The backward evolution of science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
I was joking about the help in stats, but I'll keep it in mind JackKnife. My classes don't worry me (well, maybe Islamic Thought a little bit), it's how I'm going to pay for them that worries me. I'm to start this monday and I still have only a vague of idea haha. Technically I only have until this monday to figure it out, realistically I have the next two weeks. Still, I'm pretty nervous.
 
Onhell said:
I was joking about the help in stats, but I'll keep it in mind JackKnife. My classes don't worry me (well, maybe Islamic Thought a little bit), it's how I'm going to pay for them that worries me. I'm to start this monday and I still have only a vague of idea haha. Technically I only have until this monday to figure it out, realistically I have the next two weeks. Still, I'm pretty nervous.
I wish you good luck.
If someone around is gonna do some statistics I recommend you try the R package:
Rlogo.jpg

http://www.r-project.org/
I love it. :wub:
It's free and open source...
 
Let's go back to the subject.
I just found out a paper written by Virginia Gewin in 2005. It was published in Nature vol 436 (August 2005) p. 761. Titled "Scientists attack Bush over intelligent design"
Excerpt:

President's remarks spark angry response.

US scientists are again on the offensive against intelligent design, an idea that many see as thinly veiled creationism. The latest round stems from remarks by President George W. Bush, who on 1 August told a small group of reporters that he thought both evolution and intelligent design "ought to be properly taught" in US schools.

Scientists and science educators cried foul almost immediately, saying that such remarks could further the notion that intelligent design is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. Many researchers felt compelled to respond, even though Bush made his comments off the cuff in an informal setting. Because of the president's status, they say, his words could be used to introduce religious ideas into science classes.

"What the president has done is give impetus to people who would like to push their side of this agenda, and that's a real problem," says Fred Spilhaus, executive director of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), one of the first groups to respond to Bush's remarks. The AGU statement carried the headline "President confuses science and belief, puts schoolchildren at risk". The American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society and the American Astronomical Society also released statements saying that intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.


I hope you'll find this interesting!
 
JackKnife said:
Let's go back to the subject.
...design "ought to be properly taught" in US schools.

Never mind his religious views, get him to stop splitting his infinitives! :angry: :ok:
 
For those who can get French TV, there is a topic tonight on the show "envoyé spécial" France 2 dedicated to the present subject...
 
There are scientific evidence in favor of the creationist theory.

1. The weakening of the Earth's magnetic field:
Satelites of NASA have been measuring the strength of the Earth's MF, and found that it is becoming progressively weaker (That means that the more we go in the past, the stronger the MF is). One scientist studied the results of these observations, and knowing that the MF is decaying at the certain rate, calculated that, before 10.000 years ago the MF would be too strong for the Earth's structure to endure. And he stated that therefore Earth is 10.000 years(more or less)old.

2. The drainage of the oil:
It is presumed that every year 5 milion tons of oil goes into the oceans, through natural course. It is also presumed that the total amount of oil on earth is around 100 billion tons(this number probably changed by now. My source is a bit old), therefore presuming the oil generated about 50 million years ago, it would drained itself in the oceans 2500 times already.

3. The shrinking of the sun:
In the year 1980, two scientists discovered that the Sun loses 0.1 percent of it's diameter every hundred years. They believed this process is constant, and that it was going on on the same rate in the past. If this is correct, than only 100.000 years ago the Sun would be twice its size. And 20.000.000 years ago its surface would touch the Earth, making life on it unpossible.

4. The simbiosis:
The simbiosis is defined as cohabitation of two different organisms that have mutual benefit from this cohabitation.
For example, a Nile crocodile allows a small bird to enter his mouth and clean his teeth of hazardous bacteria. If the bird didn't cleaned his teeth the crocodile would be in a life threatening danger from disease. And those parasites are the bird's major source of food.
The two animals need each other, and in the same time. Otherwise either specie wouldn't be able to survive, which suggests that the two species must have came into existance in the same time.

There is a theory(and a logical too)that explains the need for the existance of the evolutionist theory.
It's goal, according to this theory, is to strip humanity of its spiritual side and force men(humanity) to think of itself as an animal specie that has no spiritual needs. When the man is free from his obligations to a god(any god) the way for him becoming a puppet of a communist state is open.
 
The Earth's magnetic field changes charges ever 10,000 years or so (magnetic north because magnetic south and vice versa)

The sun* is expanding, not shrinking, like any other star it is a huge nuclear reaction constantly fusing atoms becoming heavier and heavier and slowly becoming a red giant

Oil companies have found and drill oil from the oceans...

Crocodiles and birds (along with sharks) have been around since the dinosaurs all of them smaller now than their prehistoric ancestors, so yes, they did live around the same... millions of years ago.

*thanks for catching that conor
 
Onhell said:
The earth is expanding, not shrinking, like any other star it is a huge nuclear reaction constantly fusing atoms becoming heavier and heavier and slowly becoming a red giant
Surely you mean the sun?
 
Onhell said:
The Earth's magnetic field changes charges ever 10,000 years or so (magnetic north because magnetic south and vice versa)
True, but that doesn't mean the MF is not becoming weaker.[quote
The earth is expanding, not shrinking, like any other star it is a huge nuclear reaction constantly fusing atoms becoming heavier and heavier and slowly becoming a red giant
[/quote]
Yes I know. I've also read that in a astronomy book. But the thing is, anytime you present that kind of proof to a creationist, he just tells you that most facts that prove the evolutionist theory are fabricated.
Onhell said:
Oil companies have found and drill oil from the oceans...

What's that have to do with the argument(oil drainage) I presented?
 
Urizen said:
True, but that doesn't mean the MF is not becoming weaker.
You don't understand. The Magnetic Field strenght doesn't follow a linear stronger>>>weaker pattern. It slowly gets weaker over thousands of years until it's weak enough to switch poles. This shift is sudden and dramatic, according to most theories. Assuming it was quantifiable on a scale of 100, and the magic strenght at which it's weak enough to invert is 70. You'd see the field at 100, then 99, 98, 97,etc. until it got to 70, at which time it would suddenly reverse to become -69. (it's hard to describe in words, but try to visualize this)

Urizen said:
What's that have to do with the argument(oil drainage) I presented?

New oil is constantly being created by the rotting corpses of animals, plants, an other organic matter. It's a natural by-product of things living and dying. We're just using it up faster than it regenerates. New oil is created every day, but it's in such small amounts that it's insignificant. We just have a few billion years stockpiled, hich is why we seem to have lots right now.
Urizen said:
4. The simbiosis:
The simbiosis is defined as cohabitation of two different organisms that have mutual benefit from this cohabitation.
For example, a Nile crocodile allows a small bird to enter his mouth and clean his teeth of hazardous bacteria. If the bird didn't cleaned his teeth the crocodile would be in a life threatening danger from disease. And those parasites are the bird's major source of food.
The two animals need each other, and in the same time. Otherwise either specie wouldn't be able to survive, which suggests that the two species must have came into existance in the same time.
As was said above, the crocs were here firls. the birdies evolved to exploit a food source. Those crocs which, for whatever reason, allowed the birdies to clean their teeth without chowing down on them were better able to surrvive and pass their birdy-loving genes on to the next generation. They were selected through a natural process.

Urizen said:
There is a theory(and a logical too)that explains the need for the existance of the evolutionist theory.
It's goal, according to this theory, is to strip humanity of its spiritual side and force men(humanity) to think of itself as an animal specie that has no spiritual needs. When the man is free from his obligations to a god(any god) the way for him becoming a puppet of a communist state is open.
I don't think you've quite mastered the defination of "communist", but I'll let it slide this time. You're forgetting that morality can, and does, exist ouside of spiritualism. Man is a moral critter that likes to build functional societies. These generally consist of the same basic rules (ie "try hard not to kill and steal"), tailored to suit the environment. We also have the ability to REASON outside of religion, meaning when we see something which is amoral, we can stand against it.
 
Why at this point am I left feeling that it really doesn't matter who's right? Personally I feel that it's like that comic where God says: let there be evolution! What matters is what we do with the Earth here and now, and we should not be arguing about how the Earth ws made. Just like we shouldn't be arguing about which God is the 'right' God. But since we are...I'll just say that the creationist view should be taught in religion class or something, and the evolutionist view taught in science class. Each where they belong. Don't get me wrong here, it makes for interesting debates, but I think there are more important things that scientists should be arguing about (cough stem cell research cough).
 
I'm not critisizing stem cell research, Albie. What I'm saying is that I think it's better food for argument since it's very current and actually can make a difference.
 
To Iron duke:
I was not reffering to the lack of moral, that would be caused by the downfall of religion, but to the lack of feeling special that would happen if we thought of ourselves as a mere evolutionary step.

What do you mean I "have not mastered the definition of communist". Is the separating of people from religion not one of the principal tasks and characteristics of communism?
 
Natalie said:
I'm not critisizing stem cell research, Albie. What I'm saying is that I think it's better food for argument since it's very current and actually can make a difference.
I sort of realised that - but what I tried to say, it is a good argument for those who suffer from one of many cancers.
 
Urizen said:
What do you mean I "have not mastered the definition of communist". Is the separating of people from religion not one of the principal tasks and characteristics of communism?

No. Marx critized religion because it maintained the status quo, in other words it was part of the super structure that was oppressing the worker. He's theory is purely materialistic, it doesn't mean people should be stripped of their spirituality to make them "puppets". On the contrary, Under communism as society progresses the State and the amount of necessary laborshrink and the productivity and the realm of freedom (free time) grows leaving you more time to pursue your hobbies, whatever that might be... maybe praying...

to natalie:
I'll just say that the creationist view should be taught in religion class or something, and the evolutionist view taught in science class. Each where they belong.

who said evolution and religion are mutually exclusive? The Catholic Church has no problems with it, in fact they work intensively with scientists and head many scientific institutions. As an example, The Vatican Observatory is here in Arizona and it is run by Jesuit Priests.
 
Almost every communist regime had the cult of a leader as one of its major building stones(Tito, Stalin, Mao, Castro...). Religion, being against false idols, was undermining this. Therefore it was intentionally neglected or banished from communist states.
 
Back
Top