Evolution for Dummies...Edit.....is for Dummies

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 7 of 12

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Friday, October 13, 2006 11:41 PM

Quote:
(And certain people wonder why I ignore things posted by them.)

Because they prove you wrong and unlike in real life you can't tie them to a stake and set fire to them so you just ignore them. Wouldn't want to let your tiny brainless head get educmacated now would we, would probably cause some sort of faliure.

I think everyone should ignore you. You're a religious fanatic, an idiot and a sociopath.

Nothing you say is worth listening too, nothing you say has an ounce of truth, nothing you say has an ounce of intelligence.

You'd be a Troll but you're lower than that.

A loud fart is supirior to you're inane ramblings, fuck off back under the evil freedom hating hole you came from you evangelist terrorist.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:08 AM

Quote:
There's actually significant problems with that book. The main one being that it was self-published. Wolfram himself isn't exactly the most stable person in the world either.

EDIT: It's not the fractal thing that I disagree w/. It's just that Wolfram has seemed to take the approach that everything comes from celluar autommata, which IMO is rather... um... yay.

That's why I skimmed thru the book. It was all in chapter one. The rest was.. "And here's ANOTHER example!... And look at THIS example!" Kind of like reading a guy obsessively mumbling the same to himself over and over....

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

REAVERMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

You obviously failed to read my previous post. Heeren's book is about cosmology, and that is Smoot's field of expertise.

No, what you fail to understand is that biological and cosmological evolution are two completely different processes. Evolution of the cosmos goes along smooth, fairly predictable lines. It is relatively simple, because it is dealing with lifeless matter.

Biological evolution is very different because it deals with organisms. An asteroid cannot mutate or reproduce or breath or excrete waste or die, because it is essentially already dead. An organism can. So, while this guy has probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about cosmology, he's no more qualified to comment on evolution than some Joe Shmoe off the street.

Quote:
Of course, I don't know how seriously I can take the comments of someone who claims to respect science, yet refuses to believe what Stephen Hawking says about Smoot (also mentioned above) -- not to mention the Nobel committee -- and recognize him as a "greater authority".

Okay, first of all, Steven Hawking is a genius with MATH and PHYSICS, NOT BIOLOGY. Secondly, Hawking was admiring his work on cosmic ripples which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

What you need to figure out is that cosmic evolution and biological evolution are two radically different concepts. Just because they share a word in their titles doesn't mean they are the same thing.

While Im sure your physicist is very good at what he does, biology is not what he does. Take Einstein as an example. He was arguably one of the greatest physicists ever produced by mankind, but he was an utter failure in feilds like politics and fatherhood. Just because you're a good basketball player, you aren't automatically a good football player.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Kind of like reading a guy obsessively mumbling the same to himself over and over....

LOL, too true!

@Citizen:

Gotta agree w/ you there. Cartoon certainly is showing himself to be a... um... yah. Think I'm going to join that group of people that ignore this joker.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CARTOON

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
No, what you fail to understand is that biological and cosmological evolution are two completely different processes.

Hi.

No, actually I do understand. But, perhaps I'm not explaining myself, or people are missing what I've written.

Heeren's book is on cosmological evolution, NOT biological evolution. Smoot endorses Heeren's book. Heeren is NOT (at least not in this volume) commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution. Likewise, Smoot is NOT commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution -- something for which he is immanently qualified.

Heeren's book states that cosmic evolution is a fallacy, and he goes to great lengths to illustrate that (go to the Smoot thread to read Heeren's acknowledgements, and Smoot's foreward, if you'd like)(I'd also highly recommend the book, itself -- which, I'm sure you can find at your library). Apparently, Smoot agrees, as he wrote the foreward and endorses the volume.

Heeren planned a second volume (on biological evoltuion), but it is not yet published. Naturally, Smoot would not be writing the foreward for that book, as (as you correctly stated) that's not his area of expertise.

So, to clarify once again, Heeren's book is not on biological evolution/the origin of life, etc.

I would surmise, however, that if Heeren (and Smoot) are correct, and that the cosmos were created (Heeren believes that God created them; Smoot, to my knowledge, has made no specific comment as to "who" created the cosmos, but seems to have no doubt that they did not come into existence by chance, but were intelligently designed by a designer), then the next step (life) would logically, also not have originated by chance, but by design.

However, as Heeren's first volume does not go into the origins of life, it would be presumptuous of me to assume what Smoot (or even Heeren) believes along those lines.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:23 AM

Cartoon,

'eminently' qualified

'imminently' relates to Kim Jong Il and nukes.

Fascinating subject though. Myself, I'm pretty well convinced some form of cosmological evolution took place, but I don't buy the big bang as it is. It reads too much like a theory based on facts which were bent continuously around a pre-conceived result that the scientists were trying to find. The data seems to me to lend itself to a universe of infinite size and age, and I studied it a fair amount. But I might take a look at the book.

My strongest suspicion is that creation is not an event, but an ongoing process, and matter, space, stars, galaxies, quarks and electrons are constantly being created, as are not only species, but also life, in its orignal form. Most of the so called scientific theories we get revolve around some sort of genesis event, just in scientific terms. I don't think the universe works that way, just based on what I've seen.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Heeren's book is on cosmological evolution, NOT biological evolution. Smoot endorses Heeren's book. Heeren is NOT (at least not in this volume) commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution. Likewise, Smoot is NOT commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution -- something for which he is immanently qualified.

Heeren's book states that cosmic evolution is a fallacy, and he goes to great lengths to illustrate that (go to the Smoot thread to read Heeren's acknowledgements, and Smoot's foreward, if you'd like)(I'd also highly recommend the book, itself -- which, I'm sure you can find at your library). Apparently, Smoot agrees, as he wrote the foreward and endorses the volume.

Damage control on fanatic lies:

Smoot headed a project called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), in which capacity he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The COBE project has probably done more to cement the Big Bang Theory than any other.

Headed by a man this lunatic would have us believe doesn't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

Here's what Barkley's page on George Smoot has to say:

Quote:
Experimental Astrophysicist George Smoot is an active researcher in observational astrophysics and cosmology. Smoot’s group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley is observing our Galaxy and the cosmic background radiation that is remnant from the fiery beginning of our Universe. Projects include ground-based radio-telescope observations, balloon-borne instrumentation and satellite experiments. The most famous of these is COBE (the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer satellite) which has shown that the cosmic background radiation intensity has a wavelength dependence precisely that of a perfectly absorbing body indicating that it is the relic radiation from the Big Bang origin of the Universe.

Using NASA’s COBE DMR, Smoot and his colleagues have made a map of the early Universe discovering the seeds of present day galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These seeds show up as variations at the part in 100,000 level in density from place to place. They also reveal information on the Big Bang and the origin of the Universe.

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/Smoot.html
Smoots page at the University of South Dakota:

Quote:
In 1974, Smoot headed a project called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) whose purpose was to seek out and examine evidence of the universe's origin.
...
The data from COBE helped to reinforce the big bang theory and point out the appearance of overlaps in the universe. This evidence has been included in Smoot's book Wrinkles in Time.

http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys300/gallery/clark/smoot.html

And the most amusing part, while this joker is trying to tell us Smoot doesn't believe in the Big Bang and he has a Nobel Prize so he knows what he is talking about let's take a look at what the research he won the Nobel Prize for was about:

Quote:
Big-Bang Detective Work Wins Physics Nobel
The Nobel Prize in Physics will be awarded to two Americans whose findings lend support to the big-bang scenario of the universe's origins.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189865

Oh and just so we know how callous and low a liar Cartoon is lets place his comments together:

Quote:
However, as Heeren's first volume does not go into the origins of life, it would be presumptuous of me to assume what Smoot (or even Heeren) believes along those lines.

Doesn't really gel with:

Quote:
It's been many months since a post in here on evolution vs creationism, but I recall having cited many quotations from Fred Heeren's "Show Me God", where he scientifically explains how evolution could never have happened.

It is obvious which type of Evolution Cartoon is talking about. He now tries to back peddle when his lies are exposed.

Remember people that Fanatics only have power and a voice if we give it to them. They are exceedingly i

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.

Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Out of order? Not for him.

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
This is what annoyed me about the article Kaneman cited:

He says the following:

"There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome."

No-one I know who calls themselve an evolutionist would say that they deal with those first 3. Evolutionists, in the normal sense of the word, study biologial evolution.

The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Actually, they are essential to terrestrial evolution. You have to decide what the composition of the early atmosphere was etc.. It all really is a bunch of junk science. Everything from the big bang(getting everything from nothing) to inorganic into living. Just think about it.

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Actually there is more evidence for that than for creationism. I am not familiar with the mathmatics involved, but there is mathematical evidence for it. Just ask a theoretical physicist and they'll tell you all about it.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies

Evolution for Dummies...Edit.....is for Dummies