![]() |
![]() |
#681 |
Lord of the Pants
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,382
|
The other thing I would like to add is that both references cited in my research are quite dated. I could find no new research on this topic, so if you could further enlighten me, that would be terrific.
Finally, the event of the Holocene also beckons the arrival of Homo Sapiens, neolithic farmer: around this time, agriculture is making its first appearance, and as such, so are the first man-made greenhouse gases that are associated with farming. Perhaps the event of farming also had an impact on the environment? Which leads me to my next point: I would like to examine evidence again put forward by the Potsdam institute. In another research proposal, they used an Earth system model to "investigate the interactions between climatic warming and the shifting of vegetation zones in North Africa and Siberia." They describe Earth system models as, "expanded climate models which describe the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, vegetation and ice masses." The models from this research showed that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, together with associated warming and with increasing precipitation in tropical regions, may have an especially strong influence on the vegetation at the southern margins of the Sahara and in the tundra. And this is the interesting bit: thereby causing parts of the Sahara and the tundra to possibly change. Anyway, I will follow shortly with a hopefully more brief essay on the process of fossilisation, etc. Edited: I forgot to add that both the Sahara and the Antartic are considered to be geographical "hotspots" - the more extreme fluctuations that have occured in these two regions are not considered to be typical of the rest of the world. References: Martin Claussen of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung. 1999. Peter deMenocal of Lamont-Doherty, /Columbia sciences research institute. 1998. Last edited by Sheeana : 05-29-2003 at 01:58 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#682 |
Lord of the Pants
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,382
|
Whoops, did I do a Rian?
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#683 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
![]() This particular discussion begs the question. If the fossil record (ie pollen) extrapolates the weather, then why the leap back to say that this show a change of flora and fauna, since it is the basis of the analysis. What is missing is fossil evidence for extinction, non-migration of species, a lack of island (intra-continental, too) microcosms, etc. There is no basis to say that the presence of certain species somewhere in the drainage basin precludes the existence of any other species there. The pollen record is a limited view of the total biomass and and collected in sediment, reflects only population and not distribution. The pollen record would not document the time involved in the migration, distribution, and growth of species from the time that the conditions became compatible to the species until the time that there was significant pollen generation to record. The only conclusion that can be drawn scientifically is that climatic change can occur relatively rapidly which is not really news. Glaciation occured relatively rapidly as well. The hypothesis of rapid macro-evolution is not supported by any direct fossil evidence to date. ...and please stop using large mammals (i.e. horses) as examples of non-transitional species. The fossil record on these is extremely limited due to the terrestrial nature of the habitat (and that it is delicious). It's not as though we've found millions of fossils and there is no transitional species, but rather there are not enough fossils to judge.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#684 |
Peer of the realm of Sanguine
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Hill, Marlton, NJ
Posts: 798
|
pardon me for digressing, but i believe a bird's -eye view is in order.
"we walk by faith, and not by sight" 2 Corinthians, 5:7 science is the process of observation, hypothesis, testing hypothesis, and further observation. science is a process, not an answer. science is the opposite of faith-- to paraphrase st. paul--to walk by sight, and not by faith. faith and science, like oil and water, do not mix. good theories predict the future. quantum theory has have provided us with the microrchip, the cellphone, and God help us, nuclear energy. the theory of relativity has enabled space travel. yet both theories are irreconcilable: there is yet to be a unified theory. (read stephen hawking's "a brief history of time"). all theories are flawed. we are not endowed with the omniprescience of our creator, therefore we must make do with what we have. the theory of evolution is a hypothesis. it belongs in the science classroom, but it should be taught as a theory, not fact. it's not a bad theory, but it is flawed. faith-based theories such as "creation science" have no business in the science classroom--they are not based on observation, but a combination of faith and science-- that like oil and water, do not mix.
__________________
“"I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider," Fear Complacency! ___________________ Something under the bed is drooling |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#685 | |
Enting
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
however for more info go to drdino.com i recommend the 25,000 dollar offer and the questians section Last edited by Jesus Freak : 05-29-2003 at 04:22 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#686 |
Sapling
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 6
|
Yes evolution should be taught in school, but only as a theory.
it has never and canot be proven so they should say what is thought, but that it is only a theory. let people make up their own minds when they have both sides of the argument. I rest my case.
__________________
*Eomer* |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#687 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hobbiton
Posts: 739
|
Quote:
__________________
Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#688 | |
Enting
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
yes but some of this stuff isn't possible so how can it be a good theory |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#689 |
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
The theory should definitely be thaught at school. It doesn't matter if it's "right" or "wrong". The theory is accepted by a majority in the scientific world, and therefore it should be considered general knowledge to know what evolution is about. You don't have to believe in evolution, but how could you know you don't believe in it, if you haven't been taught what it is?
Let me draw a parallell to the ideology of the Nazis. I think everyone agrees that the kids in school should be taught what the Nazis believed in. Just because the Nazi ideology is "wrong", one shouldn't neglect teaching what it is about. And evolution exists. Now, you might say that it's impossible to prove evolution, but there is always micro-evolution to look at. Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. You can see that right under your microscope. Even if you don't believe that animals evolve, you can't say that evolution doesn't exist. The bacteria and viruses have demonstrated it. Bacteria and viruses do no longer look like they did when God created them. The theory of evolution, good or bad, must be taught. It's general knowledge.
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#690 |
Canadian Guy.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The true North Strong and Free
Posts: 1,513
|
i agree wit jonathan.
you can believe God created the univers and everything in it. I believe he created the beggining of everything, and then everything else evolved from that, so yes, it should be taught in school
__________________
"Canadians are so apathetic, but, what are you gonna do about it" -Glen Foster Wierd Harry Potter quotes ![]() the old nintendo duck hunt game Lemmings Swron Random Homer Simpson Quotes |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#691 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#692 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
![]() I've written out my responses to all your various arguments, and I hope that I can successfully point out to you why I think they're . . . ah, not so accurate. You can completely disagree with me for the argument you posted here: Quote:
![]() I hope I can explain my reasoning adequately. I'll start by making one point inside this same post, about the earlier part of the bit of your post I quoted directly above. Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() That's for fast evolution though, which is one of the things I've most been jumping on whenever I can find things for ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#693 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Thanks again for making the long posts, RÃ*an.
Quote:
However, where does that leave us? The implication in your statement is that morality has to be scientific, and as evolution doesn’t explain it scientifically, it has some problems. It doesn’t matter that evolution doesn’t adequately explain morality, to me, because that’s spiritual. Just as the soul is spiritual. Atheism merely says that the beneficial mutations are random. A more biblically based point of view would see things rather differently, that they were designed that way. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#694 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#695 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Current science's view of chance is that it is random, because they see no reason to believe otherwise. Of course, they have no evidence that Quantum Mechanics actually are controlled by God, so they don't put that into their theories as a possibility. They deal with what they can see, and as you know, no one can see God. Christians can discern his hand in events, sometimes easily. God speaks to us through nature, through what he created. There is no way science has of knowing whether this chance really is random, or whether a divine being directs it completely. As for the morality, I think that that also is an argument against evolution and the physical realm being all that there is. Here again, I agree with you. However, I don't think that you should believe evolution or these current scientific theories to be flawed, simply because Atheists believe that the physical is all that there is. Some Atheists might teach incorrectly about it in schools, ignoring the possibility that there is a supreme being in control. This is simply because they're talking from what they know, just as we speak from what we know. They have part of the story, and they tell what they can see. We have another part of the story (Though plenty of people here will disagree, this is for RÃ*an), and we tell what we can see. It is sad when people learn only a part, and the less important part (The physical) of what is. Just be careful not to misdirect your feelings on this. I believe evolution to be the wrong target, and so are most of the things science teaches at the present time. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#696 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/14/25.html Here's the link to the article I was getting my information from: http://www4.gvsu.edu/lioubime/perso...hange_on_ca.htm Other information I got from the World Book. Last edited by Lief Erikson : 05-30-2003 at 03:06 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#697 | |
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
Quote:
It's easier to prove evolution amongst smaller life forms like bacteria and insects, simply because they breed faster than bigger animals. There is less time between the generations and mutations occur more often. This doesn't mean that human evolution can't be proved, because it already has. I will give an example: 2000 years ago, the Jews in Israel were exiled by the Romans. The Jews then spread over the world to Europe, to Africa etc. Some of the Jews mixed with the population in their new countries. But many of them didn't, they prefered only to have children with other Jews. Therefore, no new genes from the native population were added to the Jewish decendants. 2000 years later, the Jews in Africa have evolved black skin to adapt to the sunny Africa. The Jews in Europe didn't need to evolve black skin since the sunlight is weaker there. Genetic tests show that the African Jews haven't mixed with the other Africans during the 2000 years. However, the test shows that they are more related to the European Jews than they are to any other people on earth, genetically speaking. The African Jews, who developped genes that could make them more resistant to the African sun, survived to a greater extent than those who didn't develop these kind of genes. According to the theory of evolution, the African Jews evolved black skin. I've said it before and I say it again: The theory of evolution should be taught at school. It isn't balsphemy or anything to at least learn what the theory is about.
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#698 | |
Lord of the Pants
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,382
|
Quote:
Last edited by Sheeana : 05-30-2003 at 06:24 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#699 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hobbiton
Posts: 739
|
I looked for a website on how evolution is a religion, but I couldn't find one, and for some reason I must have deleated all of the ones saved to my favorites folder, because they arn't there. Could anyone please help me out by eather explaining it or giving a link to website for HOBBIT and anyone else who needs it? Thanks
![]() Quote:
Rian, could I sher that PM you sent me a while back? You still haven't said if I could or not, unless I missed it. If you did say yes (or no) then please say it again, but pute it in deeppink or another bright color so that I will notice it. ![]()
__________________
Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#700 |
Saviour of Entmoot Admiral
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.)
Posts: 61,986
|
Sam, I believe that the Nazis believed in some type of christianity. That quote though was making a parallell - it doesnt have to do with their ideas on creation or evolution.
Let me repost seomthing i also included in my recent long posts in the religion topic: *SOMEONE in this topic* has said that evolution should not be taught in schools because it will confuse little kids - telling them as FACT that evolution is true and creation is not. How is this any different from when they are born ppl telling them that god is FACT and being taught it in church/temple and religious school. Who gave them a choice to believe??? No one. When presented with a better idea - kids with QUESTION their religion. They will assess WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE for themselves. Many today choose evolution. Are you really that afraid that after THINKING more will choose evolution?
__________________
President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
Catholic Schools Ban Charity | Last Child of Ungoliant | General Messages | 29 | 03-15-2005 04:58 PM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | RÃan | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |
A discussion about Evolution and other scientific theories | Elvellon | General Messages | 1 | 04-11-2002 01:23 PM |
Evolution | IronParrot | Entertainment Forum | 1 | 06-19-2001 03:22 AM |