Evolution is a hoax

[eagle]

GOD is an HOAX.

And so are you Monsieur "fun farang". :wink:

please define god in your own terms, what is god except a belief created by man to manipulate the masses. if god is not an hoax then it is what christians call satan , so many crimes have been commited in his name , if "god is love" god would never let this happen, if god existed he would intervene to stop the massacres. if you tell me that god can not and will not intervene , so why do all the gullible pray for him to help them?

god is the tranquiliser of the people who are too feeble in their head to take life in their own hands, thus they ressort to "god" .

pathetic , but one is free to believe what he wants as long as he don't try to endoctrinate simple minds such as kids that god is real or the only truth in this world. especially when menacing that non believers are gonna go to hell , its so stupid since the closest thing from hell such as described in the books , is the world we live in.

PLease don't talk so about god. He will tell mother nature and she will give us bad weather :wink:

[eagle]

please define god in your own terms, what is god except a belief created by man to manipulate the masses. if god is not an hoax then it is what christians call satan , so many crimes have been commited in his name , if "god is love" god would never let this happen, if god existed he would intervene to stop the massacres. if you tell me that god can not and will not intervene , so why do all the gullible pray for him to help them?

god is the tranquiliser of the people who are too feeble in their head to take life in their own hands, thus they ressort to "god" .

pathetic , but one is free to believe what he wants as long as he don't try to endoctrinate simple minds such as kids that god is real or the only truth in this world. especially when menacing that non believers are gonna go to hell , its so stupid since the closest thing from hell such as described in the books , is the world we live in.

This is a discussion about evoultion, not about god. Can we please start a new forum thread about god?

I'l ask god if he minds ,be right back

[zeusbheld]

It is simple mathematics, and, as I pointed out, is an equation found in every math book which deals with the applications of logs. YOu can call it whatever names you want to call it. Yes, it is simplistic; exponential growth is fairly simplistic (not that many people here can mathematically work with it). However, and I emphasized this over and over again, this provides us with an estimation.

and i emphasized a bogus estimation, until you demonstrate that it has effectively and consistently predicted actual populations with a high degree of accuracy.

hmmm, how on earth will an equation which estimates population growth be shown to have a high degree of accuracy? Just can't be done.

if that is the case then the estimates demonstrate very little. they are useful only because we need something but arent really science. economics is imprecise like that. it doesnt mean economics isnt useful, but if physics were that soft we wouldnt have airplanes, etc.

and i think it can be done, to a reasonalble degree, it just would take decades possibly even centuries. and might have to involve revising the equation and repeating the experiment.

Excellent, you used that great word, neutral. That is what math is alright. Mathematics and this particular equation, although abstract, is used as a model to represent true human conditions. I've spent a considerable amount of time in college and have never once seen "a better equation" for population growth. I have only seen this one (there are slightly different forms, but the end result is the same--I used Euler's number as a base, but any base could be used).

none of this makes the equation an accurate model. you missed the point. you're losing me as audience very quickly. Euler's number is a constant. an abstract one, not one evident in physical phenomena like a half-life.

If, by using world population figures, our estimations came up to be 500,000 years or 2,000,000 years, then I'd have to concede this point. However, no matter how you twist it, you will not get the numbers you want. So of course, we have to throw the equation out. Just can't be right if it does not agree with evolution.

completely missed the point. sophistry. just because we need an estimate for some reason does not mean the estimate will have any degree of accuracy.

told you what you have to do in order to convince me. you're not doing that. your approach to this estimate is whooshy and you're still begging the question.

i am getting bored with this game fast.

[eagle]

It is simple mathematics, and, as I pointed out, is an equation found in every math book which deals with the applications of logs. YOu can call it whatever names you want to call it. Yes, it is simplistic; exponential growth is fairly simplistic (not that many people here can mathematically work with it). However, and I emphasized this over and over again, this provides us with an estimation.

and i emphasized a bogus estimation, until you demonstrate that it has effectively and consistently predicted actual populations with a high degree of accuracy.

hmmm, how on earth will an equation which estimates population growth be shown to have a high degree of accuracy? Just can't be done.

if that is the case then the estimates demonstrate very little. they are useful only because we need something but arent really science. economics is imprecise like that. it doesnt mean economics isnt useful, but if physics were that soft we wouldnt have airplanes, etc.

and i think it can be done, to a reasonalble degree, it just would take decades possibly even centuries. and might have to involve revising the equation and repeating the experiment.

Excellent, you used that great word, neutral. That is what math is alright. Mathematics and this particular equation, although abstract, is used as a model to represent true human conditions. I've spent a considerable amount of time in college and have never once seen "a better equation" for population growth. I have only seen this one (there are slightly different forms, but the end result is the same--I used Euler's number as a base, but any base could be used).

none of this makes the equation an accurate model. you missed the point. you're losing me as audience very quickly. Euler's number is a constant. an abstract one, not one evident in physical phenomena like a half-life.

If, by using world population figures, our estimations came up to be 500,000 years or 2,000,000 years, then I'd have to concede this point. However, no matter how you twist it, you will not get the numbers you want. So of course, we have to throw the equation out. Just can't be right if it does not agree with evolution.

completely missed the point. sophistry. just because we need an estimate for some reason does not mean the estimate will have any degree of accuracy.

told you what you have to do in order to convince me. you're not doing that. your approach to this estimate is whooshy and you're still begging the question.

i am getting bored with this game fast.

LOgical slicing and dicing of posts is like peeling potatoes but your good at it Zeus

[zeusbheld]

Okay, I am confused here. You believe that evolution is accepted as a fact, but not that humans evolved from primates (apes)? "

last i checked humans and apes evolved simultaneously. saying humans evolved from apes is inaccurate, imprecise grandstanding.

most likely i'm not giving up, you're not showing enough signs you even understand what is currently accepted as evolution for me to follow your attempt at debunking it.

have fun though, and thanks for starting a thread more interesting than

"why are thai girls pretty?"

[zeusbheld]

GOD is an HOAX.

And so are you Monsieur "fun farang". :wink:

i am most definitely a hoax, but no one believes me when i tell them this :cry:

[zeusbheld]

So far, no one has pressed this issue, but most creationists (all that I know of) believe in adaptation and limited change within a species (dog breeding is a good illustration of this).

The problem for some creationists (like myself), is that we do not believe that one species will ever evolve into another species. That is, no matter what you do to a dog, it will always be a dog, and never somehow morph into a cat. However, clearly humans adapt and experience some basic changes (as do animals). Who would ever administer a small pox vaccination is we believed that it would not bring about an inherent change and/or adaptation.

the problem i have with this thread is that you have not touched on any version of the theory of evolution and how it works accepted and discussed by scientists (sorry mike, you didnt either).

this is just coffee shop conjecture, i'm ouitta here.

oh dear.. i believe i've now retired from this thread more times than michael jordan retired from basketball :shock:

[moo_noy]

when i was a kid i belived in god,jesus,the easter bunny,tooth fairy,and santa.I was so gullable

[Sukhumvit_Farang]

On this question, religious people think that ?since I cannot explain what happened, it must have been the work of god?. I think that since there is no god, what else could it have been but evolution?

[CiaranM]

"why are thai girls pretty?"

can i join this discussion now ?? not all thai girls r pretty and most have got small **** ..........

i had this god **** shoved down my throat from i was a kid until i left school. didn't believe i'd get some **** preaching the same crap on 'thailandfriends'

[SiamHotel]

k, gonna help you young buddiex:

HOAX is NOT! evoluting @ all theze days...

juzt think 'bout the great ooold 80's matex!...

-- SiMoN

[SiamHotel]

Le Bo...

{ya know 'who' right?!} :roll:

[scutfargus]

state the scientific method in a way we can agree on, propose a meothodlogy, and if we can agree on that, that might be persuasive to me. also do it concisely as i am losing interest, you are not yet moving toward anything that would convince me, and this is, as i said, a coffee shop game.

The general progression of primates to man is thought to be:

Ardipithecus ramidus (4-5 mya) mya = million years ago

Australopithecus afarensis (3-4 mya)

Australopithecus africanus--here's Lucy! (2.5-3 mya)

Homo habilis (1.5-2 mya)

Homo erectus (1-1.5 mya)

early Homo sapiens (1 mya)

and early Homo sapiens branch out to Neandertals and into Modern humans (both today-1 mya)

There is some disagreement on this; the Australopithecus africanus is said to maybe be a branch off of the Australopithecus afrarensis leading two a couple of dead ends and not to humans.

I can produce a buttload of quotes, if you need them, which indicates that Lucy is not here because we are. That is, in order for man to evolve, there must also be extincition. Otherwise, why evolve? If Lucy does fine with what she has, why evolve to something else?

Now generally speaking, all of the fossils that we find should be able to fall within these general classifications and the dates assigned to them by evolutionists. We should not find modern man or homo erectus living side by side Lucy, because man did not evolve from Lucy until several million years later.

Also, we should not expect to find evolutionists ignoring data, ignoring fossils, changing the dates of the age of a fossil simply because it does not agree with what they believe, and we should not find them changing the classifications of various fossils.

If evolution is true, a well-read evolutionist should be able to pick up the skull or the arm or the leg and pretty well determine this belongs in this or that group. And today, we use mathematics and computers to classify fossils. If memory serves, we run multivariant analysis on some fossils to determine what kind of a fossil it is. This provides the maximum amount of accuracy, because we are dealing with mathematic modeling and not with a preconceived notion that this or that fossil belongs where I put it because I said so (I am speaking for the evolutionist here). If we cannot determine where a fossil goes by its physicality, then how can we begin to support the theory of evolution?

Are you with me here? Am I making sense in the set up?

[scutfargus]

it seems sort of odd that college students could be led so easily astray when they have evolutionists right there to set them straight.

no it doesnt seem odd at all. i attended college. way too much of it actually. credible schools too, the kind that are difficult to get admitted to. it doesnt impress me at all.

that has more to do with persuasiveness than science. its more salesmanship than evidence, and thus is irrelevant to me. i used to annoy philosophy professors by deliberately adopting a bogus position and convincing the class i was right through salesmanship rather than logic. i was young, foolish and easily amused (and that was back when i hasd an attention span).

i've worked at universities as an administrator. faculty are hired for being good at their discipline not good teachers. most science teachers that i've met are appallingly bad at everything except their specialty. there arent many science teachers on the level of a stephen jay gould.

Okay, so, when an science teacher presents evidence using what he knows and a science textbook, and people don't buy into it, it is because he is a good scientist and a crappy teacher. And when his opposition (a creationist) presents the other side, then he often convinces more people because he is a snake oil salesman and could sell mud to landslide victims on the california coast.

Science teachers and textbooks have historically done an incredible job in convincing the public. Just look at the opinions expressed here. Nobody is buying what I am selling. When I provide this evidence or that, it has to be wrong, simplistic, inaccurate. There just cannot be evidence against evolution, right?

I guess at this university, they managed to find the crappiest science teacher they could find and the most persuasive creationist they could, and that explains it.

On this point, I must plead ignorance, as I never took that class or attended that university.

[scutfargus]

please define god in your own terms, what is god except a belief created by man to manipulate the masses. if god is not an hoax then it is what christians call satan , so many crimes have been commited in his name , if "god is love" god would never let this happen, if god existed he would intervene to stop the massacres. if you tell me that god can not and will not intervene , so why do all the gullible pray for him to help them?

god is the tranquiliser of the people who are too feeble in their head to take life in their own hands, thus they ressort to "god" .

pathetic , but one is free to believe what he wants as long as he don't try to endoctrinate simple minds such as kids that god is real or the only truth in this world. especially when menacing that non believers are gonna go to hell , its so stupid since the closest thing from hell such as described in the books , is the world we live in.

I do want to deal with these questions, funfargang (although I am beginning to think that is a misnomer); but I'd rather deal with evolution now and, sometime off in the future, discuss God. So, I'm not ducking your comments; I am simply trying to stay focused.

[scutfargus]

Okay, I am confused here. You believe that evolution is accepted as a fact, but not that humans evolved from primates (apes)? "

last i checked humans and apes evolved simultaneously. saying humans evolved from apes is inaccurate, imprecise grandstanding.

most likely i'm not giving up, you're not showing enough signs you even understand what is currently accepted as evolution for me to follow your attempt at debunking it.

have fun though, and thanks for starting a thread more interesting than

"why are thai girls pretty?"

I am aware of that evolutionists do not believe that man came from apes. I was quoting someone else who said something to that effect, and so I added "apes" in parentheses...not because I am confused, but because that person was. I realize that I should not have done that and it would have been more accurate had I put "Chewbaka" in parentheses.

[scutfargus]

when i was a kid i belived in god,jesus,the easter bunny,tooth fairy,and santa.I was so gullable

Good point; and I used to attempt to mug cats for money.

Later, maybe I will ask you--is Jesus a real, historical figure? However, I am trying to stay on point here.

[scutfargus]

On this question, religious people think that ?since I cannot explain what happened, it must have been the work of god?. I think that since there is no god, what else could it have been but evolution?

What's the deal, SF, did you read like 3 posts and come to this conclusion?

[scutfargus]

i had this god sh*t shoved down my throat from i was a kid until i left school. didn't believe i'd get some **** preaching the same crap on 'thailandfriends'

You don't mind if I ask you what you are saying, C? Are you saying that you had evolution shoved down your throat or creationism. If it is the latter, I must admit to being surprised. That means you attended a private school?

With regards to the name calling, for some reason, many humanists and/or liberals who think there should be no war, think we should all get along, etc., seem to be vicious with their tongue (not in all cases, but in more than just a couple). Why is that? Shouldn't a humanist (if you are one) sort of lead the way by example in getting along?

[scutfargus]

So far, no one has pressed this issue, but most creationists (all that I know of) believe in adaptation and limited change within a species (dog breeding is a good illustration of this).

The problem for some creationists (like myself), is that we do not believe that one species will ever evolve into another species. That is, no matter what you do to a dog, it will always be a dog, and never somehow morph into a cat. However, clearly humans adapt and experience some basic changes (as do animals). Who would ever administer a small pox vaccination is we believed that it would not bring about an inherent change and/or adaptation.

It is called micro and macro evolution, for anyone who wants to know.

Thank you. Creationists, for the most part, believe in micro evolution (which term some of us do not like), but we do not believe in macro evolution.

[scutfargus]

With regards to the name calling, for some reason, many humanists and/or liberals who think there should be no war, think we should all get along, etc., seem to be vicious with their tongue (not in all cases, but in more than just a couple). Why is that?

Same for many right wing and/or religious people I know too.

Point granted.

[CiaranM]

i had this god sh*t shoved down my throat from i was a kid until i left school. didn't believe i'd get some **** preaching the same crap on 'thailandfriends'

You don't mind if I ask you what you are saying, C? Are you saying that you had evolution shoved down your throat or creationism. If it is the latter, I must admit to being surprised. That means you attended a private school?

With regards to the name calling, Shouldn't a humanist (if you are one) sort of lead the way by example in getting along?

i'm not any kind of -ist, but i don't like to upset too many ppl (well not too often) so sorry if u were offended, but that is pretty mild by my usual standards.

i had the misfortune to attend catholic run schools from the age of 4 until 18 so yes i have had this creationism crap shoved down my throat for far too long already. now i have no problem with ppl believing in whatever god they want to, but i start to lose patientance when they try to convince me (or this website) of the "rightness" of their beliefs.

however, my major problem with MOST forms of christianity is, they believe that christianity is the one true faith and if ppl do not embrace and believe in the one true christian god .... well basically they're f**ked and going to hell. now this strikes me as extremely arrogant and not very .. well christian. why do christians feel the need to come to hindu/muslim/aetheist countries and "convert" the natives to christianity. big selling point "they're all going to hell otherwise". why the hell can't they just preach to the converted and leave the rest of us alone ??

[funfarang]

i'm not any kind of -ist, but i don't like to upset too many ppl (well not too often) so sorry if u were offended, but that is pretty mild by my usual standards.

i had the misfortune to attend catholic run schools from the age of 4 until 18 so yes i have had this creationism crap shoved down my throat for far too long already. now i have no problem with ppl believing in whatever god they want to, but i start to lose patientance when they try to convince me (or this website) of the "rightness" of their beliefs.

however, my major problem with MOST forms of christianity is, they believe that christianity is the one true faith and if ppl do not embrace and believe in the one true christian god .... well basically they're f**ked and going to hell. now this strikes me as extremely arrogant and not very .. well christian. why do christians feel the need to come to hindu/muslim/aetheist countries and "convert" the natives to christianity. big selling point "they're all going to hell otherwise". why the hell can't they just preach to the converted and leave the rest of us alone ??

damn you said resumed all that i wanted to say , goood job man ! i f only i c ould be so concise .

[zeusbheld]

[

Are you with me here? Am I making sense in the set up?

not even a little bit. i said i was retiring, you've completely sealed the deal. don't bother responding. game over.

you keep writing stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what i wrote. instead, again with the quotes. i told you what you need to do. you make no attempt to do so. based on what you've written here, you dont even understand the question.

you couldnt possibly have missed my point about teachers etc more. i suppose you will convince me a song is good by telling me how many copies it sold? popularity equals truth apparently.

interesting you started out with the "most people accept evolution wihtout thinking about it". coz those are the only people you have a chance of convincing, i'm barely knowledgeable of the general principles of evolution, and you selectively pick out minor points to address and ignore the main questions completely, and then expect me to respond like a lapdog and go "aha" because you dump more anecdotes, hearsay, sophistry and empty description on me. forget it.

i gave you many many chances too. this is clearly a canned presentation, a windup. nothing relevant to what i asked for in order to convince me.

that part about me retiring from this thread? not kidding. dont bother responding i'm out.

[scutfargus]

state the scientific method in a way we can agree on, propose a meothodlogy, and if we can agree on that, that might be persuasive to me. also do it concisely as i am losing interest, you are not yet moving toward anything that would convince me, and this is, as i said, a coffee shop game.

The general progression of primates to man is thought to be:

Ardipithecus ramidus (4-5 mya) mya = million years ago

Australopithecus afarensis (3-4 mya)

Australopithecus africanus--here's Lucy! (2.5-3 mya)

Homo habilis (1.5-2 mya)

Homo erectus (1-1.5 mya)

early Homo sapiens (1 mya)

and early Homo sapiens branch out to Neandertals and into Modern humans (both today-1 mya)

There is some disagreement on this; the Australopithecus africanus is said to maybe be a branch off of the Australopithecus afrarensis leading two a couple of dead ends and not to humans.

I can produce a buttload of quotes, if you need them, which indicates that Lucy is not here because we are. That is, in order for man to evolve, there must also be extincition. Otherwise, why evolve? If Lucy does fine with what she has, why evolve to something else?

Now generally speaking, all of the fossils that we find should be able to fall within these general classifications and the dates assigned to them by evolutionists. We should not find modern man or homo erectus living side by side Lucy, because man did not evolve from Lucy until several million years later.

Also, we should not expect to find evolutionists ignoring data, ignoring fossils, changing the dates of the age of a fossil simply because it does not agree with what they believe, and we should not find them changing the classifications of various fossils.

If evolution is true, a well-read evolutionist should be able to pick up the skull or the arm or the leg and pretty well determine this belongs in this or that group. And today, we use mathematics and computers to classify fossils. If memory serves, we run multivariant analysis on some fossils to determine what kind of a fossil it is. This provides the maximum amount of accuracy, because we are dealing with mathematic modeling and not with a preconceived notion that this or that fossil belongs where I put it because I said so (I am speaking for the evolutionist here). If we cannot determine where a fossil goes by its physicality, then how can we begin to support the theory of evolution?

Let me add, evolutionists should be able to recognize fakes--I mean, this is their field, so when a fake comes along, it should not take them over 5 or 10 years to say something is a fake.

Are you with me here? Am I making sense in the set up? Or is this too long for you to read?