Archive

Alabama and Mississippi Republican Voters

  • 2kool4skool
    jmog;1116522 wrote:Please show me a fossil of a half palaeotheres and half equus, and THEN is is observed. Until then it is just a theory that they evolved into what we know now as horses.

    If they can not produce a fossil that is half way between the two then it is not observed macro-evolution.
    There are fossils showing the shift from Palaeotherium to Equus. There is a gradual elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes(helping them to run faster as their habitat changed to arid open plains.)

    An example can be found in the book: Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae - It's at least partially available on google books.
  • dwccrew
    2kool4skool;1116412 wrote:It was from the estimate of species(8-9 million) and doubling that since he collected two of every animal.

    If you would prefer, change it to any number you would like and run the numbers on the statistical likelihood of Noah collecting every existing species at the time, and getting them on to a boat in which they all lived simultaneously in the same ecosystem.
    Let's not forget that the boat was estimated to be what....400 ft? Bullshit story.
    2kool4skool;1116591 wrote:There are fossils showing the shift from Palaeotherium to Equus. There is a gradual elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes(helping them to run faster as their habitat changed to arid open plains.)

    An example can be found in the book: Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae - It's at least partially available on google books.
    Pwnage!
  • jmog
    dwccrew;1116805 wrote:Let's not forget that the boat was estimated to be what....400 ft? Bull**** story.



    Pwnage!
    450 ft long, 75 ft wide, 45 ft tall (multiple levels).

    That is 1.54 million cubic feet of space. Or about the size of 522 standard railroad cars.

    The average size of any animal is less than the size of a sheep, and a single railroad car can house 240 sheep with room to actually care for them. To care for the 16,000 possible animals that is only about 70 of the rail road stock cars with about 170 extra for living areas for the few humans, room for food, large areas for ventilation, etc.
  • jmog
    2kool4skool;1116591 wrote:There are fossils showing the shift from Palaeotherium to Equus. There is a gradual elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes(helping them to run faster as their habitat changed to arid open plains.)

    An example can be found in the book: Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae - It's at least partially available on google books.
    That book simply shows the micro-evolution within a family, which I have stated many times has been observed in the fossil record and is still observed today.

    When one can show a fossil record of a half reptile half horse or half fish half amphibian, where there are jumps between kingdoms, then macro-evolution would be observed and have evidence.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1116929 wrote:That book simply shows the micro-evolution within a family, which I have stated many times has been observed in the fossil record and is still observed today.

    When one can show a fossil record of a half reptile half horse or half fish half amphibian, where there are jumps between kingdoms, then macro-evolution would be observed and have evidence.
    Creationists don't use the term "macroevolution" in the way that the scientific community does when they try to debate evolution. Rather, they use a self-serving definition that moves the goal posts. Any example of actual macroevolution (a change at the species level or above) is simply derided as "just microevolution." And really, it just stems from a misunderstanding of how species would change over time.

    This neat website gives a good explanation as to why the forms that JMOG doesn't consider to be transitional forms really are transitional forms:
    http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/transitions/t2a.html

    But we have to remember that JMOG has admitted that he has been a devout evangelical even since he was a kid. Despite his scientific background there is nothing that will change his mind. Alien visitors could land in his backyard and explain to him that they've been observing Earth since way before humans evolved and that Macroevolution is real, show him a slideshow of transitioning forms, and proclaim that Jesus Christ is not actually God and that the story was a myth and he would just assert that the Devil is trying to deceive him and test his faith.

    Now, I don't mean to demean Christianity or whatever as perhaps it is true...but my point is that despite the overwhelming, solid, empirical evidence in favor of common descent...there is really no point in arguing about it IMHO. At some point the debate will just collapse into fideism and people will begin talking about how there must be some kind of First Cause beyond our understanding, and it takes more faith to be an atheist etc. etc. and it's just a huge exercise in futility.

    So, in that spirit, with regard to the Poll that this thread is about...I think it is ridiculous that the poll was even asked. Would the pollsters ask those questions in California? No.

    Guaranteed quite a few voters in Jim Jordan's district believe BHO is a muslim deep down but who cares? A lot of people in Charlie Rangel's district probably believed that George Bush in his heart of hearts, didn't care about black people. A lot of people in this country don't even know who the Vice President is etc. etc.. And do the democrats or republicans in power care if the certain people in their electorate hold strange views about the opposition...I doubt it as long as they pull the level for the good guy. No doubt the party brass call them "Useful Idiots." I doubt they're idiots. Instead, I imagine they just don't care to know much about politicians fucking shit up all the time.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1117102 wrote:Creationists don't use the term "macroevolution" in the way that the scientific community does when they try to debate evolution. Rather, they use a self-serving definition that moves the goal posts. Any example of actual macroevolution (a change at the species level or above) is simply derided as "just microevolution." And really, it just stems from a misunderstanding of how species would change over time.

    This neat website gives a good explanation as to why the forms that JMOG doesn't consider to be transitional forms really are transitional forms:
    http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/transitions/t2a.html

    But we have to remember that JMOG has admitted that he has been a devout evangelical even since he was a kid. Despite his scientific background there is nothing that will change his mind. Alien visitors could land in his backyard and explain to him that they've been observing Earth since way before humans evolved and that Macroevolution is real, show him a slideshow of transitioning forms, and proclaim that Jesus Christ is not actually God and that the story was a myth and he would just assert that the Devil is trying to deceive him and test his faith.

    Now, I don't mean to demean Christianity or whatever as perhaps it is true...but my point is that despite the overwhelming, solid, empirical evidence in favor of common descent...there is really no point in arguing about it IMHO. At some point the debate will just collapse into fideism and people will begin talking about how there must be some kind of First Cause beyond our understanding, and it takes more faith to be an atheist etc. etc. and it's just a huge exercise in futility.

    So, in that spirit, with regard to the Poll that this thread is about...I think it is ridiculous that the poll was even asked. Would the pollsters ask those questions in California? No.

    Guaranteed quite a few voters in Jim Jordan's district believe BHO is a muslim deep down but who cares? A lot of people in Charlie Rangel's district probably believed that George Bush in his heart of hearts, didn't care about black people. A lot of people in this country don't even know who the Vice President is etc. etc.. And do the democrats or republicans in power care if the certain people in their electorate hold strange views about the opposition...I doubt it as long as they pull the level for the good guy. No doubt the party brass call them "Useful Idiots." I doubt they're idiots. Instead, I imagine they just don't care to know much about politicians ****ing **** up all the time.
    1. You don't know me as well as you believe to. Due to my scientific background I most certainly have completely questioned my creation beliefs. Matter of fact at one point I truly believed in evolution so I started actually studying evolution deeply. It was THEN that I discovered many of the misconceptions, sometimes misleading scientists (similar to the environmental scientists do) that lead me to study the science on BOTH sides. You see, while you scoff at the idea, I maybe one of the few that actually carefully consider the science on BOTH sides of the proverbial coin and have made an educated decision on what to believe.

    2. You are also incorrect about "solid emperical evidence" not changing my mind. My mind has been changed, twice now. Like I said, throughout college it was changed to believe evolution was 100% true, I bought into the primordial soup and everything. Then, when I really dug deep into the evidence/science of both sides of the coin I made a decision. You don't know me BS, just like I wouldn't presume to know where you are coming from.
  • 2kool4skool
    jmog;1116929 wrote:That book simply shows the micro-evolution within a family, which I have stated many times has been observed in the fossil record and is still observed today.

    When one can show a fossil record of a half reptile half horse or half fish half amphibian, where there are jumps between kingdoms, then macro-evolution would be observed and have evidence.
    You said the following
    jmog;1116522 wrote:Please show me a fossil of a half palaeotheres and half equus, and THEN is is observed. Until then it is just a theory that they evolved into what we know now as horses.

    If they can not produce a fossil that is half way between the two then it is not observed macro-evolution.
    I point out that there is in fact such fossils that demonstrate the transition from Palaeotherium to Equus. Now you've changed what it is you want to see for it to qualify as "observed."

  • 2kool4skool
    jmog;1116925 wrote:450 ft long, 75 ft wide, 45 ft tall (multiple levels).

    That is 1.54 million cubic feet of space. Or about the size of 522 standard railroad cars.

    The average size of any animal is less than the size of a sheep, and a single railroad car can house 240 sheep with room to actually care for them. To care for the 16,000 possible animals that is only about 70 of the rail road stock cars with about 170 extra for living areas for the few humans, room for food, large areas for ventilation, etc.

    Don't forget he also needed space to store the insanely large quantity and variety of food and water that the animals would have required to survive. Your calculation should factor that in ;)

    How did he go about collecting two of each animal and getting them on the boat? Especially the very small insects, and the very large land mammals? Also, how were all these diverse creatures able to survive in the same ecosystem?
  • jhay78
    2kool4skool;1117356 wrote:Don't forget he also needed space to store the insanely large quantity and variety of food and water that the animals would have required to survive. Your calculation should factor that in ;)

    How did he go about collecting two of each animal and getting them on the boat? Especially the very small insects, and the very large land mammals? Also, how were all these diverse creatures able to survive in the same ecosystem?
    A whole lot easier than it would be for reptilian species to go through the many multiple transformations required to develop bird-like feathered wings. Any rational person would find it hard to believe a reptile (on its way to becoming a bird) with 1/4 or 1/2 developed wings would be gaining any advantage over other similar species, according to "survival of the fittest". Yet this is accepted fact in Darwinian evolution.

    The Paleotherium to Equus example is one questionable example in the fossil record. If macro-evolution is indeed an observable fact, there should be fossils of half-species everywhere. There aren't.
  • 2kool4skool
    The Paleotherium to Equus example is one questionable example in the fossil record.
    There's nothing questionable about it. You said if there were fossils showing the progression between the two, and I quote,
    THEN is[sic] is observed
    You are now back tracking on that statement because I'm guessing you weren't aware such fossils existed and figured you were safe in telling me to "find them."

    If you want to denounce evolution in favor of a guy herding all the animals on to a really big boat and getting them to survive there, that's cool and I'm sure I won't change your mind. But at least get your story straight so you don't have to go back on concrete statements like you did in this thread.
  • 2kool4skool
    jhay78;1117439 wrote:A whole lot easier than it would be for reptilian species to go through the many multiple transformations required to develop bird-like feathered wings.
    Okay, well tell me how you think he went about it. I'm quite impressed by someone gathering two of every animal, herding them on to a boat, building a boat big enough to contain all the animals and food/water, getting them to all survive in the same ecosystem, and reproduce with each other.

    No one can be 100% sure on what happened thousands of years ago, but the scientific community has provided a hypothesis, which has been pretty consistent with empirical data, and has been recreated in fossil record and in lab settings.

    To unseat it as what is the most likely explanation, you're going to have to give something more than "it was written in a book," and "you have to have faith."

    Of course, you can believe what you want and you don't need anyone's permission to do so. And it doesn't necessarily make someone more or less intelligent. But just don't expect others, who don't subscribe to blind faith, to see the belief in Noah's Ark, or Xenu, or Zeus, or whatever, as something other than cooky.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1117105 wrote:1. You don't know me as well as you believe to. Due to my scientific background I most certainly have completely questioned my creation beliefs. Matter of fact at one point I truly believed in evolution so I started actually studying evolution deeply. It was THEN that I discovered many of the misconceptions, sometimes misleading scientists (similar to the environmental scientists do) that lead me to study the science on BOTH sides. You see, while you scoff at the idea, I maybe one of the few that actually carefully consider the science on BOTH sides of the proverbial coin and have made an educated decision on what to believe.

    2. You are also incorrect about "solid emperical evidence" not changing my mind. My mind has been changed, twice now. Like I said, throughout college it was changed to believe evolution was 100% true, I bought into the primordial soup and everything. Then, when I really dug deep into the evidence/science of both sides of the coin I made a decision. You don't know me BS, just like I wouldn't presume to know where you are coming from.

    You said this:
    What most people don't know is that evolutionary biologists still have NO IDEA how the first single cell animal came to be in the evolution theory model. One of the most well accepted ideas is that the first cell was planted/seeded by aliens and/or an asteroid that already had the single cells on it.

    In other words, they still don't know how the first life started on the "other" planet that had life before ours. They just made up this idea because they have FINALLY come to realize that the theory of "chance" to make a single cell by accident holds no water when you look at the complexity of even a single cell animal (DNA, information transfer, movement, repair, etc).
    In November of 2009. That is not a correct characterization of the mainstream view and even though you're not a naturalist, I can't imagine a person who believed "100%" in evolution at any point would write this; even if they didn't believe in evolution at the time of writing it. Furthermore, your assertion that there would be half fish/half amphibians, etc. seems to suggest an inadequate comprehension of mendelian genetics (like Darwin had because it wasn't around yet) cus only such results would happen if Lamarck had been right (which he wasn't).

    But I suppose I will take your word for it.
  • BoatShoes
    jhay78;1117439 wrote:If macro-evolution is indeed an observable fact, there should be fossils of half-species everywhere. There aren't.
    Ah, it hurts to read. You don't understand how genetic inheritance works! For instance, Darwin himself wondered about transitional forms but mendelian genetics was not around yet. When people say this it's because they're envisioning a world wherein Lamarckian inheritance is true but it is not. Please see the easy to understand link I provided in the reply to JMOG.

    I mean there's really nothing to say other than if you're making that claim you haven't evaluated the case for common descent in good faith at all.

    Reasonable minds can disagree about the morality of abortion, the efficacy of fiscal stimulus when interest rates are at zero, global warming, first amendment jurisprudence, etc. etc. but not believing in evolution is really more akin to believing the earth is flat. Really the only way it would turn out not to be true would be if empiricism is a fraud and the devil is deceiving us. Having been an evangelical for a many of my younger years I realize that accepting evolution is like accepting heresy but there are very many sincere and genuine christians who have come to accept it (and there's even those who cogently argue that evolution itself presents a compelling case against naturalism).

    But, I don't know I don't want to keep the thread off-topic. The creationists can have the last word. I won't respond back so as to avoid continuing thread derailment.
  • jhay78
    BoatShoes;1117553 wrote: But, I don't know I don't want to keep the thread off-topic. The creationists can have the last word. I won't respond back so as to avoid continuing thread derailment.
    I think the thread went something like "Alabama and Mississippi Republican voters are imbeciles" and to further prove that point it was mentioned that a certain percentage of them don't believe in evolution (not macro or micro, just generic "evolution").

    I don't think it's too far off the thread topic to point out that many intelligent, reasonable people who don't believe in the Biblical creation account and thus don't have a religious bias have exposed the absurdities of Darwinian evolution and have argued for a form of Intelligent Design.
  • HitsRus
    That's a good summation.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1117544 wrote:You said this:



    In November of 2009. That is not a correct characterization of the mainstream view and even though you're not a naturalist, I can't imagine a person who believed "100%" in evolution at any point would write this; even if they didn't believe in evolution at the time of writing it. Furthermore, your assertion that there would be half fish/half amphibians, etc. seems to suggest an inadequate comprehension of mendelian genetics (like Darwin had because it wasn't around yet) cus only such results would happen if Lamarck had been right (which he wasn't).

    But I suppose I will take your word for it.
    Actually alien implantation, by sentient life or meteoric "dumb" life is a very common belief among theories for abiogenesis.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1117553 wrote:Ah, it hurts to read. You don't understand how genetic inheritance works! For instance, Darwin himself wondered about transitional forms but mendelian genetics was not around yet. When people say this it's because they're envisioning a world wherein Lamarckian inheritance is true but it is not. Please see the easy to understand link I provided in the reply to JMOG.

    I mean there's really nothing to say other than if you're making that claim you haven't evaluated the case for common descent in good faith at all.

    Reasonable minds can disagree about the morality of abortion, the efficacy of fiscal stimulus when interest rates are at zero, global warming, first amendment jurisprudence, etc. etc. but not believing in evolution is really more akin to believing the earth is flat. Really the only way it would turn out not to be true would be if empiricism is a fraud and the devil is deceiving us. Having been an evangelical for a many of my younger years I realize that accepting evolution is like accepting heresy but there are very many sincere and genuine christians who have come to accept it (and there's even those who cogently argue that evolution itself presents a compelling case against naturalism).

    But, I don't know I don't want to keep the thread off-topic. The creationists can have the last word. I won't respond back so as to avoid continuing thread derailment.
    It is VERY logical to see that evolutionary biologists would apply any theory they could to explain away the lack of major transitional forms in the fossil record. The basic idea now, without going into the genetic details, is that macro-evolution happens in quick/major jumps and micro-evolution happens slowly.

    You can go into the weeds with the genetic laws/theories but that is it in a nut shell.

    It doesn't pass the logical litmus test to me, that somehow major jumps happen rapidly but the small ones take millions of years.
  • gut
    jmog;1118219 wrote: You can go into the weeds with the genetic laws/theories but that is it in a nut shell.
    There's a primordial soup that just exists....yada yada yada....A Big Bang...yada yada yada....Appearance of first life on earth, single cell simple organisms...yada yada yada...Fish emerge from the sea...yada yada yada...Humans evolve from monkeys. Q.E.D.

    Proof, in a nutshell, of evolution over all other theories.:rolleyes:
  • Footwedge
    Evolution? Yaeah to some degree. Distinct separation on the thousands of genus/species without simple mutations muddying up the distict differences blow out the absolute evolution theory for me. Those that think we have evolved from a single carbon atom. Get real. Where did the other elements come from? Santa Claus? Intelligent Design? Well, if one adheres to the primal laws of physics, then absolutely...there cannot be any other explanation.

    I noticed on the playground threads, there's a whole pile of hate throwing atheists....poking fun at Jesus and Christians...during the Lenten season.

    They better hope they're right. Those that pray for them only have so much political pull...if you know what I mean.:cool:
  • gut
    Footwedge;1118296 wrote: They better hope they're right. Those that pray for them only have so much political pull...if you know what I mean.:cool:
    St. Peter tells them "good news and bad news on your final exam...You were right about evolution, but you missed that God created evolution...I mean, really, from single cell amoeba to free will? God acknowledges that whole burning bush thing may have created some confusion over the possibility of spontananeous combustion"
  • Al Bundy
    jhay78;1117883 wrote:I think the thread went something like "Alabama and Mississippi Republican voters are imbeciles" and to further prove that point it was mentioned that a certain percentage of them don't believe in evolution (not macro or micro, just generic "evolution").

    I don't think it's too far off the thread topic to point out that many intelligent, reasonable people who don't believe in the Biblical creation account and thus don't have a religious bias have exposed the absurdities of Darwinian evolution and have argued for a form of Intelligent Design.
    When I visit Alabama or Mississippi I have my doubts regarding whether or not evolution has occurred there.
  • gut
    Al Bundy;1118338 wrote:When I visit Alabama or Mississippi I have my doubts regarding whether or not evolution has occurred there.
    They've evolved a gap in their front teeth to make spitting tobaccy juice easier
  • 2kool4skool
    Footwedge;1118296 wrote:They better hope they're right. Those that pray for them only have so much political pull...if you know what I mean.:cool:
    You better hope you picked the right religion. Going to suck when you follow all these specific teachings, get to heaven and it's "ohhh, sorry, the correct answer was Mormonism..."
  • sleeper
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01


    T    his link does a pretty good job at explaining evolution. The more I read about it, the more I am absolutely convinced and thankful for the brave scientists who are actually trying to explain our world rather than the Christians who already know everything and have evidence in 1 book written by an invisible man in the sky.
  • jhay78
    sleeper;1128146 wrote:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01


    T    his link does a pretty good job at explaining evolution. The more I read about it, the more I am absolutely convinced and thankful for the brave scientists who are actually trying to explain our world rather than the Christians who already know everything and have evidence in 1 book written by an invisible man in the sky.
    From your link it sounds like these scientists already know everything:
    A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history
    Ah yes, a grand history, with examples in the fossil record everywhere to prove our theory. Oh wait . . .