A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.

Brocktoon

Sorry,, one answer at a time...

1.
So..because they quoted something poorly in your opinion.
They are halfwits...
So..You are by definition a halfwit unless your have 'never stated something poorly in someones opinion'

No?

2.
In the 'dont remain tied' thread..occam states his position on evolution.
And what it may be about.

When you read that you may understand that occam does not argue such
fine points as you put forward..He tries to fit a theory into his understanding of observable reality . That theory is creationism.
It does not fit...

If the universe is 10k years old...geologic weathering is a lie..stellar and planetary evolution is a lie. For occam considers those sciences to have a fair understanding [non contradictory] of the age of observable reality and especially the age of the earth...They dont even need to be that accurate.. 2 billion years either way and the earth is still 1 billion years old.

This is why he says..If god created the earth in 10,000 bc. Why did he create it to look like it was not created..
You say occams idea of how old the earth is is based on false information.

then turn away from the question to hairsplitting on special evolution.

But to say occams understanding of the sciences of geology and astophysics is incorrect. Then you must show those sciences that their
theories are false...
CAN you disprove current scientiffic theories held by geology and astrophysics as to the science/process of planetary and stellar objects?
Especially earth.

A simple example...show how all the sand on all the beaches of the world
got where it is from the weathering of sandstone in just 12k years..
If you say god made them that way.. then god also made the laws that science calls the objective laws..[for god made everything///no?]
And those laws say the sand came from eons of natural process...
A small part of planetary evolution.
So god created the beaches.. to look like they evolved through geologic process.

So...to occam, creationist theory is contradictory at its most basic level..
While evolution is not...For stars and planets are born and die.. They have a life line. dying stars give life to new stars...new species of stars..
And in the doing make a universe that is NOT ALL HYDROGEN...

Evolution theory of life. Is far more complex than stellar evolution.
Yet it follows the same pattern.The same structure. A result of the
'objective laws' [of which we likely know only a few]
You say evolution theory is false...Occam holds it a far more probable that
you and science understand little of how evolution may work..
But..as stated before. Evolution is but the MOST PROBABLE , to occam,
at this time.
While of ALL theories of existance..creationism is the least.

Occam

 

Brocktroon

Stephen Gould states "the earth was flooded"
There is enough water on this planet to reduce the current above sea level land masses by some 40 %...
There is not enough water to submerge more than that..

Thus, unless Mr Gould proposses that god doubled the ammount of water on earth to flood it..then took that water away afterwards.
A thing not mentioned in any biblical text...

Then it is not physically possible to "flood the earth" with the amount of water on it.

Occam

PS. And if you believe the flood..You believe a single family built a ship to carry several MILLION species of insect/animal/plant. ANd managed to hop to south america and other such 'easily accessable to a guy on a donkey in the mid east' places.. Cause ALL of the species that exist now...according to the flood myth.. must have travelled in that ark.
Cause there is no evolution..right?
And as a small extra..who carpented the wood needed to build a ship able to carry several millions of species?
Occam estimates at the least..it must have been 500 meters in length alone. Thats like...100 thousand tons of timber.

Now..how many days does the bible say noah and his family did all those things in?

PPS...And if 'The noah bunch' were the only humans to survive...
Then we are all products of god sponsored incest.

 

>LT>**^^~~ ----That would explane alot .

 

Since I have to make my way to work soon - let me just correct the last conclusion asserted by Dr. Occam.

Noah and His Wife.
Noahs Three Sons (Shem, Ham and Japeth) and Their Three Wives.
[Im not aware that the Noah's had any more children in the new world]

The Three Couples split up into regions - North, East and West and began to repopulate the Earth

There is no incest involved.

Mind you... if this 'Explains anything' - it might explain why there are three basic 'looks' among the human family which are found in the Northern Peoples, the Eastern Peoples and the Southern Peoples
(Turkey as the relatative point)

.
.
..
... Stephen J Gould (rip) is the most recent 'High Priest' of Evolutionism.
He is what was called a 'Neo Darwinist' and like most Evolutionists he clearly states that Natural Selection is not a mechanism for Evolution.
Gould and modern Evolutionists can not even believe that gradual evolution happened either (the fossil record wont support it) and now insist that 'Hopeful Monsters' were appearing in 'huge jumps'.

Im not aware of his theory on World Wide Flooding.

More later

 

Brocktroon

Ahh well,, that explains everything...
Three families built that ark and repopulated the world...
This opinion is based on WHAT physical evidence?
Ah yes, some book...

Occam read that nazis flying saucers are based in the antarctic..
That came from a book as well.

Occam

PS..the 'Dr Occam' comment comes from where? Ah yes..the desire
to ridicule...A method of gaining that illusory personal power.
All, a product of ego.

 

Yeah, thats what I've been saying, which is why there is no point in responding to him.

 

What evidence is there that our population came from Three families (whol ultimately came from Adam and Eve (and certainly Eve)

Some people do point to the three 'branches' of the human family - sometimes called 'Negroid' 'Caucaziod' and 'Mongoloid' (dont blame the naming conventions on me please)

Others point to traditions in ancient cultures (many refering to an early few people)

The better way to handle it would be to take a look at world population and growth - then reverse it backwards.

The latest way would be to map the human genome and take samples from all the worlds populations.

That last one is kinda scary for some of you - it will pretty much give you know other option than to conclude that ALL humans today come from one woman.

Scientists refer to this original woman as 'Eve'.
[They got the naming idea from a book]

Those are just the few I can think of.
Archaeology would be another way to find evidence.

I think Dr.Occam sounds pretty cool ... in case your not hip to the Spidermania - it kinda sounds like Dr.Oc

Oh yea.. and also my 'Ego' (which doesnt exist other than something you read in a book by a guy saying it does)

 

http://amonhotep.com/2002/realeve.html

 

gnrm..

My favourite part of Mitochondrial Eve is where the artists depicts her as a human being (in this case she is) but for pure evolutionist fun - he puts 'Chimp Hair and skin' on her.

No reason other than pure funny propaganda lol!

But yes.. its 'more or less exact' that we all had to come from one woman.

I suppose its 'fun' to imagine she had 'Chimp like features' and probably walked with a weird hunched over wobble (like the Discovery channel actors do when portraying early humans)

Gotta love it!

 

I see that being off-line for a week did nothing to quell brocktoon's obsession with me.

But you know, I read all his post and he failed to say a SINGLE thing he hasn't repeated ad nauseum. Like Bush, he's a spam man- repeat it enough, and some other idiot will believe it, too!

 

Yes but in all fairness to you Geckopelli ... your not a Scientist, so the Science of Probability Formulas would 'Sound like a bunch of words and words' to your ears.
Some in here appreciated the discussions on Formula on improbability.

 

I understand probability on a plateau many levels above you and you propaganistic, sycohphantic, brigade of bible fanatics. .

Anyone whom has the slightest grasp of the statistical nature of reality has long dispensed with childish explanations of a magic man in the sky pulling all the strings.

 

geckopelli: " ...I read all his post and he failed to say a SINGLE thing he hasn't repeated ad nauseum."

Brocktoon: "Yes..."

A self-acknowledged spamist!

What was that rule again?

 

The 'Rule' is:

It does not qualify as 'Spam' just because one Reader (Geckopelli in this case) is confused by the posts and thinks they all sound like 'Talky stuff'.

Other, more advanced readers are able to discern a difference between Mitochondrial Eve and another post about Genetic Variation.

Hang in there.. ..You'll catch on soon!

 

Ditto!

 

I don't yet buy into that theory, though 'Eve' allegedly lived around 250 000 years ago. I believe we have been around here many times that no. of years.
more like 50 000 000 years. The lack of genetic variety, in my humble opinion, is due to a number of extinction level events over that time.


Oh yeah, Brocktoon, I just want you to know in case you didn't, that the 'Eve' theorists feel she was from Africa. You may not have known that, or maybe just forgot to mention it, huh? Either way, it matters not, and I don't buy the whole "Eve" theory anyway.

 

I've said it before. Focus on your english skills, especially seeing you've mastered science People who aren't hung up on which jargon sounds best will then see the glimmer of enlightenment you assure us you have.

 

While I tend to agree, I do not claim to know that, however ludicrously fantastical one's beliefs may be, they are not right for them. I say to them, you are right. It's true. Valid beliefs to be sure. I might also say, I feel all faiths are full of people whose beliefs are not any more or less 'righteous', nor more favored by the Spirit, or whatever it is.
The poor spelling in your post........I say cuz in mine. I can spell, i don't feel I hafta. I had no trouble getting your point, so i dont care how you spell, and your points are what I care about, and if your grammatical and punctuation skills ever negatively impact my ability to quickly, clearly, and directly agree or disagree with you, then i might hint that you need to work on it. Some of the smartest people I know can't spell worth shit. But at least I can read thru the terrrabul spelling mistakes with no difficulty, in moments, and I get their point succinctly, efficiently, and unambiguously. English wuz alwaze my best subject, and my test scores are rare around here anywaze. I know what they mean effortlessly, so there, ooops, they're...no, their spelling is not an issue. I know that many people do find it hard to accept poor English skills, but I just wanted to say that education level, and academic achievements are not in any way whatsoever to be confused with intelligence.
I say, to all who spell bad. just do your thing....whether someone is the Dean of English at a large institution, or a person who didn't finish grade 8, sucked at English, and has no estate, no equity, no degrees, or diplomas....not even high school, doesn't tell me that one is an asshole and the other one is being straight with me. I have seen too many academics who have a lot of learning to do to be as smart as many a minimum wage labourer with bad english. High IQ is overemphasized and not fair, too. If a IQ test was translated into any one of the many original, traditional, tribal languages around the world, they would not necessarily need to know what a refridgerator does, or if a Slushie was a toy, a drink, a shoe, or whatever. Many of our material belongings, our vastly different living environments, and our culturally influenced educational systems would be foreign. They would not do well, and if I was sent to Australia and tried to learn the Aboriginal peoples knowledge and wisdom, my western world education will be of little use. If someone failed in school, they may still in fact be very smart. In the areas I find important. Education is good, I support it.....it is nothing compared to common sense, and far more common. Jargon...elitist. Mark Twain, never use a dollar word where a dime word will do.
Okay, I'm done.

 

And furthermore......to get back to my original point that I was getting to in that last post. I lost it somewhere in that rabbit trail of red herrings, equivocation, speculation, conjecture, and double entendres.
A persons spiritual beliefs and ethical values, their goodwill, heart, generosity, and love......compared to IQ ha ha ha ha


Hmmmmmmm



Love...........illogical and unsolvable as it can be is a good focus.

Knowing what obfuscation is, or what obsequiousness, dichotomy, epitome, hors d'oevre, hyperbole, or quark means, or what 3.15149265358979323, or 1.6180339, or 13/64th, or .125 millimeters is, even the completion of the highest levels in any academic subject, doesn't touch love.
sorry,
its a non issue
love
IQ
more value, hmmm
what is intelligence anyway...is it smart to love....I think so. Way smarter than knowing any science.
And so my point is,

I don't equate smarts with education level. They are completely unrelated, in my experience, and no education is no reason to think that someone is stupid.
I just wanted to say that, becuz I know some shy, self-conscious about their booklearnin', uneducated, low income, genii, feeling inadequate cuz they know that their poor spelling reveals their low education, and are sensitive about being judged on it.

Intellectualism is summed up well by Cheryl Crow.

...he was high on intellectualism, I've never been there but the brochure looks nice.

She's great,
BG13

 

I'm a professional writer, my dear, and I have zero interest in your quest for enlightenment.

Since you have nothing to contribute, perhaps you should continue practicing your hamburger flipping skills. And don't put too much salt on the fries.
-----------
I find it truly astonishing that so many people take offense upon encountering someone with superior knowledge in a given field. How do such people learn?

It seems to me, a little education would do more to supress this apparent inferiority complex than the usual arrogant/ignorant stupidity that disarm personifies so well. Oh well!

Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, learn. And those who can't learn, critize.