By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Ben Stein to take on Darwinism on April 18

Kasz216 on 08 March 2008
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
Oh, and furthermore... after the Christians got together again, the greedy Crusades actually brought them into contact with the technology and books that helped boost europes knowledge back up...

Mostly by newly universitys supported by... the Holy Roman Empire again. Organized religion did a lot more then any other group to bring back science actually.

And most of those advancements happened after the Dark Ages. I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that the church didn't fund a lot of scientific research during the Renaissance.


Yet had their not of been a church and religion in general would the renaissance have happened?

Without religion most of these sources would not have been in peoples hands.

 



Around the Network
rocketpig on 08 March 2008
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Not everything the church has done is bad, let's not go down that path... In that vein of thought, Copernicus originally set out to prove that the Sun revolved around the Earth and we all know how that turned out. The church didn't exactly appreciate his findings and it led to several fiercely fought battles over the next two centuries.

The church may have funded science in some forms during the dark ages but often times if the discoveries didn't agree with their teachings, the knowledge was squashed and the person called a heretic. After all, during that time, the church was really the only establishment that had the kind of power and money to fund the arts or science. Some of the results were good but many, many were bad.

So how can you claim the Church held back science when they were the only ones who could fund it? Had they not funded it at all would it not have been in a worse state?

Had we not had such strong religious institutions it seems rather dubious that anywhere near the amount of progress that was made would have been made. 

Because much of the information learned was tossed to the side by the church. In some cases if scientists were acting outside of their sphere of influence, they brought the hammer down on them. Research what the church wants and find the results the church wants to see or face the consequences.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Kasz216 on 08 March 2008
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Not everything the church has done is bad, let's not go down that path... In that vein of thought, Copernicus originally set out to prove that the Sun revolved around the Earth and we all know how that turned out. The church didn't exactly appreciate his findings and it led to several fiercely fought battles over the next two centuries.

The church may have funded science in some forms during the dark ages but often times if the discoveries didn't agree with their teachings, the knowledge was squashed and the person called a heretic. After all, during that time, the church was really the only establishment that had the kind of power and money to fund the arts or science. Some of the results were good but many, many were bad.

So how can you claim the Church held back science when they were the only ones who could fund it? Had they not funded it at all would it not have been in a worse state?

Had we not had such strong religious institutions it seems rather dubious that anywhere near the amount of progress that was made would have been made.

Because much of the information learned was tossed to the side by the church. In some cases if scientists were acting outside of their sphere of influence, they brought the hammer down on them. Research what the church wants and find the results the church wants to see or face the consequences.


Regardless it seems without the church and religion none of this knowledge including the stuff that was kept would of been found in the first place. Most books that fueled the renisanse came from religious sources.

So while they did do some bad acts... it seems like they scored a net gain for scientific advancement.

Had it not been for them, there likely wouldn't have been a renaissance and instead everything would have been relearned the hard way. The really hard way.

Much how Nixon is punnished for his wrong doings but is still seen better then being bad for the country due to all the good he did. (In a historical context)

I think religion during these periods also gets the pass for having more of a positive influence then it has a negative.

Everything it did in regards to science wasn't good... nor was it bad... but as a whole it helped the furthering of science more then hurt it. 



Final-Fan on 08 March 2008
Sqrl said:
timmytomthegreat said:
Sqrl said:
kazadoom said:
are you reading what you are writing? This is nonsense, it takes more faith to believe this then creation. There are so many ifs and holes in what you are saying it is crazy. You keep talking about adaptation, like bears turning white in the snow, and people getting hairier in colder climates. That is not evolution, because they are still bears, and they are still humans. There is NO evidence that species changed from one species to another on this planet.
Really? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/
Really? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0417ethiopian.asp
Good find. I just wish the article I linked had bothered to provide an update on the matter.

The position you're taking stills leaves the conundrum that you have to admit god doesn't exist to hold the position if you wish not to be a hypocrite.

How you ask?

Glad you asked, let me explain: If your position is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence then God himself fails this test and thus by this logic doesn't exist.

As I've already stated in this thread the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and the position you and Kaza hold is untennable logically speaking.

If your best proof that evolution is incorrect is that they've only proven it to be true of traits within a species then you have a fairly weak argument considering that basic logic can lead anyone to deduce that even large quantities of small changes over time can cause two different populations to diverge significantly enough to become something else. Really that process doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to understand, but somehow your contention is that because nobody on a Video Game website can show you proof that it happened you would proclaim that it never can?
(This question is a repost) Question: When asking for proof that species evolve into different species, do microbes count? For instance, if I could show conclusively that one species of bacterium evolved into a new species of bacterium, would that be satisfactory proof that evolution is a true process that occurs?

Or are you (TTtG) not denying that evolution of species into new species has in fact occurred?

Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 08 March 2008
Final-Fan said:
Sqrl said:
timmytomthegreat said:
Sqrl said:
kazadoom said:
are you reading what you are writing? This is nonsense, it takes more faith to believe this then creation. There are so many ifs and holes in what you are saying it is crazy. You keep talking about adaptation, like bears turning white in the snow, and people getting hairier in colder climates. That is not evolution, because they are still bears, and they are still humans. There is NO evidence that species changed from one species to another on this planet.
Really? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/
Really? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0417ethiopian.asp
Good find. I just wish the article I linked had bothered to provide an update on the matter.

The position you're taking stills leaves the conundrum that you have to admit god doesn't exist to hold the position if you wish not to be a hypocrite.

How you ask?

Glad you asked, let me explain: If your position is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence then God himself fails this test and thus by this logic doesn't exist.

As I've already stated in this thread the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and the position you and Kaza hold is untennable logically speaking.

If your best proof that evolution is incorrect is that they've only proven it to be true of traits within a species then you have a fairly weak argument considering that basic logic can lead anyone to deduce that even large quantities of small changes over time can cause two different populations to diverge significantly enough to become something else. Really that process doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to understand, but somehow your contention is that because nobody on a Video Game website can show you proof that it happened you would proclaim that it never can?
(This question is a repost) Question: When asking for proof that species evolve into different species, do microbes count? For instance, if I could show conclusively that one species of bacterium evolved into a new species of bacterium, would that be satisfactory proof that evolution is a true process that occurs?

Or are you (TTtG) not denying that evolution of species into new species has in fact occurred?

I'd guess no on the basis that "Bacteria is still Bacteria" and not a monkey or something.

It's something i've seen before in such things hence why i didn't bring up the bacteria stuff.

Most creationists want you to show you evolution along the level of pokemon otherwise it's "Adaption" and not "Evolution."

I know it seems odd that i'm mentioning it... but i'm sure it's going to be on one of those procreationist websites anyway so it'll save google some work. 



Around the Network
Final-Fan on 08 March 2008

I suddenly remembered I had this in my photo album and couldn't resist:



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 08 March 2008
Final-Fan said:

I suddenly remembered I had this in my photo album and couldn't resist:


 Ha if there was ever an easter egg in our world that our universe is really a computer simulation... it's that guy.



Final-Fan on 08 March 2008

OK, now I was talking with Grey Acumen a while back about this topic and his definition of a species change was when one population could no longer successfully breed with another. Considering that lions and tigers can have fertile offspring I disagree with that one, but I found a study that met the requirement of speciation by that definition:

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
Just thought I'd share that.  [edit:  source:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 08 March 2008

Lions and Tigers can have fertile offspring, eh? I gotta see if I can find a picture of that. Bet it's cute looking.

I always thought the Liger was just something made up in the fevered minds of the Japanese.

Neat study too by the way.


Edit: Huh weird. They're bigger then either of their parents... and are only made by Male lions and female Tigers... is it not possible to work the other way? That's called a Tigon... weird.



Wonktonodi on 08 March 2008

the holy roman empire is not the same as the church you know the saying it wasn't holy it wasn't roman and it wasn't an empire