Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 02:04 PM
Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution.

Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.

But, in earlier years, It took brilliant men to pioneer the discoveries that we today use as stepping stones. They frequently had little in the way of equipment, time, or money, but they had powerful minds and depth of comprehension.

Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists.

"Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." J.L.R. Agassiz, in Methods of Study in Natural History [Agassiz was a Harvard professor and the pioneer in the study of glacial geology.

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us . . The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institutes, No. 124, p. 267 [Kelvin was the pioneer in the study of thermodynamics].

If you really want to think... and really want to have some experience in backing your atheistic beliefs in an intellectual atmosphere, hopefully free of unnecessary retaliation... comment on this... let's reason. I'm not here to make conflict, but to make you think... as the forum is called "The Thinking Atheist"... let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  ... you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

Well, I don't have a belief but it looks as if you seem to think you do. That's nice.

Welcome to the forum. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution.

Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.

But, in earlier years, It took brilliant men to pioneer the discoveries that we today use as stepping stones. They frequently had little in the way of equipment, time, or money, but they had powerful minds and depth of comprehension.

Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists.

"Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." J.L.R. Agassiz, in Methods of Study in Natural History [Agassiz was a Harvard professor and the pioneer in the study of glacial geology.

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us . . The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institutes, No. 124, p. 267 [Kelvin was the pioneer in the study of thermodynamics].

If you really want to think... and really want to have some experience in backing your atheistic beliefs in an intellectual atmosphere, hopefully free of unnecessary retaliation... comment on this... let's reason. I'm not here to make conflict, but to make you think... as the forum is called "The Thinking Atheist"... let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

We have far more evidence than they did, and insight into the mechanisms of evolution.

And no, science today is not just the follower; ideas and concepts literally inconceivable to those men are today common in scientific thought.

Please join us in the 21st century.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Quote:let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

How about you? Are you cemented in your beliefs? Are you ready to do some thinking without presuppositions?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Slowminded's post
16-11-2013, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 03:14 PM by birdseye.)
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  We have far more evidence than they did, and insight into the mechanisms of evolution.

And no, science today is not just the follower; ideas and concepts literally inconceivable to those men are today common in scientific thought.

Please join us in the 21st century.

I would like to give you a quick list of who we are "following", and exactly what they provided us to follow. Here are the men who made the fundamental discoveries and inventions that our modern world is based upon(they were all creationists):

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, computer science

Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology

Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829): thermokenetics

Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects

Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory

Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve

Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer

Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars

James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics

Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery

Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography,

James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics. statistical thermodynamics

Gregor Mandel (1822-1884): genetics

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph

Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescope,

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination and immunization

Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotopic chemistry

John Ray (1627-1705) natural history

Lord John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis

Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry

Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology

Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686): stratigraphy

Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics

Leonardo de Vinci (1452-1519): hydraulics

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): pathology

John Woodward (1665-1728): paleontology
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:10 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  We have far more evidence than they did, and insight into the mechanisms of evolution.

And no, science today is not just the follower; ideas and concepts literally inconceivable to those men are today common in scientific thought.

Please join us in the 21st century.

I would like to give you a quick list of who we are "following", and exactly what they provided us to follow. Here are the men who made the fundamental discoveries and inventions that our modern world is based upon(they were all creationists):

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, computer science

Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology

Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829): thermokenetics

Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects

Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory

Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve

Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer

Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars

James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics

Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery

Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography,

James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics. statistical thermodynamics

Gregor Mandel (1822-1884): genetics

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph

Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescope,

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination and immunization

Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotopic chemistry

John Ray (1627-1705) natural history

Lord John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis

Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry

Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology

Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686): stratigraphy

Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics

Leonardo de Vinci (1452-1519): hydraulics

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): pathology

John Woodward (1665-1728): paleontology
[/quote]
I suppose you have a nice book where this list comes from. Care to share?
(seems to be a problem with the reply button. I don't know why it does that)

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
Quote:Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

But if you insist on authorities, Tesla disagrees :

There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is born. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise.[211]

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:10 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  I suppose you have a nice book where this list comes from. Care to share?

I would not mind sharing the sources that I use to find much of my information, however, the likelihood of that doing any good is not there, for if I cite a book or source for which someone disagrees, they would write the facts off as altogether incorrect based initially on the source, ignoring the cited facts, so therefore I do not care to share at this time. The cited facts and initial sources should saffice for now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 02:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  Here are some formulas: The formula for making a universe: nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting In perfect balance and order.

The formula for making life: dirt + water + time = living structures.

The above two formulas can enable inanimate objects to make themselves; the exception would be "man-made" things, such as automobiles or buildings. Such things as wooden boxes with nails in them require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is made by accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need materials to begin with.

That separation of humans from nature is false, a car or a computer is just dirt+time, as you put it. The fact that humans where involved at some point is no different than a star making heavier element at its core.
Of course the processes are differentiable, but both are part of nature, intellect and creativity are part of nature.

Quote:The basis of modern science was laid by careful researchers, a majority of whom believed in the creationist view of the origin of the universe, our planet, and life. These men were brilliant, yet they believed in creation not evolution.

Someone will reply, "Well, we have brilliant men today who are discovering many things." Let me say that it is not difficult for intelligent men to go to universities with large libraries and lots of teachers, obtain doctorates, be hired by firms or educational institutions, enter multimillion-dollar laboratories endowed with private and government grants, and be given an abundance of time to make new discoveries.

But, in earlier years, It took brilliant men to pioneer the discoveries that we today use as stepping stones. They frequently had little in the way of equipment, time, or money, but they had powerful minds and depth of comprehension.

Such men were the leaders in science; we today are the followers. We are talking about such men as Newton, Agassiz, and Kelvin. And those men were generally creationists.

"Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?" Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, (1952 ed.), pp. 389-370 Newton was the father of modern science and the pioneer in optics].

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." J.L.R. Agassiz, in Methods of Study in Natural History [Agassiz was a Harvard professor and the pioneer in the study of glacial geology.

"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us . . The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." Lord Kelvin, Victorian Institutes, No. 124, p. 267 [Kelvin was the pioneer in the study of thermodynamics].

If you really want to think... and really want to have some experience in backing your atheistic beliefs in an intellectual atmosphere, hopefully free of unnecessary retaliation... comment on this... let's reason. I'm not here to make conflict, but to make you think... as the forum is called "The Thinking Atheist"... let's really do some thinking, you'll either be cemented in your belief, or find that you really need to do some more studying to know what you stand for.

Those brilliant men of the past where also wrong in so many things that it's almost impossible to list them all.
Their insights where and are very helpful, but they weren't better than us, they also where just followers of previous ideas, and those previous ideas where based on even older ideas, and so on... Nothing is original, there's nothing new under the sun, but in our constant mixing and testing of the ideas we already have we gain understanding and from time to time something new enough arises.

Lets do some thinking, instead of just tossing statements around.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Food for Thought, Thinking of Evolution?
(16-11-2013 03:04 PM)birdseye Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  We have far more evidence than they did, and insight into the mechanisms of evolution.

And no, science today is not just the follower; ideas and concepts literally inconceivable to those men are today common in scientific thought.

Please join us in the 21st century.

I would like to give you a quick list of who we are "following", and exactly what they provided us to follow. Here are the men who made the fundamental discoveries and inventions that our modern world is based upon(they were all creationists):

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology

Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, computer science

Lord Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology

Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829): thermokenetics

Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects

Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory

Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve

Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer

Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars

James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics

Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery

Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography,

James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics. statistical thermodynamics

Gregor Mandel (1822-1884): genetics

Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph

Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescope,

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination and immunization

Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotopic chemistry

John Ray (1627-1705) natural history

Lord John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis

Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry

Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology

Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686): stratigraphy

Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics

Leonardo de Vinci (1452-1519): hydraulics

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): pathology

John Woodward (1665-1728): paleontology

A list of dead scientists is not an intelligent or informative response to my statement.

As I said, please come join us in the 21st century.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: