern humans begins with a radical reassessment of Neanderthal behavioural ecology. He cites new archaeological and genetic evidence to show they weren't docile omnivores, but savage, cannibalistic carnivores - top flight predators of the stone age.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## So_Cynical (25 June 2011)

motorway said:


> Interesting take on Human Evolution
> 
> http://www.themandus.org/
> 
> ...






Makes perfect sense.


----------



## bellenuit (25 June 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Makes perfect sense.



Interesting video.

This article, which is an extract from a book, explains where neanderthals, homo sapiens, homo erectus all fit into the picture:

http://c3012152.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/110622ExcerptAyala.pdf


----------



## motorway (25 June 2011)

And cancer no doubt imo is Evolution writ large or is that small 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110207133704.htm



> Conceptualizing Cancer Cells as Ancient 'Toolkit'




http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2011/3245711.htm

Paul Davies and highly evolved cancer

http://www.physorg.com/news162183735.html



> "Competition and natural selection among disjoined cells within a tissue compartment, such as might occur in the breast's terminal ductal lobular unit, for example, are the engine of cancer," Garland said. "The DINOMIT model provides new avenues for preventing and improving the success of cancer treatment."




Why Environmental pressure rules ( like Neanderthal Predation like Low Vitamin D )
It takes a pressure cooker to create a trend than goes somewhere



> Why evolution is going nowhere fast
> 
> Slow and steady wins the evolutionary race? Not a bit of it: it's a sprint – one in which the runners might change direction at any minute




http://sixwoffers.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-evolution-is-going-nowhere-fast.html



> Put it all together and the picture of evolution that is emerging is radically different to the way most people envisage the process. As Kinnison puts it, the popular view of evolution is upside down.
> 
> People think evolutionary changes are imperceptible in the short term but add up to big changes over millions of years. In fact, the opposite is true. It now appears that organisms evolve very rapidly in response to any changes in their environment, but in the longer term most evolutionary changes cancel each other out.




Bit like turning points in life or the stock market .. they arrive bit by bit , but happen all at once ..... Tipping Points !




Motorway


----------



## tryin hard (25 June 2011)

I believe what the Bible states. God created the earth in 6 days  and had the 7th day off.


----------



## spooly74 (26 June 2011)

motorway said:


> Interesting take on Human Evolution
> 
> http://www.themandus.org/



Not a lot behind this. 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/10601/P22/


----------



## motorway (26 June 2011)

spooly74 said:


> Not a lot behind this.
> 
> http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/10601/P22/




from your link



> First, there is virtually no evidence of sexual intercourse between H. sapiens and Neandertals in the palaeoanthropological and genetic record.




This does not appear to be true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=neandertal-genome-study-r



> Researchers sequencing Neandertal DNA have concluded that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA of people today who live outside Africa came from Neandertals, the result of interbreeding between Neandertals and early modern humans.






> *Some experts suspect that the estimate for the amount of Neandertal DNA people carry today could rise with further studies””if a Neandertal from the Middle East were sequenced, for instance.*
> 
> In addition, says paleoanthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, the current study might be obscuring a contribution of Neandertal genes to the African gene pool, because the team specifically looked to explain genetic diversity in non-Africans compared with Africans. He and his colleagues are currently working on a way to assess that possibility.




There was also a recent article in New Scientist 

*Breeding with Neanderthals helped humans go global
*

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ith-neanderthals-helped-humans-go-global.html



> WHEN the first modern humans left Africa they were ill-equipped to cope with unfamiliar diseases. But by interbreeding with the local hominins, it seems they picked up genes that protected them and helped them eventually spread across the planet.
> 
> The publication of the Neanderthal genome last year offered proof that Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals after leaving Africa. There is also evidence that suggests they enjoyed intimate relations with other hominins including the Denisovans, a species identified last year from a Siberian fossil.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## spooly74 (27 June 2011)

motorway said:


> from your link
> 
> This does not appear to be true.
> 
> ...




Virtually no evidence in Sept 2009 still = some 

See post #193 Feb 2011 



> That Neandertals contributed genes to Homo sapiens is quite certain now. I have a paper in the referee pipeline where I suggest this interbreeding probably happened in the frontier zone of west and central Asia where the initial expansion of early Homo sapiens was stopped 50-80 thousand years ago when it reached the parts of Eurasia where Neandertals were present.
> There is actually very little evidence (or let me rephrase that: very little uncontested evidence) that Neandertals and Homo sapiens really cohabitated any given area in Eurasia for some time. To me (and this is part of the paper I have in submission), it is becoming more and more clear that H. sapiens only entered Europe for example after Neandertals disappeared there. Not only are there confirmed hiatuses between the last Neandertals and first moderns in several areas of Europe, but there is not a single uncontested (!) case of interstratification: and the strongly contested ones that have been proposed in the past, concern a handful of sites in a small area only. In fact, H. sapiens entry in Europe is conspicuously late compared to their entry in southern Asia and Oceania. The reason is probably, that Neandertals and H. sapiens were so close behaviourally and cognitively, that they could not outcompete each other (quite contrary to some persistent popular ideas, the ones which many professional archaeologists have grown increasingly uncomfortable with over the past decade or so!). This means that interbreeding could occur only on the frontier where their respective biogeographies touched: west and central Asia. And I don’t think you have to think in terms of “rape” at all when it comes to interbreeding. That’s just negative stereotype pitching Neandertals as primitive brutes again. No: I think some H. sapiens girls fancied some Neandertal hunks quite well.


----------



## cynic (28 June 2011)

Glen48 said:


> DNA is like  DIP switch's it all depends which one's are on or off  makes all turn out differently.
> Embryo chicken can be x rayed and you can see teeth and a  tail starting to form  . Birds evolved from a certain small Dinosaur  whoch had feathers to control their body temp.
> Dinosaurs had a wish bone, their arms evolved into wings over the years.




You wouldn't happen to know which dinosaur the platypus evolved from would you?
That one's got me really puzzled. (I might have to ask god next time I see her.)


----------



## Glen48 (28 June 2011)

Cynic 
 Each species evolved on there own and changed over the millions of years, like humming birds growing a longer beak.  Bit like electrical appliances they have power as the source but do different things.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The missing link? If not WHY oh WHY did a "GOD" or superior being create this?
> 
> View attachment 43381




To bring a smile to my face on a day like today.  thank you for your post.

I feel better now.

A smile makes the world seem better, and hard things seem easier.

The Bible says-

Those that plough should plough in hope.

So I am getting back to work.


----------

