| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 08/14/2004 : 09:23:13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3565132.stm
anybody else sick of shit like this?
"it's a miracle! she had two sets of twins! it's so amazing! WOW!"
"oh by the way she was on fertility drugs and had two embryos shoved up her baby hole."
WELL GEE WHIZ!!!!!! it's like having a story titled:
"MAN JUMPS OFF OF TWO MILE HIGH CLIFF AND SURVIVES UNHARMED!!!!!!"
then halfway through the story mention "he was wearing a parachute for base jumping."
fucking ridiculous. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| paintmeister |
Posted - 09/06/2004 : 01:41:16
I had just started reading a book that has that quote. Thanks for the heads up. I was questioning something else that was mentioned or at least wondering how they got that info. Nice work, Darwin.
|
| darwin |
Posted - 09/04/2004 : 13:16:40
I declare you lazy.
It took me about 10 secs on Google to find the counter argument. Pasted below (there is more on the site) is from Talking Origins if you are really interested in hearing the scientific side of the debate.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html
Concerning the quotation with which this section began, let's repeat it here:
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
- Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17. (p. 5 of The Revised Quote Book)
Since the Revised Quote Book stated that "Prof. Bounoure" had served as the "Director of Research" at the "French National Centre of Scientific Research" I wrote the Center [The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research]. I asked them about the exact origin of the quotation and received the following reply, dated March 3, 1995 (translated by professional French translator, Jacques Benbassat, with some minor editing and paragraphs re-arranged in an easier to follow order):
Dear Mr. Babinski,
The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning the theory of evolution.
Here is the information I was able to gather:
The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.
The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
[Obviously, Bounoure was expressing his distaste at those in his day who argued over the "principles" of evolution, "how" it took place, whether via Lamarckian or Darwinian "evolutionism." Bounoure probably thought that such "principles" were not worth all the "discussions and disagreements" since they were not well understood, were yet to be discovered, and perhaps might not be discovered, i.e., if supernatural intervention into the evolutionary process was accepted. Bounoure was a theist. He also probably thought that more practical scientific investigations needed to be pursued and less "discussions and disagreements." - ED.]
As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions. |
| paintmeister |
Posted - 09/04/2004 : 11:36:20
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Ebb, to use your quote that our knowledge of gravity (or anything) is flawed, but still it exists, then could you not argue that while the physical result is the same, it's quite likely that our understanding of its origins may be slightly or completely wrong (see: early atomic models).
So while gravity does exist, perhaps we only know part of the story.
While the world and life do exist, perhaps they are the result of a process we do not understand. So while it's great to theorize about the big bang because of some observable phenomena, it's still a theory based on observation, and a little bit of an intuitive guess. What makes this type of theory different from creationist theory? I'm not talking about people who disregard proven science, but general theorists.
Now there are some, particularly on the creationist side, who ignore the clues that we've found which completely discredits them (at least to me), but there are people who have non-traditional creationalist theories that do so in full light of and with the help of scientific evidence.
There are also those on the scientific side who believe too strongly in their own theories and refuse to let go, whatever evidence might be presented against it. Because they grow to believe in their theories just as creationists grow to believe in theirs.
Ideal science would dictate that we only draw conclusions from what we know, but in a field such as this, people take guesses that they find logical based on what they know (and don't). Guessing, even educated guessing, isn't scientific fact until it's been proven conclusively and indisputably. Up until that point, it's a hypothesis and a leap of faith. Sound like creationism a little?
Having said that, I am a scientist, and absolutely blind creationism doesn't really sit well with me, either. I'm just saying that not all creationists are blind, not all scientists are unbiased, and that from a hypothesis point-of-view, the two are much the same.
 "When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?"
Here's a quote from Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France "Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups"
Obviously, a quote from an extremely uneducated individual. (sarcasm intended)
I've added Cult's post because I declare him the winner.
|
| Hanoi333 |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 01:17:14
Thanks Eberus and Ebb Vicious for your answers.
Sorry Ebb I think I really was very off topic, I thought this thread was about science, so I asked a scientific question. I will retreat now so you guys can continue your debates. |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 10:20:36
just like a person thrown into the deep end of a pool may NOT learn how to swim, a person surrounded by a foreign language may not learn it. but it is a method by which many people have learned languages. mormon missionaries in particular are usually only given about four weeks of training on whatever language they will be speaking wherever they are sent. they pick most of it up by interacting with people. a friend of mine who was never a strong student in school picked up taiwanese (a form of mandarin i think?) pretty fluently while he was on his mission, which was two years long, but he said he was speaking fluently within the first year.
a baby is in the proper mindset to learn. whereas, sadly, most adults are not.
edit:
also, your post was totally off topic for this thread and you probably should have started a new thread about it if you really wanted a response. you're just lucky i was curious what people were saying in my thread. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 08:14:24
I'm hardly more knowledgeable but I have read that regarding language acquisition, as well as other diverse skills, there is a relatively narrow opportunity for optimal development, as you say, during infancy. Though I'm certain someone can say something much more helpful, my guess is that the process underlying this remains more than a little mysterious. I assume it has to do with stages of cortical development of rather specific brain "regions". |
| Hanoi333 |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 06:24:46
I really would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable on this subject could react on my posting, so I try it one more time (see message above) |
| Hanoi333 |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 05:00:03
I don`t know whether I fall in the middle of an interesting discussion, but I have a question that I would like to see answered by some biologist or psychologists.
Here it comes:
When you were a baby, you were suddenly able to understand and speak a complete language in less than 3 years (actually I even think the period that a baby starts learning a lot of words is even within 1 year or so) Baby`s can even learn more than 1 language at the same time, but when you are an adult it`s suddenly very difficult to comprehend, speak, read etc another language, even when learned on a school. You suddenly have to follow annoying courses to finally understand a foreign language just for a little bit. How come?
There are also people who will tell you that you will learn another language when you are constantly in another environment with that language (That`s what seem to happen to baby`s but not with adults). Well, that`s untrue according to me, because if that was true I would be able to speak arabian right now, since if live in a neighborhood surrounded by many arabian speaking persons (shops, neighbors, bus, etc). I even donot know one arabian word!
Can somebody explain to me how this comes (the difference in learning language between baby`s and adults), and what would be the best method for an adult to learn another language?
|
| twist |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 23:23:21
Like the Bruhathkayosaurus (44 m 144 ft). I think tribolites had the longest species life span. Being tough doesn't equal survival, it's adaptation. Human babies are the most helpless of any animal. My point? Cosmic mysteries are cool. Maybe humans evolved by spending too much time at the beach, if you're in the water too long you'll stand up and lose your body hair (women spent more time in the water while the guys went hunting) some mammals jumped in the water and never came back whales, dolphins, seals evolved from land mammals, maybe we could have wound up like them, like the future humans as described in Vonneguts' Galapagos - less brain, more streamlined, better fisherfolk. I like that more than the we stood up to throw spears theory. I read this many years ago, is there any scholarly evidence to support amphibiously generated evolution? It never ceases to amaze me the trillions of chance events that led to us sentient manipulators, whatever those events were. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 21:56:47
Like the Behemoth, or the Leviathan?
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 19:30:05
if you really think we have complete control over our environments you've never been in an earthquake or tornado.
an individual human is a weak, frail thing. especially compared to many other organisms. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 16:49:29
There's that warm glowy feeling again.
The zombies are on my side, they're dissing you for being rude. The cross eyed cop says hi though.
 I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 16:16:51
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
Why am I being so fucking ignored on this stupid thread?
It's because no-one likes you.
Say Hi to the zombies for me.
Kind regards,
Dr. Simon
Specialist In Broken Hearts |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:26:55
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
I'm going to watch dawn of the dead now. And drink coffee.
enjoy the movie tre!
 "tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:23:04
thanks darwin, that's a lot of reading.......see why i didn't want to get involved. i've been working the whole time, it's tough flippng windows back and forth and trying to concentrate on both. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:19:00
Maybe but I've said it three times now, I'm trying to take the time and the effort to dumb this shit down as far as I can because I realise a lot of people won't understand the general concepts because they haven't studied it. I thought it would be better doing it this way than providing a link (not that I'm digging at darwin here), I thought it'd make it more accesible and stupidly I thought it might be interesting to some people too. But what do I know. I'm going to watch dawn of the dead now. And drink coffee. And put my notes and books away. I give in.
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:14:10
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
I haven't finished it yet shine!
How many times do I have to tell people that!
It's not a sweeping the cell was made in x a way, it's a big fuvking thing and it's taking ages to type and I have had other things to do, I'll finish it in the next couple of hours 'cos I still haven't decided what film to watch yet.
Why am I being so fucking ignored on this stupid thread?
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
sorry tre. i guess it won't work if you paraphrase, eh? get mad at darwin he said it was already covered. and i didn't see your last post before the above one.
"tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
| darwin |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:09:39
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
ya i read that. i thought you might be referring to something else. i should have said "i'm not reading the whole thread again because i couldn't find it the first two times through". could you please quote and highlight the part explaining the first single cell.
Here is a link:
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm
|
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:04:43
I haven't finished it yet shine!
How many times do I have to tell people that!
It's not a sweeping the cell was made in x a way, it's a big fuvking thing and it's taking ages to type and I have had other things to do, I'll finish it in the next couple of hours 'cos I still haven't decided what film to watch yet.
Why am I being so fucking ignored on this stupid thread?
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 15:00:59
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
1. not gonna bother reading the whole thread, what was the general gist of it?
Pretty lame. You can spend your time reading if you really care.
ya i read that. i thought you might be referring to something else. i should have said "i'm not reading the whole thread again because i couldn't find it the first two times through". could you please quote and highlight the part explaining the first single cell. |
| darwin |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:49:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
why don't you just do some reading of more reliable sources and save us all the trouble?
May I suggest
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution
by Douglas J. Futuyma |
| darwin |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:44:45
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
1. not gonna bother reading the whole thread, what was the general gist of it?
Pretty lame. You can spend your time reading if you really care. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:43:40
shine,
1.top of this page hunny, I spent hours typing it, it's not finished yet, I've been busy
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 14:38:04
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
1. Not an evolution question, but was adressed earlier in this thread.
2. There are many (for example the evolution of horses is very nicely documented in the fossil record). But, creationist always explain them away. For example, Acheopterxy (I can't spell) is dismissed as being too bird-like to be a transition.
3a We're not the "top of the food chain". A shark is quite capable of eating you.
3b If you believe there is top (I don't) there can only be one by definition.
3c How are you measuring success? There are more ants and beetles than humans. Other species are stronger and faster. ect.
1. not gonna bother reading the whole thread, what was the general gist of it?
2. as far as i know (no education, i'm a dummy  ) they've only found a few (like 5) archeopteryx fossils. and i havn't even heard of any others. like a fish with partially formed legs for example.
3a. c'mon darwin, yes we are! we eat far more shark than they eat human. we have almost complete control over our environment.
3b. ya, i worded that pretty poorly, why don't we have any close competitor's? you would think that all life forms would want to gain that control.
3c. see 3a and 3b.
"tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:56:59
thats why it's called the theory of evolution which I think a good many people choose not to notice
and it's true, watson and crick wouldn't be as famous as they is today if it weren't for a mathematical mistake, there were some crazy DNA models back then, woo did they look funny
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:48:54
Ebb, to use your quote that our knowledge of gravity (or anything) is flawed, but still it exists, then could you not argue that while the physical result is the same, it's quite likely that our understanding of its origins may be slightly or completely wrong (see: early atomic models).
So while gravity does exist, perhaps we only know part of the story.
While the world and life do exist, perhaps they are the result of a process we do not understand. So while it's great to theorize about the big bang because of some observable phenomena, it's still a theory based on observation, and a little bit of an intuitive guess. What makes this type of theory different from creationist theory? I'm not talking about people who disregard proven science, but general theorists.
Now there are some, particularly on the creationist side, who ignore the clues that we've found which completely discredits them (at least to me), but there are people who have non-traditional creationalist theories that do so in full light of and with the help of scientific evidence.
There are also those on the scientific side who believe too strongly in their own theories and refuse to let go, whatever evidence might be presented against it. Because they grow to believe in their theories just as creationists grow to believe in theirs.
Ideal science would dictate that we only draw conclusions from what we know, but in a field such as this, people take guesses that they find logical based on what they know (and don't). Guessing, even educated guessing, isn't scientific fact until it's been proven conclusively and indisputably. Up until that point, it's a hypothesis and a leap of faith. Sound like creationism a little?
Having said that, I am a scientist, and absolutely blind creationism doesn't really sit well with me, either. I'm just saying that not all creationists are blind, not all scientists are unbiased, and that from a hypothesis point-of-view, the two are much the same.
"When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:28:27
um yeah I should finish off that cell shit... ok I'll do it now while I decide what film to watch..
I always thought that the best of the species was the bacteria. Or cockroaches. Or Brummies ()
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| darwin |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:26:24
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
1. how did the first single cell come to be?
2. why is there a lack/abundance of transitional fossils?
3. why did only one species evolve to be "top of the food chain"
edit - ie. we have no close competitors, why?
For the record: i am not a creationist or a nutcase, fucker.
1. Not an evolution question, but was adressed earlier in this thread.
2. There are many (for example the evolution of horses is very nicely documented in the fossil record). But, creationist always explain them away. For example, Acheopterxy (I can't spell) is dismissed as being too bird-like to be a transition.
3a We're not the "top of the food chain". A shark is quite capable of eating you.
3b If you believe there is top (I don't) there can only be one by definition.
3c How are you measuring success? There are more ants and beetles than humans. Other species are stronger and faster. ect. |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:08:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
please point out some holes in evolution, i'd love to read them.
1. how did the first single cell come to be?
2. why is there a lack/abundance of transitional fossils?
3. why did only one species evolve to be "top of the food chain"
edit - ie. we have no close competitors, why?
For the record: i am not a creationist or a nutcase, fucker. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 12:08:23
I watched it last night also, uma thurmans feet are bloody horrible
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| harringk |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 11:50:28
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
Post the propaganda, I'll print it and use it for toilet paper...
OUCH!! I hope you use 2-ply printer paper.
I got lazy last night and watched Kill Bill Vol. 2 instead of doing my homework. Excellent Movie! Classic Tarantino, very entertaining. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/20/2004 : 05:14:53
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote]Oh, and for Harringk and any other creationists who might be hanging around here, do you deny the accuracy of carbon-14 dating?
I was wondering if we were going to get around to this. I can't say I dismiss it out of hand, but I have run across people in my reading who seriously question the validity of it.
More homework for me, I'll post some crazy creationist propaganda and you can counter it.
Post the propaganda, I'll print it and use it for toilet paper...
Seriously though, I think a good number of people pick up these "popular science" books and read them and then quote them too much as fact when what most of them are, is personal opinion from a scientist with a bias, popular science on my side of the bias (Dawkins, Jay Gould and the like) makes interesting reading, it's nice sometimes to see science put in a accesible form for the masses but I would never automatically take them as fact, I prefer primary reading material with actual workable facts and hypothesis rather than opinionated literature that has taken primary sources and twisted it to the suit that fits them best.
This makes me frown
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 19:13:09
why don't you just do some reading of more reliable sources and save us all the trouble? |
| harringk |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:54:32
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote]Oh, and for Harringk and any other creationists who might be hanging around here, do you deny the accuracy of carbon-14 dating?
I was wondering if we were going to get around to this. I can't say I dismiss it out of hand, but I have run across people in my reading who seriously question the validity of it.
More homework for me, I'll post some crazy creationist propaganda and you can counter it. |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 18:42:03
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
I would love to see a conversation on this topic between yourself and someone with my point of view who was properly educated and able to debate on your level.
the point is anyone who is properly educated won't have your point of view. your point of view stems from ignorance. |
|
|
