evolution derail from Actively Looking for God?

[jadeus]

I doubt you're serious with any of this, jadeus, but I'll respond to a few things.

I am VERY serious about this.



What hatred would this be?

The hatred you hide with mannors. :)



IProjecting much?

Ok maybe.

ICould you demonstrate how you arrive at that .005% figure? If you attempt to do so in the Evolution/Creation forum, I'm sure you'll have a warm reception.

It is rare accurence that carbon life forms are replaced by minerals and fossilized. You have to have the perfect situation. It's almost a miricle.

IOh, well, in that case, Jesus is metaphorical too.

Yes...Jesus is metaphorical too!!!

IThe bible as it currently stands was put together a lot more recently than that. Moreover, so what if it's old? The belief that the sun revolves around the earth is a lot older than 4000 years; that doesn't mean it's accurate.

Look...we can spend forever figuring out how everything works. The truth of the bible is that we were created and here are some rules you should follow. Kindoms that break these rules fall and they do. Science will always change. Our texts will be obsolite as the ones 50 years ago. Yet each one will state it's theories like facts.



IIf you do, please feel free to describe said ceremonies.

You could support your local Planned Parenthood?

[JPD]

Look...we can spend forever figuring out how everything works. The truth of the bible is that we were created and here are some rules you should follow. Kindoms that break these rules fall and they do. Science will always change. Our texts will be obsolite as the ones 50 years ago. Yet each one will state it's theories like facts.




On whose authority exactly? Should we read the account of creation in Genesis and swallow it hook, line and sinker? 6 days which may or may not be six days depending on how it is interpreted.....
Yes, things change....science develops....there are updates, new findings.
All kingdoms fall at some point regardless of their belief systems.

[jadeus]

I'm Canadian; I use the British spelling. Careful, you don't want to break the illusion that you know what you're talking about. ;)
It's a big world out there, other cultures, different spelling 'n stuff....check it out sometime.

Prof.

Look! I don’t care how you spell it. For some reason people think I haven’t studied this stuff. Have you seen the ONE rock that they theorize was cyannobacteria? Traces of iridium....yeah, its in meteors but it is also natural to our planet. My point is that both stories, the evolution or the creation story, are just that...Stories. There was a car accident and everybody saw it different. Which is truth. It come down to what you believe dictates what you do. And sorry. thou shall not kill has been taken. You either align yourself with this self evident knowledge or you come up with something else. The only thing else is thou shall kill and that just doesn’t feel right to me.

[JPD]

Look! I don’t care how you spell it. For some reason people think I haven’t studied this stuff. Have you seen the ONE rock that they theorize was cyannobacteria? Traces of iridium....yeah, its in meteors but it is also natural to our planet. My point is that both stories, the evolution or the creation story, are just that...Stories. There was a car accident and everybody saw it different. Which is truth. It come down to what you believe dictates what you do. And sorry. thou shall not kill has been taken. You either align yourself with this self evident knowledge or you come up with something else. The only thing else is thou shall kill and that just doesn’t feel right to me.

Creation is a story. Evolution is reality.

[dshimel]

My point is that both stories, the evolution or the creation story, are just that...Stories. There was a car accident and everybody saw it different. Which is truth.

You look at the evidence!!!!!! If one version is consistant with uncountably high number of pieces of data, and the other version was contrary to all the available evidence..... I'd pick the version backed by the evidence.

The Bible says the earth is flat, is covered by a sky dome... Is only a few thousand years old. That all creatures were created fully formed. That the entore world was covered by a flood and everyone drowned except one family.... And that happened within the time that other cultures existed on earth and record n osuch flood, not to mention not having been drown in said flood....

Sorry, but ALL the evidence points to one of these two as being truth and the other bing ancient folklore.



It come down to what you believe dictates what you do. And sorry. thou shall not kill has been taken. You either align yourself with this self evident knowledge or you come up with something else. The only thing else is thou shall kill and that just doesn’t feel right to me.

1) How do you explain passages in the Bible where Moses ordered the destruction of towns, the slaughter of every man and every non virgin woman? How is this consistant with "Thou shalt not kill"?

2) Name a society where it has been okay to kill other members of the society without cause.



Just becuase Christianity has 1 thing correct, does not mean they have everything correct.

[Mageth]

Look! I don’t care how you spell it. For some reason people think I haven’t studied this stuff.

Mostly it's what you've been saying.

Have you seen the ONE rock that they theorize was cyannobacteria? Traces of iridium....yeah, its in meteors but it is also natural to our planet.

Perhaps a little more information on what you're talking about would be helpful. What "one rock" are you talking about?

My point is that both stories, the evolution or the creation story, are just that...Stories.

With the rather large caveat that the evolution "story" fits much better with the actual evidence, and indeed was derived from investigating the evidence (not the other way around; creation tries to make the evidence fit the story). There is no evidence that supports the "creation" story.

There was a car accident and everybody saw it different.

There was a car accident, and one side went and gathered evidence to determine what had happened.

The other side believes that aliens were responsible, and tries to match the evidence from the wreck site to fit their story.

Which is truth.

Which better fits the evidence; which better explains what we see in the real world. That's what we should be looking for.

It come down to what you believe dictates what you do.

Actually, in the case of evolution, it comes down to the evidence writing the story, rather than the story being applied to interpret the evidence, as is the case for creationism. I accept evolution as the most likely explanation for how life as we know it came to be because it fits the evidence better than any other "story", better than any creation myth. So, in this case, it's what I do (evaluate the evidence, and the theories (or "stories") to figure out which best fits the evidence) that dictates what I believe. That effort determines what I believe. It's not the other way around, at least not for me. It's true for creationists, though; they believe the bible, therefore they interpret the evidence to fit the stories in the bible.

And sorry. thou shall not kill has been taken.

We didn't need a Bible to tell us it's wrong to kill. And that notion (that it's wrong to kill) wasn't original with the Bible. So sorry, Bible, "thou shalt not kill" was taken before you came along.

You either align yourself with this self evident knowledge

See, you agree with me. "Thou shalt not kill" was self-evident; we didn't need the Bible to tell us that.

...or you come up with something else. The only thing else is thou shall kill and that just doesn’t feel right to me.

Nor does it "feel right" to most other people. So there's no need to come up with something else. We can all share that prohibition. Again, we don't need the Bible to prohibit us from killing, and the Bible is not the first or only place that such a rule was codified. Most of us don't want to kill anyway.

[Jade]

My point is that both stories, the evolution or the creation story, are just that...Stories. There was a car accident and everybody saw it different. Which is truth.
Whichever corresponds to what actually happened (assuming any of them correspond to reality).

It come down to what you believe dictates what you do. And sorry. thou shall not kill has been taken.
Taken?

Interesting -- I didn't know you could patent moral truths. Though I suppose it could possibly qualify as intellectual property....

In which case, the Buddhists want 2000 years of royalties for the unauthorized Christian use of the "Golden Rule".

[jadeus]

With the rather large caveat that the evolution "story" fits much better with the actual evidence, and indeed was derived from investigating the evidence (not the other way around; creation tries to make the evidence fit the story). There is no evidence that supports the "creation" story.

You don’t think that the entire premise of evolution was based on disproving creation? Yet, I am a Christian that believes in evolution. I think the creation story was a metaphorical story of evolution. However, the evidence you seek you will not find because so much of the fossil record was destroyed...leaving us with only one thing...theories or stories.

There was a car accident, and one side went and gathered evidence to determine what had happened.

The other side believes that aliens were responsible, and tries to match the evidence from the wreck site to fit their story.

There was a car accident and no one saw it. Two people have theories. One that the car skids 10 feet because he saw the car a block ago. The other argues that it was 100 feet because based on the speed limit the car must have going so fast and physics determined where the accident started. So maybe the car went 100 feet. Does that mean the first didn’t see it? NO. My point is that the second also has to make the assumption that the car was traveling as fast as the speed limit..meaning his estimate is also inaccurate. Yet, there is no question that there was an accident.



We didn't need a Bible to tell us it's wrong to kill. And that notion (that it's wrong to kill) wasn't original with the Bible. So sorry, Bible, "thou shalt not kill" was taken before you came along.

Nor does it "feel right" to most other people. So there's no need to come up with something else. We can all share that prohibition. Again, we don't need the Bible to prohibit us from killing, and the Bible is not the first or only place that such a rule was codified. Most of us don't want to kill anyway.

Most of you feel it is right to kill a baby before it is born. Tell the early civilizations they didn’t need rules to go by (which is what the Jews did long before the other barbarians) . What was Hammurabi's code? Humans trying to shed their animal instincts early in evolution? It is the only the set of rules that have survived and it's historic. It is my experience that secularist seek to re-establish the vestigial animal characteristic.

[Mageth]

You don’t think that the entire premise of evolution was based on disproving creation?

No, because it wasn't.

Yet, I am a Christian that believes in evolution.

Great.

I think the creation story was a metaphorical story of evolution.

The writers of the time had no concept of evolution, so could hardly write Genesis 1-3 as a metaphorical version of evolution. Your idea on this is an example of reading into, or onto, the creation account what is simply not there.

However, the evidence you seek you will not find because so much of the fossil record was destroyed...leaving us with only one thing...theories or stories.

There are plenty of fossils that remain that provide very strong support for evolutionary theory. No other theory explains what we see in the fossil record better than evolution. But note that fossils are just one source of evidence for evolution. Other avenues of evidence have matched quite well with evolutionary theory.

Most of you feel it is right to kill a baby before it is born.

That's quite a strawman of the pro-choice position you've got going there.

Tell the early civilizations they didn’t need rules to go by (which is what the Jews did long before the other barbarians) .

Where did I ever say that civilizations don't need rules to go by?

There were quite organized and orderly civilizations with encoded laws long before the Hebrew civilization.

What was Hammurabi's code? Humans trying to shed their animal instincts early in evolution?

Hammurabi came along long after Homo Sapiens had evolved to its present form. And long before the Hebrew civilization. Sumerian civilizations are among the earliest, if not the earliest, we have records of.

It is the only the set of rules that have survived and it's historic.

No, it's the oldest set of rules that have survived. And yes, it is historic. But I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

It is my experience that secularist seek to re-establish the vestigial animal characteristic.

That's about the most idiotic thing I've heard anyone say around here in a while. What do you mean by "secularist" (sic)? Secular humanists? Secular humanism is anything but an attempt to "re-establish the vestigal animal characteristics." And no one that is "secularist" (whatever that means) is trying to do away with prohibitions on murder and such basic humanitarian laws. You're grossly oversimplifying and/or misrepresenting the non-theistic ethical position.

[dshimel]

You don’t think that the entire premise of evolution was based on disproving creation?

Of course not.... That would be like saying people went to the North Pole to disprove Santa Clause.

People (not just Darwin as this was a groing idea among many at the time) began to study the natural world... Natural philosohpy it was called. They found that by looking at data and coming up with patterns, they could better explain things then by starting with a conclusion and trying to force fit the data to it.

It was religion that made this a war.... If science is right, then we must be wrong, therefore, science must be wrong..... Burn them at the stake!



Yet, I am a Christian that believes in evolution. I think the creation story was a metaphorical story of evolution. However, the evidence you seek you will not find because so much of the fossil record was destroyed...leaving us with only one thing...theories or stories.

And one story that fits the data, and one that does not.

You've taken a HUGE step from superstition and mythology into reality by accepting the Bible is metaphoric and that life did not spring to life, fully formed, just a few thousand years ago.

Now you're ready for the next step.

The Bible isn't a metaphore written by people with special knowledge of the supernatural...... It was a guess by people that thought the earth was flat and covered by a sky-dome with water above it.

That guess was wrong.... Not just on creation story, but on the supernatural as well.

[jadeus]

There are plenty of fossils that remain that provide very strong support for evolutionary theory. No other theory explains what we see in the fossil record better than evolution. But note that fossils are just one source of evidence for evolution. Other avenues of evidence have matched quite well with evolutionary theory.

Ok.. tell me..the first anarobic creatures? How did this happen? Can you invision it? Describe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water? Evidence? Where are the first foot prints? Believe me, I know the evolution story and it is full of logical jumps that just can't be answered. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate. I'm not saying quit looking for answers. I'm just saying you dont know the truth yet.

That's about the most idiotic thing I've heard anyone say around here in a while. What do you mean by "secularist" (sic)? Secular humanists? Secular humanism is anything but an attempt to "re-establish the vestigal animal characteristics." And no one that is "secularist" (whatever that means) is trying to do away with prohibitions on murder and such basic humanitarian laws. You're grossly oversimplifying and/or misrepresenting the non-theistic ethical position.

No. You have no idea what society would come to in the hands of secularist.

[graymouser]

Moved derail from Actively Looking for God?

-Wayne

[Dark Knight Bob]

Kindoms that break these rules fall and they do. Science will always change

Didn't the roman empire fall around the same time they started implementing christianity into their culture?

And also there are quite clear fossil records for certain lineages such as horses. Dating back over several million years.

The idea that there is incomplete fossil lineage to prove evolution therefore is false.

I know the evolution story and it is full of logical jumps that just can't be answered. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate

The entire scientific community supports evolution. Having a bunch of people make claims about which they know nothing by "inventing" science qualifications in fake courses does not count as a valid scientific viewpoint.

Ok.. tell me..the first anarobic creatures? How did this happen? Can you invision it? Describe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water? Evidence? Where are the first foot prints?

You don't need to go around measuring every rock on planet earth to prove that gravity affects them all. If you're asking for a 100% amount of information before drawing a conclusion then you're not going to find it.

I find it bizarre that you hold a few sentances in a book a few thousand years old as more scientifically accurate than thousands of fossil lineages discovered all with careful categorisation.

Describe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water? That's like asking someone to identify the first person who ever committed a crime as the only acceptable proof that crime has happened throughout history.

I know the evolution story and it is full of logical jumps that just can't be answered

The bible is based around the biggest logical jump of all. Blind faith. The accounts written by jesus's disciples weren't even written at the time they happened and weren't even written by the disciples themselves but muses.

And the only evidence they happened was that someone wrote them down arbitraily. You expect that to count as a reliable historical resource over carbon dating, fossil records, mathematically proven methodology based on complexity arising out of simplicity?

Look...we can spend forever figuring out how everything works.

Better than making it up arbitrarily and pretending it represents the truth. Case in point being...

The truth of the bible is that we were created and here are some rules you should follow.

Not knowing everything doesn't mean we don't know something

Science will always change

Also known as progress.

[RBH]

Just to get the E/C ball rolling, jadeus wroteDescribe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water? Evidence? Where are the first foot prints? Our own Per Ahlberg is quoted in an overview here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1218_021218_tetrapod.html), along with Jenny Clack (the Diva of the Devonian?), another distinguished paleontologist studying the evolution of tetrapods. Carl Zimmer's 1995 Discover article about Acanthostega, a very early tetrapod, is here (http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/comingonto.html). And here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3589133.stm) is a news story about a recent tetrapod fossil discoveryin Pennsylvania.

Jenny Clack has a very good general overview here (http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates), with good illustrations and pictures of fossils.

So, jadeus, one doesn't have to imagine the first creatures to come out of the water: there's data out there on them.

RBH

[lpetrich]

At the request of one of the mods, here is the E/C content of my recent post in the parent thread:

Well, I realized the Geology Bible,There is no "Geology Bible" that I know of. What book do you have in mind?

having come from the .005% what had been fossilized,One can make reasonable extrapolations from it; there is a whole field of "taphonomy", the study of how fossils are formed.

required as much faith to believe as the creation story ...How so?

The fact is that the Bible survived 4000 years and that supersedes its historical inaccuracies.The works of Homer and Hesiod have survived a similar length of time; shall we become Hellenic pagans because of that?

It a branch called Historical Geology. Excuse me for not mentioning the crosscutting, tree ring dating, Carbon-14 dating (which recently had to be re-evaluated due to the varied amount of Co2 over time). By the way, you miss-spelled Paleontology.C-14 dating is only useful for the last 10,000 years or so; there are other elements used for dating before that, like potassium and uranium.

You supernatural agent is the blind faith you put in science which starts, �First there was slime, them we crawled out of the water……�Fossils of bacteria go back well over 2 billion years. And the walking catfish is a fish that can live outside of water, even if briefly.

I believe we were designed and that’s not irrational.By generations of very fallible designers -- if we were desgined at all.

Ok.. tell me..the first anarobic creatures? How did this happen? Can you invision it?That's still a murky question, but we have some clues as to what its early descendants were like, such as the "RNA world". DNA and proteins were later elaborations of it.

Describe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water? Evidence? Where are the first foot prints?There are fossils of early plants and fossil footprints of early land arthropods. Look in http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu -- it has some nice discussions of fossils.

[Queen of Swords]

I am VERY serious about this.

Contradicted by the statement below.

The hatred you hide with mannors. :)

Do you imagine that silliness and/or projection makes your religion appear appealing in any way?

Perhaps you wish very much that atheists would hate you, in order for you to get martyr marks or persecution points. In this case, however, you'd be disappointed.

It is rare accurence that carbon life forms are replaced by minerals and fossilized.

In your opinion. I notice you present no scientific evidence to back up the ".005%" figure you gave earlier. Then again, who can blame you? There is no scientific support for your fantasy.

Look...we can spend forever figuring out how everything works.

And what would be wrong with that? I'd rather do that than spend forever prostrating myself before a tyrannical, emotionally unstable god.

The truth of the bible is that we were created

I think you mean, "The unproven claim of the bible..."

and here are some rules you should follow. Kindoms that break these rules fall and they do.

Let me know when the United Kingdom falls then.

Science will always change.

"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."

Our texts will be obsolite as the ones 50 years ago. Yet each one will state it's theories like facts.

I couldn't agree more about the bible.

You could support your local Planned Parenthood?

Of course. Thank you for making that excellent suggestion. However, it's a complete non sequitur. Perhaps you could show how supporting Planned Parenthood is tantamount to worship of science. Then again, perhaps not. As I said before, you don't seem too serious about anything, including your religion.

[Asha'man]

Science will always change. Our texts will be obsolite as the ones 50 years ago. Yet each one will state it's theories like facts.

Bullshit. Science is the most reliable and constant method for understanding our world, and consistently blows religious thinking out of the water.

The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical, and had measured it’s size to within 10%. This was at the time when Jews wrote about the earth having corners and resting on pillars. The Earth is still spherical today.

Galileo knew that the Sun had spots, the Moon had craters, and that Jupiter had a red spot and at least 4 moons in orbit. This was at a time when the Catholic church thought the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the celestial bodies were perfect and unblemished. I can reproduce Galileo’s observations in my back yard today, and we all laugh at the Catholic Church’s ignorance.

Newton developed Calculus, and we still use that every single day. He also developed laws of motion that are still used every single day. I learned Newtonian Mechanics in freshman physics, and nobody said anything about it being obsolete.

Darwin’s idea of evolution has been around for 150 years now, no working biologist has thrown away the theory yet. Darwin had no knowledge of DNA, but our understanding of DNA has done nothing but demonstrate Darwin’s correctness. We now live in a time when YEC’s argue that a dandelion can run uphill to escape a flood, and we laugh at them.

The reality is that science doesn’t get thrown out nearly as often as it gets improved or refined. Relativity does not make Newtonian Mechanics wrong, it just defines the locations where Newtonian Mechanics are accurate and precise enough for the task. Science is a process of increasingly accurate models. As long as we discard the models that don’t work, continuous progress is assured.

If you want to talk about facts, then you must admit that the models we have today are often good to 20 decimal places, and can place robotic landers on planets millions of miles away. Religion can do nothing comparable.

If you want to look closely at where science actually gets thrown out, it’s most often where people have followed religious teachings, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. The models that get thrown out entirely are the ones based on ignorance, superstition, and divine inspiration, not the ones based on observing the actual evidence at hand.

[Mageth]

Ok.. tell me..the first anarobic creatures? How did this happen? Can you invision it?

Perhaps you're referring to abiogenesis...i.e., how the first things we might refer to as "life" developed. I'll just say that this is essentially separate from evolution as a topic; evolution does not depend on how life got started. While there are various hypotheses on how the first life started, none has reached the "theory" level yet. So, I (we) can envision how it might have happened, but we cannot yet say how it happened with confidence. In other words, "We don't know yet (how life got started)" is about the best science can say right now. But that's a perfectly acceptable answer at this time.

Describe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water? Evidence? Where are the first foot prints?

OK, I just described in my mind the first creature to come out of the water. ;)

Others have provided some information for you on what's been discovered so far. Since the fossil record indicates that, for a long time there were species in water but none on land, and then after a point a few hundred million years ago fossils of land plants and animals started showing up in the record, it's not to difficult to deduce that, at some point, there was indeed a first "creature" that came out of the water (at least for a while; the first such animal was amphibious, I'm sure).

The notion that we could ever tell which footprints were the first footprints is absurd. All we can say is what are the earliest "footprints" we've discovered.

Believe me, I know the evolution story and it is full of logical jumps that just can't be answered.

Name those "logical lumps". I've seen you provide none so far.

Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate.

Debate's a bad thing, how?

I'm not saying quit looking for answers. I'm just saying you dont know the truth yet.

I don't think anyone's claiming to know the "truth". I'm certainly not. All I can claim to know is which theory best fits the evidence. Evolutionary theory does.

No. You have no idea what society would come to in the hands of secularist.

This is off-topic for this forum, and it would perhaps have been best if this part of my post could have been left in the other thread, but I'll note that you have yet to define "secularist" as you're using it. I don't think it means what you think it means.

And I'll also note that our Constitution is a secular document, and our Government was formed as a secular Government. There is no stronger statement of secularism than the First Amendment. Which makes sense, as the "Founding Fathers" were secularists. So, yes, I have a pretty good idea what society would come to in the hands of "secularists".

[Oolon Colluphid]

Ok.. tell me..the first anarobic creatures?What, like their names? Would that actually help?How did this happen?How did what happen? Can you invision it?Can you spellcheck it?
Describe in your mind the first creature to come out of the water?Yes, I can do that, thanks.

If by 'creature' you mean 'animal', then I'd guess at things that didn't have legs, so wouldn't leave footprints. I'll check in Clarkson (Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution) tonight.Evidence?For... worms etc? Dunno, as I said, I'll check. Where are the first foot prints?In rock that was formerly mud. Others have provided linkson this. My partially-educated guess is that there are arthropod trackways from well before tetrapod ones. If anyone can get hold of issues of Geology Today from 1996, the article:
E.W. Johnson, D.E.G. Briggs & J.L. Wright, 'Lake District pioneers - the earliest footprints on land', Geology Today, 12, 147-151
...looks useful.Believe meSorry, I don't do 'belief'. I want to see the evidence.
I know the evolution storyLiar liar pants on fire?and it is full of logical jumps that just can't be answered.Q.E.D.Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate.Depends on your definition of 'debate'. Personally, I wouldn't say that pig-headed disagreement from those who are ignorant, liars and/or insane counts as 'debate'. I'm not saying quit looking for answers.Me neither.I'm just saying you dont know the truth yet.Ditto. You have been lied to and mislead if you think there is any serious evidence or argument against evolution. Question is -- are you interested in looking at evidence?

[Queen of Swords]

What, like their names?

As soon as I read that, I thought, "Bobby, Freddy, Kaitlin, Anne..."

[Mageth]

As soon as I read that, I thought, "Bobby, Freddy, Kaitlin, Anne..."

But they were anaerobic; they'd have a hard time pronouncing vowels. So it'd be more like "Bb", "Frdd", "Ktln", and "Nn".

[Anat]

jadeus, speciation events (what some creationists call 'macroevolution') have been observed: Changing One Gene Launches New Fly Species; Study Also Ties Sex Appeal To Cold Tolerance (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031208141435.htm)
Fruit Odors Lure Some Flies To Evolve Into New Species (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030923065326.htm)
Study Suggests Humans Can Speed Evolution (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040805090553.htm)

These are facts, not beliefs.

Both murder and rules against it are listed as human universals by Donald Brown, that is all societies have them. Humans evolved as social organisms. Our survival is improved significantly if we live in a group of humans. As a result we evolved emotions that tend to promote behaviors that make such groups function more smoothly. Our laws aren't 'an attempt to shed our animal selves' or however you phrased it, but an expansion of our natural moral sense to living in larger groups and new situations.

[Anat]

jadeus, if humans were created, why are there so many flaws in the design? What's that apendix doing there? Why do human fetuses have tails for a while? Why are our retinas wired on the wrong side? What are those useless hairs on my skin for?

[Per Ahlberg]

Jenny Clack (the Diva of the Devonian?)

I shall tell her that! :D

[jadeus]

Bullshit.
The reality is that science doesn’t get thrown out nearly as often as it gets improved or refined. Relativity does not make Newtonian Mechanics wrong, it just defines the locations where Newtonian Mechanics are accurate and precise enough for the task. Science is a process of increasingly accurate models. As long as we discard the models that don’t work, continuous progress is assured.

You seem to know your stuff. You should know that quantum mechanics shattered the perfect universe of Newtonian Mechanics. And yes, newtonian mechanics works in most cases. But I leave you with this. As we live our life, is not the speed and position of objects that we are most cencerned with. It is the forces of the human will, ours and everybody else's, which move mountains. You need religion to measure that.

[Jade]

You seem to know your stuff. You should know that quantum mechanics shattered the perfect universe of Newtonian Mechanics. And yes, newtonian mechanics works in most cases. But I leave you with this. As we live our life, is not the speed and position of objects that are most cencerned with. It is the forces of the human will, ours and everybody else's, which move mountains. You need religion to measure that.
What are the units for that particular measure? Frauds per sqaure meter?

[jadeus]

jadeus, if humans were created, why are there so many flaws in the design? What's that apendix doing there? Why do human fetuses have tails for a while? Why are our retinas wired on the wrong side? What are those useless hairs on my skin for?

Flaws or DNA markers? Depends on what floats your boat. I think the human design is working quite well and our bodies are an incredible invention. Mine is running just fine.

[jadeus]

What are the units for that particular measure? Frauds per sqaure meter?

Since we are both named Jade how about Jades per square meter.

[Jade]

Since we are both named Jade how about Jades per square meter.
Hey! I resent being associated with meters!

[radagast]

You seem to know your stuff. You should know that quantum mechanics shattered the perfect universe of Newtonian Mechanics. And yes, newtonian mechanics works in most cases. But I leave you with this.

This is blatantly inaccurate.

Newtonian Mechanics still works in 99% of the cases it's applied. In only the very small does QM comes into play, hence the 'enhanced' rather than 'shattered' description. Same with Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics, only differing with regards to within the extremes of velocity or gravity.

Since Newtonian Mechanics is both still taught and still accurate in all but exceptional cases, I think Asha'man was quite on target and you were extremely off base.

As we live our life, is not the speed and position of objects that we are most cencerned with. It is the forces of the human will, ours and everybody else's, which move mountains. You need religion to measure that.

It's not at all what my religion deals with, but to each his own.

[Anat]

Flaws or DNA markers? Depends on what floats your boat. I think the human design is working quite well and our bodies are an incredible invention. Mine is running just fine.

An inflamed appendix can kill you. Or was it put there in order to enable a mechanism to punish the heretics, test the faith of the believers and deliver the innocents quickly to a 'better place'?

[Anat]

The above mentioned and more 'design' flaws (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm)

[Queen of Swords]

It is the forces of the human will, ours and everybody else's, which move mountains. You need religion to measure that.

No, you don't. And I see no reason why the human will needs to be "measured" in any case. Fundamentalist religions usually result in the eroding of the human will anyway, leaving little to be measured.

[jadeus]

An inflamed appendix can kill you. Or was it put there in order to enable a mechanism to punish the heretics, test the faith of the believers and deliver the innocents quickly to a 'better place'?

Wait!Wait!Wait! Who is at the top of food chain? Who went to the moon? The f***ing alligators?

[RBH]

Wait!Wait!Wait! Who is at the top of food chain? Who went to the moon? The f***ing alligators?An important thing to remember when diving in tropical waters is that humans are not always at the top of the food chain!

RBH

[jadeus]

This is blatantly inaccurate.

HaHa - your such a nerd!!!lmao

Newtonian Mechanics still works in 99% of the cases it's applied.

hahahha - I can't stop. No, it works 100% of the time when it's applied to the motion of objects where the error is negligible. This is not rocket science. But when applied to subatomic particles, it failed. New methods had to be developed. Einstein was all bent out of shape about how Newton’s equations didn’t work. He came up with something called the theory of relativity in response. See, Newton’s law existed unchallenged until this. Some people, including myself, considered Newton’s Laws perfect: like a clock. He could explain all motion, even atomic (in theory). However, as technology allowed closer observation, people like Planck found that the universe was not so perfect, or was more complex then previously thought.

This is a very simple concept that is used to describe this era of discovery.

You use the method that works. If you are throwing stones, you use Newton. If you work at a particle accelerator, Newton's methods will not wok 100% of the time.

Quantum mechanics shattered Newton's clock. clock=Newton’s ability to describe all motion

This is a metaphor. Simple simple

[jadeus]

An important thing to remember when diving in tropical waters is that humans are not always at the top of the food chain!

RBH

No..No...wrong. He may get one of us....but more will come for him. And if we want him, we'll get him. The animals fear us....all of them.

[DaMan121]

No..No...wrong. He may get one of us....but more will come for him. And if we want him, we'll get him. The animals fear us....all of them.

And we fear them... its a survival mechanism. Humans are hardly at the top of the food chain, infact you are among the more 'brittle' species on this planet.

[Jade]

No..No...wrong. He may get one of us....but more will come for him. And if we want him, we'll get him. The animals fear us....all of them.
Ha Haaa! (http://www.a1freesoundeffects.com/jokedrum.wav)

[Anat]

All the animals fear us? What's this arrogance? We haven't been able to exterminate humble mosquitos, flies or termites. 40% of the animals on the planet are beetles. And beyond all this - it is still the age of bacteria. And it will still be after we are gone.

[jadeus]

There he goes!! (http://www.a1freesoundeffects.com/machinegun.wav)

[jadeus]

All the animals fear us? What's this arrogance? We haven't been able to exterminate humble mosquitos, flies or termites. 40% of the animals on the planet are beetles. And beyond all this - it is still the age of bacteria. And it will still be after we are gone.

Oh. So the bettle is king of the jungle now?

a) all these things are insects not animals

b) we are the dominate species anyway - sorry..accept it

Imagine all the Beetles
Living life at ease ohhhh
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

[jadeus]

All the animals fear us? What's this arrogance? We haven't been able to exterminate humble mosquitos, flies or termites. 40% of the animals on the planet are beetles. And beyond all this - it is still the age of bacteria. And it will still be after we are gone.

Oh. So the beetle is king of the jungle now?

a) all these things are insects not animals

b) we are the dominate species anyway - sorry..accept it

Imagine all the Beetles
Living life at ease ohhhh
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

[jadeus]

And we fear them... its a survival mechanism. Humans are hardly at the top of the food chain, infact you are among the more 'brittle' species on this planet.

Wait right there! You? Aren't you a part of this organism too? If not, then, your an animal that can type?

[lpetrich]

Newtonian Mechanics still works in 99% of the cases it's applied.hahahha - I can't stop. No, it works 100% of the time when it's applied to the motion of objects where the error is negligible. This is not rocket science. But when applied to subatomic particles, it failed. New methods had to be developed. Einstein was all bent out of shape about how Newton’s equations didn’t work. He came up with something called the theory of relativity in response. See, Newton’s law existed unchallenged until this.Laughable history.

Newtonian mechanics had been an enormous success until the late 19th cy., when discoveries and theorizing started causing trouble for it.

Maxwell's equations successfully explained electromagnetism, but they have the consequence that the speed of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum is a constant: c. Such an always-constant speed was contrary to Newtonian mechanics, and physicists devised experiments to see who was right. The Michelson-Morley experiment and others sided with Maxwell instead of Newton. This caused a lot of head-scratching among physicists, until one of the head-scratchers, Einstein himself, came up with the solution: a modification of Newtonian mechanics that fit with Maxwell's equations.

Some people, including myself, considered Newton’s Laws perfect: like a clock. He could explain all motion, even atomic (in theory).jadeus, I am baffled at that opinion; what had made you convinced of it?

However, as technology allowed closer observation, people like Planck found that the universe was not so perfect, or was more complex then previously thought.So what? Planck had found that the blackbody (perfect-radiator) spectrum was best accounted for by supposing that light energy is quantized: energy = h*frequency. Although this had seemed like a bizarre, ad hoc solution at the time; this quantization principle started turning up elsewhere, thus leading to the development of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics shattered Newton's clock. clock=Newton’s ability to describe all motionNo, it made Newtonianism an approximation.

[Asha'man]

hahahha - I can't stop. No, it works 100% of the time when it's applied to the motion of objects where the error is negligible. This is not rocket science. But when applied to subatomic particles, it failed. New methods had to be developed. Einstein was all bent out of shape about how Newton’s equations didn’t work. He came up with something called the theory of relativity in response. See, Newton’s law existed unchallenged until this. Some people, including myself, considered Newton’s Laws perfect: like a clock.

You still don’t get it. Newtonian Mechanics were never perfect, at no point in the history of the universe did they ever produce 100% perfect results. This was obvious to me the first day of high school physics, because the teacher started talking about frictionless surfaces, massless strings and pulleys, and experiments conducted in a perfect vacuum. From day one, they results produced were an approximation that only approached accuracy when other forces were small or ignored.

The whole point of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics was to quantify the forces that Newtonian Mechanics had ignored. These forces are virtually undetectable to us in normal, everyday living, so ignoring them is a safe simplification. However, when we start making very precise measurements of the orbital motion of Mercury, a small relativistic effect can be observed. When we begin making very precise measurements of atomic particles, QM effects become blatant.

Newtonian Mechanics has limitations, modern physics has simply gotten past those limitations. It does not invalidate Newtonian Physics. The problem seems to be people who think like you do, and can’t separate the model from reality. That’s not a problem with Science, but with how you mis-learned it.

My original statement was very carefully constructed, and very precisely accurate. Science is a process of building increasingly accurate models. Once we stopped paying attention to religion as a source of inspiration, those models haven’t gotten thrown out, simply improved. Science has demonstrated that it is a reliable way of understanding our universe, while religion has failed.

[Jade]

There he goes!! (http://www.a1freesoundeffects.com/machinegun.wav)
Who is shooting who?

[jadeus]

Laughable history.

Newtonian mechanics had been an enormous success until the late 19th cy., when discoveries and theorizing started causing trouble for it.

Maxwell's equations successfully explained electromagnetism, but they have the consequence that the speed of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum is a constant: c. Such an always-constant speed was contrary to Newtonian mechanics, and physicists devised experiments to see who was right. The Michelson-Morley experiment and others sided with Maxwell instead of Newton. This caused a lot of head-scratching among physicists, until one of the head-scratchers, Einstein himself, came up with the solution: a modification of Newtonian mechanics that fit with Maxwell's equations.

jadeus, I am baffled at that opinion; what had made you convinced of it?

So what? Planck had found that the blackbody (perfect-radiator) spectrum was best accounted for by supposing that light energy is quantized: energy = h*frequency. Although this had seemed like a bizarre, ad hoc solution at the time; this quantization principle started turning up elsewhere, thus leading to the development of quantum mechanics.

No, it made Newtonianism an approximation.

You people just don't get it> I was describing what it felt like to have Newtonian mechanics before quantum mechanics. I compared it to a clock. You clould say im wrong and compare it to a windmill or something, but thats all I'm saying. What object would you relate to how people felt after 1660 and before 1900?

[JLK]

No..No...wrong. He may get one of us....but more will come for him. And if we want him, we'll get him. The animals fear us....all of them.Additional quotes from The Lord of the Flies will be awarded a signed autograph copy of William Golding's barbeque grill.
Animals are as animals do.

[RGD]

jadeus, despite having been cautioned about it several times, you still don't appear to realize that one of three things are happening:

1) you are blatantly wrong in your claims, or

2) you won't admit that you've made errors, or

3) you are not saying what you think you're saying.

Let's take an example:

you said, See, Newton’s law existed unchallenged until this. Some people, including myself, considered Newton’s Laws perfect: like a clock.

When it was pointed out that this was fallacious, you responded with, You people just don't get it> I was describing what it felt like to have Newtonian mechanics before quantum mechanics. I compared it to a clock. You clould say im wrong and compare it to a windmill or something, but thats all I'm saying. What object would you relate to how people felt after 1660 and before 1900?

But, and this part is important, that is NOT what you said. :huh:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since I suspect you are fairly young, and presume that the basic problem is (3).

People will continue to point out the inaccurances, irrationalities, and errors in your posts, until you actually start writing posts that reflect what you intend to say.

In the inimitable words of Inigo Montoya, "you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Oh. So the bettle is king of the jungle now?

a) all these things are insects not animals

b) we are the dominate species anyway - sorry..accept it

Imagine all the Beetles
Living life at ease ohhhh
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

Aren't insects members of the Animal Kingdom, just as ixthians are?

Odysseus

P.S. QoS- It's good to see you back in action; noticed you Queen of Swordzing here- wonderous! I just don't think I can bear to watch the tragedy: xtians&Lioness(es)!?! :rolling: To twist a proverb into more proper form- The Truth helps? :)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Aren't insects members of the Animal Kingdom
Yes, very much so.
we are the dominate species anyway - sorry..accept it
Depends on what you mean by dominant. Bacteria in and on your body outnumber your own body cells ten to one. Since, cell-wise, about 90% of each human is not human -- not to mention all the other strains of bacteria in the air, the earth, in and on everything else -- it seems that our claim to dominance is pretty shaky. Our planet's surface is about 80% water. Yet the dominant species on such a planet lacking gills... looks like rather an odd oversight...

[jadeus]

Aren't insects members of the Animal Kingdom, just as ixthians are?

Odysseus

P.S. QoS- It's good to see you back in action; noticed you Queen of Swordzing here- wonderous! I just don't think I can bear to watch the tragedy: xtians&Lioness(es)!?! :rolling: To twist a proverb into more proper form- The Truth helps? :)

All I know is that I'm not at all concerned with being stepped on. If you wish to play word games, one definition of of the word is accociated with only mammals. Animal is a latin word for having breath. English does not have a distinction between higher and lower animals. Lets make one up so this misunderstanding does not happen again. Superanimal and subanimal. OK. I was talking about superanimals. However, just ask you local Raid representive. It is within our menas to combat any major insect threat to human population.

[jadeus]

Yes, very much so.

Depends on what you mean by dominant. Bacteria in and on your body outnumber your own body cells ten to one. Since, cell-wise, about 90% of each human is not human -- not to mention all the other strains of bacteria in the air, the earth, in and on everything else -- it seems that our claim to dominance is pretty shaky. Our planet's surface is about 80% water. Yet the dominant species on such a planet lacking gills... looks like rather an odd oversight...

The type of dominance I am referring to is the fact that we are talking about the bacteria and they are not talking about us. Perhaps there is some bacteria awareness we are not in tune with, but based on what we see, I'm more inclined to believe that bacteria lack a nervous system, just as they lack an organized nucleus.

Gills are soooo million years ago!!!!
Size matters, ask the dinosaurs.

[jadeus]

Hey! I resent being associated with meters!

Better then being associated with squares?

[lenrek]

The type of dominance I am referring to is the fact that we are talking about the bacteria and they are not talking about us. Perhaps there is some bacteria awareness we are not in tune with, but based on what we see, I'm more inclined to believe that bacteria lack a nervous system, just as they lack an organized nucleus...

Human awareness maybe considered as a feature of our existence. But that does not imply a sign of dominance.

[jadeus]

No, you don't. And I see no reason why the human will needs to be "measured" in any case. Fundamentalist religions usually result in the eroding of the human will anyway, leaving little to be measured.

Better measurement of the human will come from further discovery of the universal coordinate system. But is a force, with both kinetic and potential components. It has magnitude and direction. It is a world that is super imposed on time and space and there is a dynamic effect between the two.

[jadeus]

Human awareness maybe considered as a feature of our existence. But that does not imply a sign of dominance.

Considering awareness is only an illusion and leads to many stange conclusions, maybe its our thumbs. :thumbs:

[DaMan121]

Wait right there! You? Aren't you a part of this organism too? If not, then, your an animal that can type?

Humans ARE animals, Im not sure if your making a distinction.. besides, humans arent the only animals that can type.

[jadeus]

Laughable history.

Newtonian mechanics had been an enormous success until the late 19th cy., when discoveries and theorizing started causing trouble for it.

Maxwell's equations successfully explained electromagnetism, but they have the consequence that the speed of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum is a constant: c. Such an always-constant speed was contrary to Newtonian mechanics, and physicists devised experiments to see who was right. The Michelson-Morley experiment and others sided with Maxwell instead of Newton. This caused a lot of head-scratching among physicists, until one of the head-scratchers, Einstein himself, came up with the solution: a modification of Newtonian mechanics that fit with Maxwell's equations.

jadeus, I am baffled at that opinion; what had made you convinced of it?

So what? Planck had found that the blackbody (perfect-radiator) spectrum was best accounted for by supposing that light energy is quantized: energy = h*frequency. Although this had seemed like a bizarre, ad hoc solution at the time; this quantization principle started turning up elsewhere, thus leading to the development of quantum mechanics.

No, it made Newtonianism an approximation.

Yeah! Acceptance of Maxwell's equations took a while. There was phenomena that was not completely described by Newton, but his discoveries answered so many question that had been mysteries before. I know he can't be completely accountable for his laws of motion. They had been trying figure out where the cannon ball would land for a long time. The resistance to Quantum theory was giving up the Ether. QM also took physics from the ability the population at general to conceive; no more algebraic derivations. D=tv told you how far you traveled, but E=mc^2 is only symbolic and it takes much more to make an atomic bomb. Newton's world was like a clock, everything working together. Now the clock has a plasma screen and the gears have been replaced by circuit boards. The clock could be considered just as perfect, but each component has its own specialization

[Jobar]

No, it [Newtonian mechanics] works 100% of the time when it's applied to the motion of objects where the error is negligible. This is not rocket science.

Newtonian mechanics IS rocket science.

Jadeus makes me miss RR&P. I've no doubt he'd rack up quite a score of persecution points and martyr marks ( :rolling: ).

[radagast]

HaHa - your such a nerd!!!lmao
An ad Hominem attack, how quaint.

hahahha - I can't stop. No, it works 100% of the time when it's applied to the motion of objects where the error is negligible.

SO you admit that it works in a large number of cases AND still maintain it was shattered

You have a very bizzare set of definitions.

This is not rocket science. But when applied to subatomic particles, it failed. New methods had to be developed. Einstein was all bent out of shape about how Newton’s equations didn’t work. He came up with something called the theory of relativity in response. See, Newton’s law existed unchallenged until this. Some people, including myself, considered Newton’s Laws perfect: like a clock. He could explain all motion, even atomic (in theory). However, as technology allowed closer observation, people like Planck found that the universe was not so perfect, or was more complex then previously thought.

This is a very simple concept that is used to describe this era of discovery.

You use the method that works. If you are throwing stones, you use Newton. If you work at a particle accelerator, Newton's methods will not wok 100% of the time.

<edited>perhaps you should will reread my original post. You will find it says as much.

Since we are encountering a failure to communicate, perhaps I should make my initial posting point clearer, I will attempt to use smaller words:

I have issues with anyone that describes changing less than one percent of a theory, while maintaining 99% intact, as calling it shattered. Asha'man's original assessment was both accurate and generally accepted, except by those outside the scientific community. And if you consider yourself outside the scientific community, please delineate your authority to make such pronouncements for them?

Or you could simply resort to more attempts at ridicule.

[RGD]

All I know is that I'm not at all concerned with being stepped on.

Neither are most animals; including insects. I doubt that flies and mosquitos give the matter of your stepping on them much concern.

If you wish to play word games, one definition of of the word is accociated with only mammals.

No one except you is playing word games; we've got more interesting things to do.... :)

Animal is a latin word for having breath.

No, actually it's not. The etymology of "animal" is Middle English, from Latin, from animle, neuter of animlis, living, from anima, soul. from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000.

For heaven's sake Jadeus, you really should take advantage of the internet; it has lots of information on it and will help you avoid these small errors that fill your posts.

English does not have a distinction between higher and lower animals.

That's because there is no such distinction in science. There are various literary instances of such terminology, but they're not biologically meaningful.

The cockroach and you are equivalent end-products of evolution. The only difference is that the cockroach as a species is likely to survive longer than homo sapiens.

Lets make one up so this misunderstanding does not happen again. Superanimal and subanimal.

If you'd like. I still don't see the point.

OK. I was talking about superanimals.

Once again we note that you have trouble expressing your thoughts; hence the various comments that your posts have problems.

However, just ask you local Raid representive. It is within our menas to combat any major insect threat to human population.

You're joking, aren't you? We've never succeeded in wiping out any major insect threat; we've just reduced the damage.

The war between man and insect is an old one... and one that we are unlikely to win.

Let's see what else we've got... ah!

Yeah! Acceptance of Maxwell's equations took a while.

Not actually. Maxwell's Equations were adopted fairly quickly.

There was phenomena that was not completely described by Newton, but his discoveries answered so many question that had been mysteries before.

Not really; Newton just supplied the math to model known phenomenon.

I know he can't be completely accountable for his laws of motion.

Um. Newton invented them. How then can he be held not completely accountable?

They had been trying figure out where the cannon ball would land for a long time.

No. The empirical science of gunnery is much older than Newton; if they didn't know where the ball would land, then the Byzantine Empire would still be a going concern.

The resistance to Quantum theory was giving up the Ether.

Sorry; QM had nothing to do with giving up the ether; Relativity explained the Michelson-Morley results (and everybody was happy). QM encountered philosophical resistance of a sort, but it had nothing to do with the ether.

Darn it, Jadeus read something for a change. Educate yourself. There is NO excuse.

QM also took physics from the ability the population at general to conceive; no more algebraic derivations.

QM isn't that hard to deal with mathematically, but I agree that conceptually it is far more difficult; hence the various interpretations.

D=tv told you how far you traveled, but E=mc^2 is only symbolic

Blatantly wrong. E=mc^2 is not symbolic; it shows the actual relationship between energy and matter.

and it takes much more to make an atomic bomb.

True. Atomic bombs were made conceivable by Rutherford's experiments in alpha particle scattering (I think).

Newton's world was like a clock, everything working together.

And a tidy, elegant world it was, to be sure.

Now the clock has a plasma screen and the gears have been replaced by circuit boards. The clock could be considered just as perfect, but each component has its own specialization

An utterly confused analogy. The major difference between Newton's Clockwork universe and our own understanding of it lies in Relativity and QM - light-speed limits and indeterminacy.

[jadeus]

Neither are most animals; including insects. I doubt that flies and mosquitos give the matter of your stepping on them much concern.

Ahh..busy bee flying blissfully unaware of the tribulations of humans and nuclear threat.

No one except you is playing word games; we've got more interesting things to do.... :)

Boggle anyone?


No, actually it's not. The etymology of "animal" is from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000.

Oxford American Dictionary:

ORIGIN: Middle English: as a noun from Latin animal, based on Latin animalis ‘having breath,’ from anima ‘breath’; as an adjective via Old French, from Latin animalis.

breath, breathing /life /spirit. - spiritus (Latin)

Sprit means having breath.

This is why there is so much conflict in the world. Words change. Animal is one of the Latin words that is directly descended to English. Yet, it's meaning has changed. Beast (beast - bestia) would be a better translation.

For heaven's sake Jadeus, you really should take advantage of the internet; it has lots of information on it and will help you avoid these small errors that fill your posts.[

I do this on purpose to lead the discussion. I knew everyone would jump on the animal comment. By the Latin definition we are animals too. But there is a difference between an animal and a human. What is this difference?


That's because there is no such distinction in science. There are various literary instances of such terminology, but they're not biologically meaningful.

The NEW OXFORD
AMERICAN Dictionary

high·er an·i·mals
*PLURAL N. animals of relatively
advanced or developed characteristics,
such as mammals and other
vertebrates.

The NEW OXFORD
AMERICAN Dictionary

low·er an·i·mals /Ūlär/
*PLURAL N. animals of relatively
simple or primitive characteristics as
contrasted with humans or with more
advanced animals such as mammals or
vertebrates.



[QUOTE=RGD]The cockroach and you are equivalent end-products of evolution. The only difference is that the cockroach as a species is likely to survive longer than homo sapiens.

The dominance I am alluding to is about the food chain. Length of survival would have to go the reptiles. Our ability to conceive our future is our ticket to being there.



If you'd like. I still don't see the point.

The point is that we don't have enough words to distinguish lower, higher, and human species. Just another tangent. Gota be quick to keep up.

Once again we note that you have trouble expressing your thoughts; hence the various comments that your posts have problems.

Ye of little faith.

You're joking, aren't you? We've never succeeded in wiping out any major insect threat; we've just reduced the damage.

So far there hasn't been a major insect threat. West Nile? Over sensationalized. Killer bee swarms? Hasn't happened yet in the US. (Someone want this one?)

The war between man and insect is an old one... and one that we are unlikely to win.

One word comes to mind. Pest -

ORIGIN: late 15th cent. (denoting the bubonic plague): from French peste or Latin pestis ‘plague.’

Again, are we measuring the dominance by length of time or impact? Even if we become extinct (which I doubt due to our ability to for see our dangers).

Not actually. Maxwell's Equations were adopted fairly quickly.

"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics- as usually understood at the present time-when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." - Einstein (The Principle of Relativity)



Um. Newton invented them. How then can he be held not completely accountable?

I was giving kudos to his teachers.



No. The empirical science of gunnery is much older than Newton; if they didn't know where the ball would land, then the Byzantine Empire would still be a going concern.

Yes. My sarcasm. These are his teachers.

Sorry; QM had nothing to do with giving up the ether; Relativity explained the Michelson-Morley results (and everybody was happy). QM encountered philosophical resistance of a sort, but it had nothing to do with the ether.

"Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) assumed light to be a stream of small particle or corpuscles. Christian Huygens (1629-1695) conceived like as a form of wave motion transmitted through a vague, intangible medium which he called ether....In the latter part of the nineteenth century most scientist supported the wave theory, as a result of the electromagnetic wave studies of John Clerk Maxwell in 1873......Evidence that when light interacts with matter it behaves as if its energy were in the form of small particles began to accumulate early in the twentieth century. This theory, know as the quantum theory was first advanced by Max Planck.....blah, blah, blah.." Harris (Applied Physics)

Both theory's are need to explain all properties of light. Wave/partical duality. There goes Newton's clock.

Darn it, Jadeus read something for a change. Educate yourself. There is NO excuse.

(Giggle, giggle) silly me.

[jadeus]

An ad Hominem attack, how quaint.

I re-read your post and apologize for the attach. (I was falling into the standards of these posts - I get an attack like this on almost every reply) You should read my response to RGD.

[jadeus]

Originally Posted by jadeus
No, it [Newtonian mechanics] works 100% of the time when it's applied to the motion of objects where the error is negligible. This is not rocket science.

Newtonian mechanics IS rocket science.

Jadeus makes me miss RR&P. I've no doubt he'd rack up quite a score of persecution points and martyr marks ( :rolling: ).

Hehe....someone got my joke!!! :thumbs:

[jadeus]

It was religion that made this a war.... If science is right, then we must be wrong, therefore, science must be wrong..... Burn them at the stake!

Satan propoganda.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"- Satan

You don't think Christians supported scientifc discovery? How did all this come from Western Society?

You've taken a HUGE step from superstition and mythology into reality by accepting the Bible is metaphoric and that life did not spring to life, fully formed, just a few thousand years ago.

Now you're ready for the next step.

The Bible isn't a metaphore written by people with special knowledge of the supernatural...... It was a guess by people that thought the earth was flat and covered by a sky-dome with water above it.

Now you're ready for the next step.

But when we speak of wisdom of God, in a mystery, even the hidden's wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory - Co. 2:7

Short of explaining DNA and Quantum physics, the Genesis book was state of the art at the time. God's days do not equal people days. The sun was placed on the fourth. Genisis addresses these things: who made man, how did sin enter our hearts, did we come from one pair, where did Hebrew people come from, how did worship of Jehovah arise, and how did it spred amung men.

God's plan? Perserve this knowledge for a few thousand years, add some scientific discovery, and look at the similarities. Big bang=creation

Sin == apple

[Mageth]

Satan propoganda.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"- Satan

First, that was not Satan (such a concept hadn't been dreamed up when Genesis was written) - it was a talking serpent.

Second, what the serpent told Eve was true. Read the rest of the story.

You don't think Christians supported scientifc discovery?

Some did, some didn't. It was a mixed bag.

How did all this come from Western Society?

Sciences has come in spite of Christianity.

Christianity is certainly not necessary to explain the rise of science, or of scientific discovery. Many scientific discoveries were, and are, made in non-Christian cultures.

Short of explaining DNA and Quantum physics, the Genesis book was state of the art at the time. God's days do not equal people days. The sun was placed on the fourth. Genisis addresses these things: who made man, how did sin enter our hearts, did we come from one pair, where did Hebrew people come from, how did worship of Jehovah arise, and how did it spred amung men.

"State of the art" as in state of the art myth, not history or science.

God's plan? Perserve this knowledge for a few thousand years, add some scientific discovery, and look at the similarities. Big bang=creation

Sorry, but it's not even close, unless one uses a bastard file, a chisel, a rather big shoehorn, and ample vaseline and a lot of vigorous hammering.

Sin == apple

So you're a big Wintel supporter? ;)

If the "apple" is sin, and god created the "apple" tree...

[Prince Vegita]

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"- Satan
Actually a serpent said that. (Talking snakes. What will they think of next, 4 legged insects?) I don't recall that Satan even popped up in Genesis anywhere.

As a side note, at least the serpent spoke the truth.

You don't think Christians supported scientifc discovery? How did all this come from Western Society?
Partly because the Muslims preserved a lot of it while your ilk was busy trying to destroy it. Christians have been anti-science, anti-knowledge when their rigid worldview is threatened, there's no sense in denying it. There's also no sense in trying to reap all the glory and eschew responsibility for any wrongdoing (unless you work for W).

Btw, I guess you're right. We do have two Christians to thank for ToE... Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. :thumbs:

Short of explaining DNA and Quantum physics, the Genesis book was state of the art at the time. God's days do not equal people days. The sun was placed on the fourth. Genisis addresses these things: who made man, how did sin enter our hearts, did we come from one pair, where did Hebrew people come from, how did worship of Jehovah arise, and how did it spred amung men.
Right. A book on how to get to heaven, not on how the heavens go.

God's plan? Perserve this knowledge for a few thousand years, add some scientific discovery, and look at the similarities. Big bang=creation
There's no evidence that the Big Bang necessarily "created" anything.

Sin == apple
At least the apples didn't talk...

[radagast]

Sin == apple

A point of accuracy: While it's been over thirty years since I've been a Christian, I do remember enough to know that the apple did not represent sin, but knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil. Sin (in this case) was taking a bite of the apple, because it contravened the only rule they had.

Thank you for the apology. They are so infrequent on forums as to be a refreshing surprise.

Regards,
Glenn

[RGD]

Ahh..busy bee flying blissfully unaware of the tribulations of humans and nuclear threat.

Jadeus, when you actually being to post what you mean to say, your posts will look a lot more rational.

Your pretty little response has nothing to do with the point; humanity is not in charge of this planet; there is no 'chain of being' (food or otherwise) that leads up to humanity.

Oxford American Dictionary:

ORIGIN: Middle English: as a noun from Latin animal, based on Latin animalis ‘having breath,’ from anima ‘breath’; as an adjective via Old French, from Latin animalis.



breath, breathing /life /spirit. - spiritus (Latin)

Sprit means having breath.[/quote]

And from the University of Notre Dame Latin dictionary: anima -ae f. . Transf., [the breath of life, vital principle, soul]; 'animam edere', [to give up the ghost]; poet., [life-blood]; meton., [a living being]; sometimes = animus, [rational soul].

This is why there is so much conflict in the world. Words change. Animal is one of the Latin words that is directly descended to English. Yet, it's meaning has changed. Beast (beast - bestia) would be a better translation.

True, words change; dictionaries contain variable meanings. But since humans are animals for you to define them as beasts might produce the effect that you think it has.

Of course, if you wish to define yourself as a beast, feel free.

I do this on purpose to lead the discussion. I knew everyone would jump on the animal comment. By the Latin definition we are animals too. But there is a difference between an animal and a human. What is this difference?

None.

The dominance I am alluding to is about the food chain. Length of survival would have to go the reptiles. Our ability to conceive our future is our ticket to being there.

Maggots eat men; men (so far as I know) never eat maggots. Therefore maggots are at the top of the food chain and are God's favored creatures. Lions eat men. So do a number of other nasty little animals. You are constantly being devoured by billions of bacteria and other critters right now - so I guess single-cell life-forms are the top of the food-chain.

There is no such thing as a 'food-chain' in the sense of a single, absolute chain on top of which is a single creature that nothing else eats. Food-chain is a context-sensitive explanation of the flow of protein and other foodstuffs.

The point is that we don't have enough words to distinguish lower, higher, and human species. Just another tangent. Gota be quick to keep up.

Probably because there is NO difference between humans and other animals. Bees use language; ants and crows use tools; beavers and termites create physical structures; the apes and dolphins are clearly conscious. What then makes man any different? Nothing.

Ye of little faith.

I don't recall having discussed my religion beliefs with you - projecting again, are we?

So far there hasn't been a major insect threat. West Nile? Over sensationalized. Killer bee swarms? Hasn't happened yet in the US. (Someone want this one?)

Clearly you haven't been keeping up with history. Look at locusts. Look at fire ants. We can't even seriously dent their breeding - and when we try, we produce resistant strains.

One word comes to mind. Pest -

ORIGIN: late 15th cent. (denoting the bubonic plague): from French peste or Latin pestis ‘plague.’

Um, so what? The plague killed people - about 1/3 third of Europe. But if your idea of a 'pest' (by which I took it you meant a minor nuisance) includes massive numbers of deaths - then you need to look to your health.

Again, are we measuring the dominance by length of time or impact? Even if we become extinct (which I doubt due to our ability to for see our dangers).

Homo sapiens has been on this planet a trivial amount of time compared to say, the bacteria or even the dinosaurs. His impact is no more than a quantitiative increase on the activity of beavers. Why do you choose any particular dimension along which to measure the success of man? One is no more valid than the other.

"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics- as usually understood at the present time-when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." - Einstein (The Principle of Relativity)

In 1905. And show me precisely how this out of context quote is supposed to show that scientists resisted the adoption of Maxwell's equations? It doesn't.

I was giving kudos to his teachers.

Then you should have said that. I've said it before, I'll say it again: until such time as you actually post what you mean, you will continue to look confused and ignorant.

Try it. You'll like it. You've already taken a big step: you've started to look things up. Now you need to make sure that you understand them before posting, and make sure you post what you actually intend to say.

Remember: no one on this board can read your mind. You must strive to be clear; clearer here than in speech.

Yes. My sarcasm. These are his teachers.

You need to work on that sarcasm bit. It sounded like lack of information to me; but I'll give you credit for trying.

"Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) assumed light to be a stream of small particle or corpuscles. Christian Huygens (1629-1695) conceived like as a form of wave motion transmitted through a vague, intangible medium which he called [B]ether....In the latter part of the nineteenth century most scientist supported the wave theory, as a result of the electromagnetic wave studies of John Clerk Maxwell in 1873......Evidence that when light interacts with matter it behaves as if its energy were in the form of small particles began to accumulate early in the twentieth century. This theory, know as the quantum theory was first advanced by Max Planck.....blah, blah, blah.." Harris (Applied Physics)

Charming. And once again you display that you need to read more before you post: the Michelson-Morely experiments looked for the ether WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

You've now moved the goalposts to talking about light; but that's not what you were orginally discussing.

Either admit you don't know what you're talking about; stop moving the goalposts; or post what you mean.

Otherwise discussion with you is nigh well impossible.

But I admit to taking an evil and highly uncharitable delight in pointing out that you're wrong.

Both theory's are need to explain all properties of light. Wave/partical duality. There goes Newton's clock.

Relativity explained the lack of ether; not QM. Try understanding the history of physics, please.

(Giggle, giggle) silly me.

Indeed. Silly you.

Keep in mind that I am not attacking you on these posts (I presume that's what you meant when you said, "attach" in an earlier post); I am attacking the inaccuracies in your statements.

[jadeus]

A point of accuracy: While it's been over thirty years since I've been a Christian, I do remember enough to know that the apple did not represent sin, but knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil. Sin (in this case) was taking a bite of the apple, because it contravened the only rule they had.

Thank you for the apology. They are so infrequent on forums as to be a refreshing surprise.

Regards,
Glenn

apple=sin=knowledge=understanding everything and still fighting about it=empty life

[Mageth]

apple=sin=knowledge=understanding everything and still fighting about it=empty life

You left off "= so much nonsense".

[jadeus]

Jadeus, when you actually being to post what you mean to say, your posts will look a lot more rational.

Your pretty little response has nothing to do with the point; humanity is not in charge of this planet; there is no 'chain of being' (food or otherwise) that leads up to humanity.

Here’s what really gets under your skins. God is in charge of the planet.


breath, breathing /life /spirit. - spiritus (Latin)

Sprit means having breath.

And from the University of Notre Dame Latin dictionary:
True, words change; dictionaries contain variable meanings. But since humans are animals for you to define them as beasts might produce the effect that you think it has.

The point was to associate the spirit/body duality to the wave/partical. You didn’t take the bate.


Maggots eat men; men (so far as I know) never eat maggots. Therefore maggots are at the top of the food chain and are God's favored creatures.

They don’t eat live men.

Lions eat men.

And we’ve done quite a number on them.

“African lions are in danger of disappearing altogether due to disease (FIV, bovine tuberculosis, canine distemper) and habitat encroachment. Today’s modern world subjects lions and other wildlife to many dangers. Mankind constantly seizes more and more of the remaining wild areas of Africa, forcing lions onto smaller and smaller parcels of land. Large-scale developments destroy the lion’s natural habitat. In areas inhabited by livestock, lions are frequently shot, snared or poisoned. And sadly, the hunting of these amazing animals for “sport,� for man’s pleasure, is still encouraged as a revenue producing industry by many African governments. African predators simply will not survive unless they are protected. Enkosini provides a solution by securing natural habitat where predators are protected and their environment preserved.� - Enkosini Wildlife Sancuary


So billions of bacteria and other critters right now - so I guess single-cell life-forms are the top of the food-chain.do a number of other nasty little animals. You are constantly being devoured by

There is no such thing as a 'food-chain' in the sense of a single, absolute chain on top of which is a single creature that nothing else eats. Food-chain is a context-sensitive explanation of the flow of protein and other foodstuffs.

By top of the food chain I mean responsible for it.

Threatened or Endangered Species System (TESS)-

Probably because there is NO difference between humans and other animals. Bees use language; ants and crows use tools; beavers and termites create physical structures; the apes and dolphins are clearly conscious. What then makes man any different? Nothing.

One thing is what we are doing now. Writing.


Clearly you haven't been keeping up with history. Look at locusts. Look at fire ants. We can't even seriously dent their breeding - and when we try, we produce resistant strains.

Oh! I can’t resist this one (if you accept the past of the Bible do you believe the future)

And the likeness of the locus resembled horses prepared for battle; upon their heads what seemed to be crowns of gold, and their were as men’s faces but they had hair as women’s hair. And their teeth were as those of a lion; and they had breastplates like iron breastplates. And the sound of their wings was like sounds of chariots of many horses running into battle – Rev 9:7


Homo sapiens has been on this planet a trivial amount of time compared to say, the bacteria or even the dinosaurs. His impact is no more than a quantitiative increase on the activity of beavers. Why do you choose any particular dimension along which to measure the success of man? One is no more valid than the other.

Isolate the data. Man vs. not man. Every force decays our body and every insect would consume you. We can only LIVE/breath/spirit to rejuvenate from these daily trials. That is the measure.
In 1905. And show me precisely how this out of context quote is supposed to show that scientists resisted the adoption of Maxwell's equations? It doesn't.

Out of context? A quote from Einstein himself from his original papers on relativity showing his reluctance? The reluctance was giving up Newton’s partical theory on light. You know…the perfect universe clock thing!!

Charming. And once again you display that you need to read more before you post: the Michelson-Morely experiments looked for the ether WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

Ok. I hate to do this to you but….from the same book – The Principles of Relativity by Einstein, H.A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, H. Minkowski.

Page 1 – The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by translation, such as all systems have in virtue of the Earth’s annual motion….blah, blah,blah. The first example of this kind is Michalson’s well-known interference experiment, the negative result of which lead Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through ether. Some new experiments, in which their motion through ether sought for, have recently been published. Rayleigh and Brace have examined the question whether the Earth’s surface may cause a body to become doubly refrecting. At firstsight this might be expected, if the both just mentioned change of dimensions is admitted. Both physicists, however, have abtained negative results. - Lorentz

You've now moved the goalposts to talking about light; but that's not what you were orginally discussing.

This topic involves all electromagnetic and optical phenomena.

Either admit you don't know what you're talking about; stop moving the goalposts; or post what you mean.

Wave/partical duality – shattered Newtons clock – It’s huge..still is. (sometimes light acts like and a wave and sometimes a partical – depends on what you looking for?)

But I admit to taking an evil and highly uncharitable delight in pointing out that you're wrong.

The feeling is mutual.

Relativity explained the lack of ether; not QM. Try understanding the history of physics, please.

Light quanta meant there wasn’t a medium it traveled through. Maxwell’s equation were kept because it explained the wave properties of light but the ether was given up…because it could not be measured. By Rayleigh!!

“Subsequently Michelson took up the investigation with Morley, enhancing the delicacy of the experiment by causing each pencil…blah, blah, blah. Never the less, the rotation produced displacements not exceeding 0.002 of this distance, and these might well be ascribed to errors of observation.� - Lorentz


Keep in mind that I am not attacking you on these posts (I presume that's what you meant when you said, "attach" in an earlier post); I am attacking the inaccuracies in your statements.

Wave/partical duality = body/soul duality

[JPD]

Here’s what really gets under your skins. God is in charge of the planet.

How can something which you believe to be true, but for which you have no evidence whatsoever, possibly get under anyone's skin? It is your unfounded assertion that might possibly get under our skins, but given that you have no evidence, the impact is negligible.

[DaMan121]

And we’ve done quite a number on them.

“African lions are in danger of disappearing altogether due to disease (FIV, bovine tuberculosis, canine distemper) and habitat encroachment. Today’s modern world subjects lions and other wildlife to many dangers. Mankind constantly seizes more and more of the remaining wild areas of Africa, forcing lions onto smaller and smaller parcels of land. Large-scale developments destroy the lion’s natural habitat. In areas inhabited by livestock, lions are frequently shot, snared or poisoned. And sadly, the hunting of these amazing animals for “sport,� for man’s pleasure, is still encouraged as a revenue producing industry by many African governments. African predators simply will not survive unless they are protected. Enkosini provides a solution by securing natural habitat where predators are protected and their environment preserved.� - Enkosini Wildlife Sancuary

:rolleyes: Yeah, we should really be proud.. but then again you are a christian, I guess its a touchy subject.

[Asha'man]

They don’t eat live men.
And we don't eat live anything (except sometimes goldfish). :rolling:

[jadeus]

First, that was not Satan (such a concept hadn't been dreamed up when Genesis was written) - it was a talking serpent.

The Serpent is considered to be the Tempter. "Avoid the wiles of Satan by knowing them"

Here's my favorite:

And the Lord said to Satan, Whence comest thou? The Satan answered the Lord and said, From goin to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down on it.

( and the lord said to the devil, what have you been up to? he said I've been hangin' out.)

Second, what the serpent told Eve was true. Read the rest of the story.

Some did, some didn't. It was a mixed bag.

Why we persecute?hmmm It is the same social psychology that Jesus had to deal with or anyone trying to do some good. Scientist were not as willing to give his/her life for the cause like the Christians.

Sciences has come in spite of Christianity.

Science only comes from economic stabilility and security. The seed was planted, God provided the umbrella of strength, and it grew.

Christianity is certainly not necessary to explain the rise of science, or of scientific discovery. Many scientific discoveries were, and are, made in non-Christian cultures.

Yes. This great waxing and waining of cultures. Thank you Arabia for algebra while God punished Europe.

"State of the art" as in state of the art myth, not history or science.

Genious to see so far into the future and know what the impact would be. Not even the Egyptions cared about that; so concerened with the here and now.


Sorry, but it's not even close, unless one uses a bastard file, a chisel, a rather big shoehorn, and ample vaseline and a lot of vigorous hammering.

I think it was more like Jim Henson's dozers.

So you're a big Wintel supporter? ;)

If the "apple" is sin, and god created the "apple" tree...

MMM - Apples! - Homer (simpson)

[jadeus]

“African lions are in danger of disappearing altogether due to disease (FIV, bovine tuberculosis, canine distemper) and habitat encroachment. Today’s modern world subjects lions and other wildlife to many dangers. Mankind constantly seizes more and more of the remaining wild areas of Africa, forcing lions onto smaller and smaller parcels of land. Large-scale developments destroy the lion’s natural habitat. In areas inhabited by livestock, lions are frequently shot, snared or poisoned. And sadly, the hunting of these amazing animals for “sport,� for man’s pleasure, is still encouraged as a revenue producing industry by many African governments. African predators simply will not survive unless they are protected. Enkosini provides a solution by securing natural habitat where predators are protected and their environment preserved.� - Enkosini Wildlife Sancuary

Yeah, we should really be proud.. but then again you are a christian, I guess its a touchy subject.

No! No! No! I think this sucks!! Lets get that clear. I would not have quoted a sancuary if I did not believe in it!!!! :mad:

It's just a reality that supported my point.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Blatantly wrong. E=mc^2 is not symbolic; it shows the actual relationship between energy and matter.
Yup. It was so symbolic that my use of it in mere A Level chemistry must have been completely ludicrous. :rolleyes:

[Oolon Colluphid]

Aside: how come this thread isn't in ~Elsewhere~ ?

[jadeus]

Humans ARE animals, Im not sure if your making a distinction.. besides, humans arent the only animals that can type.

For clarity, let's us the English definition for animal not the latin.

[jadeus]

Yup. It was so symbolic that my use of it in mere A Level chemistry must have been completely ludicrous. :rolleyes:

I'm just saying that it has little everyday use (thank God or everyone would have an A-bomb) Not like propelling canon balls or determining a distance traveled.

[jadeus]

And we don't eat live anything (except sometimes goldfish). :rolling:

But we kill our own pray. We are al least higher then species that scavenge for corpses.

[jadeus]

Actually a serpent said that. (Talking snakes. What will they think of next, 4 legged insects?) I don't recall that Satan even popped up in Genesis anywhere.

As a side note, at least the serpent spoke the truth.

"SSSSSSSSSSin?" - The Snake

Partly because the Muslims preserved a lot of it while your ilk was busy trying to destroy it. Christians have been anti-science, anti-knowledge when their rigid worldview is threatened, there's no sense in denying it. There's also no sense in trying to reap all the glory and eschew responsibility for any wrongdoing (unless you work for W).

Muslims pray to the same god Moses did, right? The result of western society is our Bill of Rights. Look at the present. Do you think it was any better in Asia, Africa, or the middle East over history? Would this account for the repressive governments in other societies who are about ten generations away from even considering the relality of individual human rights in Government?

Btw, I guess you're right. We do have two Christians to thank for ToE... Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. :thumbs:

Many, many others, like Adam Smith and Thomas Paine.


Right. A book on how to get to heaven, not on how the heavens go.

What if your mind doesn’t stop when you die? How will your subconscious deal with the super-conscious?


There's no evidence that the Big Bang necessarily "created" anything.

Would you consider it creative then?


At least the apples didn't talk...

No one would believe that crazy story!!!

[RGD]

jadeus you have the most amusing posts. Filled with unfounded assertions, psychological projection, miscommunications, and incorrect statements... but amusing, nonetheless.

So.

Your pretty little response has nothing to do with the point; humanity is not in charge of this planet; there is no 'chain of being' (food or otherwise) that leads up to humanity.

Here’s what really gets under your skins. God is in charge of the planet.

No, this doesn't get under my skin in the slightest. I understand your insecurity in your beliefs, and the difficulty you have under the pressure of a family that doesn't understand your lack of interest in Buddhism, but that still doesn't excuse you making statements that are factually incorrect.

If an atheist doesn't believe in God, then they cannot be upset by the idea that "God is in charge of the planet."

Y'see, what really bothers you, makes you angry, really and completely frosts you is that Johnny Depp is God and in charge of Lithuania.

See how absurd your position is? You can go around saying things like you did all day, but if they're not true, then who cares? Only you. And we don't really care if you care (if you understand what I mean... :))

Now, we had a complex exchange on what the word 'animal' meant and how it was derived - which I have snipped for brevity's sake.

Your entire response to that is The point was to associate the spirit/body duality to the wave/partical. You didn’t take the bate.

First of all, you never mentioned any such concept or even hinted at it, therefore it would be impossible for me to take any 'bait'.

Second, do, please try to work on your spelling, grammar, and most important, say what you actually mean. Spell things out. Make yourself clear. DO NOT presume that we will understand what you say.

Until you can learn to actually express your thoughts here, you will be doomed to confusion and misunderstandings. I know that I've made this point before - but you keep ignoring it. I'll just keep making it again until you learn. Unlike you, I'm patient.

Maggots eat men; men (so far as I know) never eat maggots. Therefore maggots are at the top of the food chain and are God's favored creatures.

They don’t eat live men.

Irrelevant: humans don't eat live food either (well, not many. I saw a frat guy swallow three goldfish and a baby eel once. It was disgusting.)


Lions eat men.

And we’ve done quite a number on them.

“African lions are in danger of disappearing altogether due to disease (FIV, bovine tuberculosis, canine distemper) and habitat encroachment. Today’s modern world subjects lions and other wildlife to many dangers. Mankind constantly seizes more and more of the remaining wild areas of Africa, forcing lions onto smaller and smaller parcels of land. Large-scale developments destroy the lion’s natural habitat. In areas inhabited by livestock, lions are frequently shot, snared or poisoned. And sadly, the hunting of these amazing animals for “sport,� for man’s pleasure, is still encouraged as a revenue producing industry by many African governments. African predators simply will not survive unless they are protected. Enkosini provides a solution by securing natural habitat where predators are protected and their environment preserved.� - Enkosini Wildlife Sancuary

How nice of you to gloat over the human attempt to eradicate a species. How Christian to crow over the disappearance of one of God's creatures.

So billions of bacteria and other critters right now - so I guess single-cell life-forms are the top of the food-chain.do a number of other nasty little animals. You are constantly being devoured by them.

There is no such thing as a 'food-chain' in the sense of a single, absolute chain on top of which is a single creature that nothing else eats. Food-chain is a context-sensitive explanation of the flow of protein and other foodstuffs.

By top of the food chain I mean responsible for it.

Sigh. Once again, an utterly irrelevant and factually incorrect comment: humans are not responsible for the "food chain." If we have any responsibility, it is for our part in the food chain. We didn't create it, we just pertubate it.


Probably because there is NO difference between humans and other animals. Bees use language; ants and crows use tools; beavers and termites create physical structures; the apes and dolphins are clearly conscious. What then makes man any different? Nothing.

One thing is what we are doing now. Writing.

Nope. Sorry. Other apes can use typewriters and computers. Various animals "write" territorial information markers in scent. Don't confuse your use of the alphabet with some qualitative difference in abilities between ourselves and the other animals we share the planet with.

Clearly you haven't been keeping up with history. Look at locusts. Look at fire ants. We can't even seriously dent their breeding - and when we try, we produce resistant strains.

Oh! I can’t resist this one (if you accept the past of the Bible do you believe the future)

And the likeness of the locus resembled horses prepared for battle; upon their heads what seemed to be crowns of gold, and their were as men’s faces but they had hair as women’s hair. And their teeth were as those of a lion; and they had breastplates like iron breastplates. And the sound of their wings was like sounds of chariots of many horses running into battle – Rev 9:7

Ummmm.... So what? Your comment isn't actually a response to my point. Oh, and I forgot body and head lice. Unpleasant and never eradicated from the human species.


Homo sapiens has been on this planet a trivial amount of time compared to say, the bacteria or even the dinosaurs. His impact is no more than a quantitiative increase on the activity of beavers. Why do you choose any particular dimension along which to measure the success of man? One is no more valid than the other.

Isolate the data. Man vs. not man. Every force decays our body and every insect would consume you. We can only LIVE/breath/spirit to rejuvenate from these daily trials. That is the measure.

That doesn't even make sense. What, precisely, are you measuring? You were talking about the superiority of man. You can't even give me a single metric whereby such superiority could be established.

In 1905. And show me precisely how this out of context quote is supposed to show that scientists resisted the adoption of Maxwell's equations? It doesn't.

Out of context? A quote from Einstein himself from his original papers on relativity showing his reluctance? The reluctance was giving up Newton’s partical theory on light. You know…the perfect universe clock thing!!

A) look up the term 'quote-mining'

B) your quote does not show any "reluctance" on the part of Einstein. None.

C) you weren't talking about "Newton's particle theory on light". You were trying to claim that the scientific community was reluctant to adopt Maxwell's equations. They weren't.

D) "Newton's particle theory of light" was not what Michelson and Morley were interested in; they were looking at a 'wave theory' of light - which required a medium of propogation, which required an ether, which Einstein demonstrated they didn't need.



Charming. And once again you display that you need to read more before you post: the Michelson-Morely experiments looked for the ether WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

Ok. I hate to do this to you but….from the same book – The Principles of Relativity by Einstein, H.A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, H. Minkowski.

Page 1 – The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by translation, such as all systems have in virtue of the Earth’s annual motion….blah, blah,blah. The first example of this kind is Michalson’s well-known interference experiment, the negative result of which lead Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through ether. Some new experiments, in which their motion through ether sought for, have recently been published. Rayleigh and Brace have examined the question whether the Earth’s surface may cause a body to become doubly refrecting. At firstsight this might be expected, if the both just mentioned change of dimensions is admitted. Both physicists, however, have abtained negative results. - Lorentz

Apparently you read books, but you don't read your posts. You seem to be confusing the acceptance of the Maxwell Equations and the investigation of the ether in your posts. Do make up your mind which one you'd like to discuss.


You've now moved the goalposts to talking about light; but that's not what you were orginally discussing.

This topic involves all electromagnetic and optical phenomena.

In other words, you've moved the goalposts.

Keep in mind, I don't care what you choose to be the topic; but changing the topic halfway through your posts is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

Either admit you don't know what you're talking about; stop moving the goalposts; or post what you mean.

Wave/partical duality – shattered Newtons clock – It’s huge..still is. (sometimes light acts like and a wave and sometimes a partical – depends on what you looking for?)

Ok, since I'm a charitable young lady, I'll assume that you're trying option 3: posting what you actually meant to talk about.

Regrettably, Newton's clock wasn't shattered by wave/particle duality, it was extended by Relativity and QM. Nothing was shattered - by your logic, Newton's Laws of Motion wouldn't work any more. And why do you say it's still huge? It's just part of QM; but it's not a 'problem'

But I admit to taking an evil and highly uncharitable delight in pointing out that you're wrong.

The feeling is mutual.

You're going to point out that I'm wrong about something! Sweet! When?

Relativity explained the lack of ether; not QM. Try understanding the history of physics, please.

Light quanta meant there wasn’t a medium it traveled through. Maxwell’s equation were kept because it explained the wave properties of light but the ether was given up…because it could not be measured. By Rayleigh!!

Sigh. Try again.

Keep in mind that I am not attacking you on these posts (I presume that's what you meant when you said, "attach" in an earlier post); I am attacking the inaccuracies in your statements.

Wave/partical duality = body/soul duality

An unsupported analogy or metaphor which you've done nothing with, and only introduced after making a fool of yourself for lack of knowledge on the history of science.

And in response to which, I say: so what? Does it mean anything? Why is it a valid metaphor/analogy?

I say again: learn to post what you actually mean to say. Don't assume we can read your mind.

[Sven]

But we kill our own pray. We are al least higher then species that scavenge for corpses.
That's essentially the same definition as Salieri used recently (withou much success, as you might guess): A being is higher as one another if it can destroy the other.

[radagast]

apple=sin=knowledge=understanding everything and still fighting about it=empty life

Hmmm, I explicitly avoiding equating sin with knowledge, even with the Christian history of doing so, but if you want to support that one, go right ahead. It's not something I would have done if I were Christian...

It does help explain so much. :)

Glenn

[RGD]

It is an interesting question: are there qualitative, rather than quantitative differences between homo sapiens sapiens and other species? (Verifiable ones, I mean?) And how would we use such differences to judge us as 'higher' or 'lower' than other species?

[radagast]

Regrettably, Newton's clock wasn't shattered by wave/particle duality, it was extended by Relativity and QM. Nothing was shattered - by your logic, Newton's Laws of Motion wouldn't work any more. And why do you say it's still huge? It's just part of QM; but it's not a 'problem'


While I have agreed with virtually all you have said to Jadeus, I do have to point out that Jadeus was saying the the clockwork universe of Newton was shattered by modern science. Which QM actually did, yeilding a universe that isn't as deterministic as Newton's clockwork universe was.

I wholeheartedly agree that Newtonian mechanics wasn't shattered.

As I see it, Jadeus is much more interested in 'winning' the argument and professing christianity that in the actual truth of debating