Page 112 of 115

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 12:09
by qwiksilva666
-Prometheus- wrote:Now JJ, you can say whatever you want. You have clearly not taken to heart what Anakha has said to you. So you, Prime, Rusty, Kalster, and RiaX can continue with your attacks and ridicule against me and others while the mods and admins do nothing to enforce the rules. Just know that while you do that nobody takes you seriously except for yourselfs and I will no longer be a part of what you call debate. As Anakha has pointed out I have taken a lot of undue flak from you people but I will not be staying in this fight. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt but I can once again see the usual culprits. Thank you guys for once again confirming to me that your theory is crap and affirming my belief in God and His creation.

I have already requested for my posts and account to be removed. So cheers I will be moving on now as soon as that happens. Enjoy your lives, if you can with those attitudes of yours.

HAHAHAHA :lol: Basically you cannot handle others opinions and refutation of yours. The only ground you have to stand on is a book (anyone can write a book) and faith (which is more like quicksand actually)

"Just know that while you do that nobody takes you seriously except for yourselfs" Nice lie to comfort your own insecurities.

"Thank you guys for once again confirming to me that your theory is crap and affirming my belief in God and His creation." seriously? no comment lol! :mrgreen:

OK bye. :)

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 12:18
by Anakha56
Guys leave it be please. He has left, there is no point in carrying on with it. If someone else wishes to step in so be it but bashing him while he has left the site is not going to achieve anything...

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 13:02
by RiaX
bah now who am i going to debate with :/

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 13:48
by lancelot
Yourself, it may make more sense.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 14:09
by RiaX
lol

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 14:32
by JollyJamma
lancelot wrote:Yourself, it may make more sense.
LOL!

Well I'm going to argue for religion since no one else will.

I say the bible is true because it tells me so and you are all a bunch of communist scally wags with plots to get me.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 15:12
by RiaX
uhm now thats just plain wrong

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 15:32
by Prime
JollyJamma wrote:
lancelot wrote:Yourself, it may make more sense.
LOL!

Well I'm going to argue for religion since no one else will.

I say the bible is true because it tells me so and you are all a bunch of communist scally wags with plots to get me.
I say you can't play devils advocate, he doesn't exist :P

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 15:36
by KALSTER
I've actually wanted to do this for a while, i.e. argue for religion. Just to see how well I could do. :)

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 17:01
by JollyJamma
RiaX wrote:uhm now thats just plain wrong
Yes...

Ok then Kalstar, I bet we can't even prove religion is right even if we argue for it and Riax uses that massive noggin of his for it.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 17:04
by KALSTER
Guess we'll move it to the non-Christian thread then? Prepare to be saved!

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 18:07
by JollyJamma
This thread has evolved.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 18:21
by Prime
JollyJamma wrote:This thread has evolved.
That's the sort of humour we've come to expect from Stuart :lol: :(

Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 18:27
by Stuart
Prime wrote:
JollyJamma wrote:This thread has evolved.
That's the sort of humour we've come to expect from Stuart :lol: :(
Oi, my humor was created. It did not evolve. Gotit?

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 20:44
by RiaX
JollyJamma wrote:
RiaX wrote:uhm now thats just plain wrong
Yes...

Ok then Kalstar, I bet we can't even prove religion is right even if we argue for it and Riax uses that massive noggin of his for it.

probably not but we can give theoretical physics a run for its money

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 04 Apr 2011, 22:07
by JollyJamma
Not likely, I added Sheldon on FB. Naaat.

Seriously does this thread no longer have a point? Wiki some evolution stuff or something.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 05 Apr 2011, 08:10
by Stuart
JollyJamma wrote:Not likely, I added Sheldon on FB. Naaat.

Seriously does this thread no longer have a point? Wiki some evolution stuff or something.
Every so often something fresh in the news arises for discussion.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 05 Apr 2011, 08:50
by qwiksilva666
Yeah sorry for the attack on that other guy that left. But his post was screaming for responses :)

There was an interesting article I read yesterday of metal books found in a cave in Jordan supposedly with the face of Jesus on one of them....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -find.html

I cant seem to make a face out of the cover though, seems more like a lion. I would like to know what was written in those books though.

And then there is more from those crazy folks at the Westboro Baptist:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12919646

For any one religion there seems to be many branches of that religion with each branch thinking that they know how it should be. Westboro probably being the most extreme of Christianity. Sharia (if that is what it is called) being the most extreme of Islam.

Not sure if this was posted here but it is a good indication of the way people are judged differently for that same things because one is religious and the other atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcR ... ture=feedf

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 01:44
by RiaX
shaw if you need answers on the theory of evolution i suggest you watch carl sagan's cosmos episode 2 its very nicely explained and easy to understand :D

will put a youtube link if i can find one

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 11:01
by JollyJamma
Plz do Riax.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 11:32
by RiaX













Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 07:32
by hamin_aus
online.wsj.com wrote:The Mother of All Languages

The world's 6,000 or so modern languages may have all descended from a single ancestral tongue spoken by early African humans between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago, a new study suggests.

The finding, published Thursday in the journal Science, could help explain how the first spoken language emerged, spread and contributed to the evolutionary success of the human species.

Quentin Atkinson, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and author of the study, found that the first migrating populations leaving Africa laid the groundwork for all the world's cultures by taking their single language with them—the mother of all mother tongues.

"It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that we all are a product of," Dr. Atkinson said.

About 50,000 years ago—the exact timeline is debated—there was a sudden and marked shift in how modern humans behaved. They began to create cave art and bone artifacts and developed far more sophisticated hunting tools. Many experts argue that this unusual spurt in creative activity was likely caused by a key innovation: complex language, which enabled abstract thought. The work done by Dr. Atkinson supports this notion

His research is based on phonemes, distinct units of sound such as vowels, consonants and tones, and an idea borrowed from population genetics known as "the founder effect." That principle holds that when a very small number of individuals break off from a larger population, there is a gradual loss of genetic variation and complexity in the breakaway group.

Dr. Atkinson figured that if a similar founder effect could be discerned in phonemes, it would support the idea that modern verbal communication originated on that continent and only then expanded elsewhere.

In an analysis of 504 world languages, Dr. Atkinson found that, on average, dialects with the most phonemes are spoken in Africa, while those with the fewest phonemes are spoken in South America and on tropical islands in the Pacific.

The study also found that the pattern of phoneme usage globally mirrors the pattern of human genetic diversity, which also declined as modern humans set up colonies elsewhere. Today, areas such as sub-Saharan Africa that have hosted human life for millennia still use far more phonemes in their languages than more recently colonized regions do.

"It's a wonderful contribution and another piece of the mosaic" supporting the out-of-Africa hypothesis, said Ekkehard Wolff, professor emeritus of African Languages and Linguistics at the University of Leipzig in Germany, who read the paper.

Dr. Atkinson's findings are consistent with the prevailing view of the origin of modern humans, known as the "out of Africa" hypothesis. Bolstered by recent genetic evidence, it says that modern humans emerged in Africa alone, about 200,000 years ago. Then, about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, a small number of them moved out and colonized the rest of the world, becoming the ancestors of all non-African populations on the planet.

The origin of early languages is fuzzier. Truly ancient languages haven't left empirical evidence that scientists can study. And many linguists believe it is hard to say anything definitive about languages prior to 8,000 years ago, as their relationships would have become jumbled over the millennia.

But the latest Science paper "and our own observations suggest that it is possible to detect an arrow of time" underlying proto-human languages spoken more than 8,000 years ago, said Murray Gell-Mann of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, who read the Science paper and supports it. The "arrow of time" is based on the notion that it is possible to use data from modern languages to trace their origins back 10,000 years or even further.

Dr. Gell-Mann, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a keen interest in historical linguistics, is co-founder of a project known as Evolution of Human Languages. He concedes that his "arrow of time" view is a minority one.

Only humans have the biological capacity to communicate with a rich language based on symbols and rules, enabling us to pass on cultural ideas to future generations. Without language, culture as we know it wouldn't exist, so scientists are keen to pin down where it sprang from.

Dr. Atkinson's approach has its limits. Genes change slowly, over many generations, while the diversity of phonemes amid a population group can change rapidly as language evolves. While distance from Africa can explain as much as 85% of the genetic diversity of populations, a similar distance measurement can explain only 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity. Dr. Atkinson said the measure is still statistically significant.

Another theory of the origin of modern humans, known as the multi-regional hypothesis, holds that earlier forms of humans originated in Africa and then slowly developed their anatomically modern form in every area of the Old World. This scenario implies that several variants of modern human language could have emerged somewhat independently in different locations, rather than solely in Africa.

Early migrants from Africa probably had to battle significant odds. A founder effect on a breakaway human population tends to reduce its size, genetic complexity and fitness. A similar effect could have limited "the size and cultural complexity of societies at the vanguard of the human expansion" out of Africa, the paper notes.

Image
This is pretty common sense, if you believe the out of Africa/cradle of civilization school of thought - if modern humans did all evolve from a few descendants it is probable they all shared a common language.

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 16 May 2011, 17:39
by jee
Wondering how evolution developed us into creatures who don’t believe in evolution? Mother Jones explains why large numbers of people tend to believe things that make no sense, and why the human brain is averse to evidence and reasoning:
We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
more

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 23 Aug 2011, 16:14
by rustypup
npr wrote: But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."
<..>
To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
<..>
"I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history," he says. "Because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not."
<..>
"This stuff is unavoidable," says Dan Harlow at Calvin College. "Evangelicals have to either face up to it or they have to stick their head in the sand. And if they do that, they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have."

Re: Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Posted: 24 Aug 2011, 10:37
by hamin_aus
they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have.
Cant lose what you never had...