NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahh well this is an age old NS argument (evolution v creation), but I'm pretty annoyed...see, I went into uni to do a recording assignment (we had to do a location recording...so we recorded a few people doing solo sets in the students union. It was part of a Christian Union thing where all the cu members could bring along non-Christian friends). There was a bit where you could ask the cu members, and a couple of guests, questions about Christianity. Someone asked "If God created everything, what about evolution?". There were a few good answers that I'm not gonna pick at, because everyones entitled to their own beliefs. But one guy really irritated me. He said that Physics and Chemistry disprove evolution...I asked him to explain...and he went on to twist and misquote laws of Physics. And when I corrected him, he just didn't listen, and refused to discuss it any further.

I don't quite know where I'm going with this. Just felt like a rant. And I've also been drinking a little. And I got snowed on and it's freezing cold so I'm not in a great mood. Anywho, rant over :p Feel free to argue (yes, again) about creation/evolution....*ducks for cover*

For some reason the Christian Society folk at Man. Uni avoid handing me their leaflets.

For some reason the Christian Society folk at Man. Uni avoid handing me their leaflets.
You're at Manchester uni? I'm at Salford. I think they'll be avoiding me from now on :D

*Doesn't misquote physics laws*

Happy?

*Doesn't misquote physics laws*

Happy?

Ecstatic :p

The third law of Jewnomics spefically states in Leviticus 13:37, you are all sux0rz and G-d exists, you brainwashed dumb athestis rofl! OMG ~+!_~!_E

... And it was so.... :D

If cancer is our love, then I hope you don't have the technology of chemotherapy.

That's probably the corniest, most unromantic statement ever to shit with pen on paper. I sure hope its never been used...for your sake...

Haven't tried it yet...but it Bloodninja said it...it must be good! :D

Haven't tried it yet...but it Bloodninja said it...it must be good! :D

Bloodninja obviously has no grasp of poetry.

Perhaps at some fundamental level both Evolution and Creationism can be correct. We know that plants and animals existed before us, as their remains are scattered all over the place. We also know that DNA exists, and that it changes over time. We've used genetics to clone genetically altered sheep, mice, fish, and now a cat.

And yet, we cannot say that nature is the only tool responsible for our creation. The mysteries behind our sentience cannot be explained simply as a product of nature, for we still consider the artificial and the natural to be two separate things. There is no other creature on this earth like us, and unless some scientific explanation can be given for this remarkable fact, religious interpretations are all that we have.

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.

Perhaps at some fundamental level both Evolution and Creationism can be correct. We know that plants and animals existed before us, as their remains are scattered all over the place. We also know that DNA exists, and that it changes over time. We've used genetics to clone genetically altered sheep, mice, fish, and now a cat.

And yet, we cannot say that nature is the only tool responsible for our creation. The mysteries behind our sentience cannot be explained simply as a product of nature, for we still consider the artificial and the natural to be two separate things. There is no other creature on this earth like us, and unless some scientific explanation can be given for this remarkable fact, religious interpretations are all that we have.

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.
Thankyouverymuch, now my eyes hurt

Thankyouverymuch, now my eyes hurt
Oh come now, the blue is quite soothing.

Thankyouverymuch, now my eyes hurt

LOL but I made the writing super big for those out there with 1600 X 1400 resolutions!

We thank you for that....and for those of us using 800*600?

Perhaps at some fundamental level both Evolution and Creationism can be correct. We know that plants and animals existed before us, as their remains are scattered all over the place. We also know that DNA exists, and that it changes over time. We've used genetics to clone genetically altered sheep, mice, fish, and now a cat.

And yet, we cannot say that nature is the only tool responsible for our creation. The mysteries behind our sentience cannot be explained simply as a product of nature, for we still consider the artificial and the natural to be two separate things. There is no other creature on this earth like us, and unless some scientific explanation can be given for this remarkable fact, religious interpretations are all that we have.

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.
[1]Calm down with font.
[2]Not true that we are the only ones to have one thing and the other, but besides the point, that doesn't mean that there is some inherent mystery. Were you brought up in a hole or did you just go to Christian school?

Perhaps at some fundamental level both Evolution and Creationism can be correct. We know that plants and animals existed before us, as their remains are scattered all over the place. We also know that DNA exists, and that it changes over time. We've used genetics to clone genetically altered sheep, mice, fish, and now a cat.

And yet, we cannot say that nature is the only tool responsible for our creation. The mysteries behind our sentience cannot be explained simply as a product of nature, for we still consider the artificial and the natural to be two separate things. There is no other creature on this earth like us, and unless some scientific explanation can be given for this remarkable fact, religious interpretations are all that we have.

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.
No size for you. No bold for you. No color for you.

Jesus. The ignorance displayed in this post is astounding. There are plenty of species that have a developed language. They just don't write because they don't have any fucking opposable thumbs!

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.

That's not quite true, other species have cultures. By culture (I feel I should explain my definition, lest there be some confusion) I mean that diffrent groups do things diffrently, have diffrent skills and that these things are taught to the next generation. Elephants are one example. They pass their knowledge of their paths to the newer generations, desert elephants, jungle elephants, African or Asian. Some African elephants are known to enter caves known to have mineral deposits in order to suppliment their diets, others have been known to dig in oasises to make a deeper pool for the water to rush into giving easier access. Same skill, applied diffrently to diffrent applications.

Chimps, Orang-Utan, Apes and other simeions have varied cultures. There is a troop of Babboon who now hunt Flamingo, a new skill aquired within the last decade and now passed on to a new generation. Diffrent packs of Chimps have differing ways to open nuts and shells. Some use tools, some don't. Some even make a instrument to obtain ants from within a tree.

Anyway, no one probably wants to hear me blah on about Natural History, carry on!

For some reason the Christian Society folk at Man. Uni avoid handing me their leaflets.

For some reason the Christian Union people have stopped trying to convert me too :confused:

You could always try to get even at them by misquoting the Bible back...

"Care to explain what God was doing when Jesus parted the Atlantic ocean by burning a bush and turned Mary into a pillar of salt? Well?"

Okay... probably wouldn't work but it'd still be fun to try.

For some reason the Christian Union people have stopped trying to convert me too :confused:
One time in Canada, this guy walked up to me on the street and started screaming scripture at me. I told him to bugger off, and crossed the street. He stayed on the other side of the street for a bit, but followed me, and crossed again later and started yelling some more. He then proceeded to just start babbling random syllables and clutching at me, with the end result of me hitting him a few times. After that, he for some odd reason decided to lay down on the sidewalk and whisper to himself in French.

Wow, that has nothing to do with anything, really. But it's funny, I guess.

RADIOHEAD!!!!!!


well, in your sig at least Rass. Fitter, Happier off OK Computer. Ah, loved that album.

RADIOHEAD!!!!!!


well, in your sig at least Rass. Fitter, Happier off OK Computer. Ah, loved that album.
Mwahaha...
BLARGistania is even more off-topic than I, and directly after my post, therefore distracting everybody from my ramblings!
My evil plan to save the world begins!

Hi-ho, Silver!!

Someone asked "If God created everything, what about evolution?". There were a few good answers that I'm not gonna pick at, because everyones entitled to their own beliefs. But one guy really irritated me. He said that Physics and Chemistry disprove evolution...I asked him to explain...and he went on to twist and misquote laws of Physics. And when I corrected him, he just didn't listen, and refused to discuss it any further.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun! -- MC Hawking

One time in Canada, this guy walked up to me on the street and started screaming scripture at me. I told him to bugger off, and crossed the street. He stayed on the other side of the street for a bit, but followed me, and crossed again later and started yelling some more. He then proceeded to just start babbling random syllables and clutching at me, with the end result of me hitting him a few times. After that, he for some odd reason decided to lay down on the sidewalk and whisper to himself in French.

Wow, that has nothing to do with anything, really. But it's funny, I guess.

:o

Reminds me when I was walking down Deansgate with my sister once and this women came up to me and started screaming at me how I was going to hell with all the other homosexuals in the world and that if I ever touched her children she would report me to the police.

Odd, to say the least.

:o

Reminds me when I was walking down Deansgate with my sister once and this women came up to me and started screaming at me how I was going to hell with all the other homosexuals in the world and that if I ever touched her children she would report me to the police.

Odd, to say the least.
:confused:
"Other homosexuals"?
Where'd she get that from?

:confused:
"Other homosexuals"?
Where'd she get that from?

I have no idea.

She just assumed I was gay, no idea where from though.

Now now, Calm down everyone. I'm a born and bred scientist, so I know that what I said might sound a little weird to a rationally organized mind. But I know enough about science to know that it solves but a fraction of the mysteries that life holds.

For instance, we know what inertial mass is, and we know what gravitational mass is. They are two completely different variables, were discovered separately, and have never been mathematically proven to be one and the same. And yet we find that they are. How is it that mass extrapolated from resistance to gravitational pull is the exact same value as mass extrapolated from that gravitational force itself? The answer is as elusive as the answer to the question of what happens to us after death.

I have progressed through Quantum Mechanics and through Nth order Differential Equations, and I have concluded that the farther one travels from the concreteness of classical science and mathematics, the closer one comes to the bizarre realm of what I can only describe as the spiritual beyond. String Theory and Chaos Theory alone yield enough new frontiers of scientific mystery to allow for anyone's spiritual beliefs.

I firmly feel that, if a world of Pluralism is to survive beyond this century, it will need ideologies that bridge the gap between secularism and religiosity. Neither corner is powerful enough to completely dominate the other, and the only other real alternative I can think of is that we tear each other to pieces over our differences, which I would rather not have to witness.

She just assumed I was gay, no idea where from though.

it was probably your faaabulous sense of style

Khudros- if I need the font bigger, I'll do it myself. Have pity on those with older eyes..
Anyway, misquoting Laws of Physics just makes me laugh. You can misquote all you like, have it completely wrong--

BUT YOU WILL OBEY THEM!!! MWAAHHAHAHA!

Every opposite reaction has an equal and reactionary action.

And yet, we cannot say that nature is the only tool responsible for our creation. The mysteries behind our sentience cannot be explained simply as a product of nature, for we still consider the artificial and the natural to be two separate things.
Who's this we? I dont consider the two to be mutually exclusive, indeed I consider that all things artificial are a subset of all things natural.

There is no other creature on this earth like us, and unless some scientific explanation can be given for this remarkable fact, religious interpretations are all that we have.
You must be joking, there is no other creature on the earth exactly like any creature of another species, humans are not unique in this regard. Only lions are exactly like lions, hardly mysterious, if anything else were exactly like a lion it wouldnt be anything else but a lion...

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]
I dont see it as being any more significant than platypusses being the only mammal to lay eggs, no big deal really. That's just how things are. Further I'm not convinced that we are the only creatures (on earth) to have culture, although at the end of things this probably depends on one's definition of culture. That other animals dont have vocabularly isnt that mysterious when we consider that they are biologically not equipped to utter words...and since writing is a media for transmitting words, one wouldnt expect the 'wordless' to have much use for writing...

I dont see it as being any more significant than platypusses being the only mammal to lay eggs, no big deal really. That's just how things are. Further I'm not convinced that we are the only creatures (on earth) to have culture, although at the end of things this probably depends on one's definition of culture. That other animals dont have vocabularly isnt that mysterious when we consider that they are biologically not equipped to utter words...and since writing is a media for transmitting words, one wouldnt expect the 'wordless' to have much use for writing...

The plural is platypi, and they're not the only member of the monotreme family (mammals that lay eggs). Echidnas are also monotremes.

Animals have culture, and most definantly have vocabulary. They may not be biologically equipped to 'utter words' in the human sense, but that doesn't mean anything. Anyone with a cat or a dog will know that their pets talk to them - they emit different sounds depending on their needs, and no two sounds are used for the same thing. Is this not rudimentary language? ALL animals have some kind of language, even insects (which signal in various ways to indicate threats, defensive strategies or attract mates) - it doesn't MATTER that they cannot 'speak' in the human sense. They undeniably have language, and by extension have culture (as is it not true that the possession of language or some means of communication are vital in the definition of a culture?). Any animal with a hierarchical structure has a culture; any animal that follows ritual for hunting or mating or even living together has a culture. Good examples are wolves, lions and dolphins - all have distinct languages (and even regional dialects in the cases of dolphins, particularly orcas, in which regional dialects are well documented), all have rituals and practices for daily life, and all have a well-defined family structure, which is another point of culture.

Don't tell me animals don't have culture to elevate the position of humans on this planet - we may be the highest form of evolution on this planet, but when it comes to culture and language, we're anything but unique.

Ahh well this is an age old NS argument (evolution v creation), but I'm pretty annoyed...see, I went into uni to do a recording assignment (we had to do a location recording...so we recorded a few people doing solo sets in the students union. It was part of a Christian Union thing where all the cu members could bring along non-Christian friends). There was a bit where you could ask the cu members, and a couple of guests, questions about Christianity. Someone asked "If God created everything, what about evolution?". There were a few good answers that I'm not gonna pick at, because everyones entitled to their own beliefs. But one guy really irritated me. He said that Physics and Chemistry disprove evolution...I asked him to explain...and he went on to twist and misquote laws of Physics. And when I corrected him, he just didn't listen, and refused to discuss it any further.

I don't quite know where I'm going with this. Just felt like a rant. And I've also been drinking a little. And I got snowed on and it's freezing cold so I'm not in a great mood. Anywho, rant over :p Feel free to argue (yes, again) about creation/evolution....*ducks for cover*
What laws? And how were they misquoted?

The plural is platypi, and they're not the only member of the monotreme family (mammals that lay eggs). Echidnas are also monotremes.
With regards to spelling, good luck trying to improve the spelling attempts of a dyslexic person...
Unless the echidnas are identical to platypi (I believe correctly spelled this time ;) ), my point remains that all species are unlike other species in some regard or another (else they wouldnt be different species), although I stand corrected with regards to playtpi being the only mammal to lay eggs, and am happy to not disagree on this point (frankly I dont know what echidnas :confused: are so you're more qualified to comment in that regard).

Animals have culture, and most definantly have vocabulary. They may not be biologically equipped to 'utter words' in the human sense, but that doesn't mean anything. Anyone with a cat or a dog will know that their pets talk to them - they emit different sounds depending on their needs, and no two sounds are used for the same thing. Is this not rudimentary language?
No it's a form of communication, not a language, so far as I understand vocabulary are the discrete words within a language, that being so, unless one 'has language' one does not have a vocabularly.

ALL animals have some kind of language, even insects (which signal in various ways to indicate threats, defensive strategies or attract mates) - it doesn't MATTER that they cannot 'speak' in the human sense.
There are several criteria that defines something as a language and according to that criteria what spiders do is not a language.

They undeniably have language, and by extension have culture (as is it not true that the possession of language or some means of communication are vital in the definition of a culture?).
I dont know that language is a necessary condition for culture, however I do know that necessary and sufficient are not the same things.

Any animal with a hierarchical structure has a culture; any animal that follows ritual for hunting or mating or even living together has a culture. Good examples are wolves, lions and dolphins - all have distinct languages (and even regional dialects in the cases of dolphins, particularly orcas, in which regional dialects are well documented), all have rituals and practices for daily life, and all have a well-defined family structure, which is another point of culture.
Actually culture must be 'learned' as opposed to 'instinctive'. I personally dont hold that only humans have culture, but I do understand that to demonstrate this, I would need to prove that patterns of behaviour shared amongst a species or group, and learned (ie from other's of their group).

Don't tell me animals don't have culture to elevate the position of humans on this planet - we may be the highest form of evolution on this planet, but when it comes to culture and language, we're anything but unique.
I didnt, in fact I implied that humans may not be the only animals to have culture... :confused: perhaps you misread or confused my comments with that in another post you read on the thread....

Evidently I'm not convinced that evolution is a ladder, I dont see that 'higher' or 'better' or what have you are valid qualities with regards to evolution. Best adapted is relative to what a thing is adapted to. Highest and better assume some absolute ideal that makes them (in my opinion) not applicable with regards to evolution.

The third law of Jewnomics spefically states in Leviticus 13:37, you are all sux0rz and G-d exists, you brainwashed dumb athestis rofl! OMG ~+!_~!_E

... And it was so.... :D

Can I quote you on that when I get to hell?

Even the most diehard atheist can't escape the fact that humans are the only known entities on this earth to have vocabulary, culture, writing, etc, and must accept the fact that there remain inherent mysteries which accompany the earthly phenomenon that is humanity.

Incorrect. Several animals have vocabulary. All of the ones with vocabulary have culture (and some that don't have vocabulary have culture anyway). As far as writing goes, that would really depend on your definition. several animals have shown the ability to express concepts in artistic fassion using writing/painting utilities. The lack of sophistication does not disqualify it.

The fact is that humans are just one iteration or two further along the same lines that all the other great apes are, and on similar lines with dolphins, whales, crows, and parrots. Not accepting the similarities between man and other intelligent animals is a form of arrogance.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun! -- MC Hawking


Nothing like rap music from a speak and spell.

The Proof (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/harlesburg/UsamaBinBerta.jpg) :eek:

Now now, Calm down everyone. I'm a born and bred scientist, so I know that what I said might sound a little weird to a rationally organized mind. But I know enough about science to know that it solves but a fraction of the mysteries that life holds.

For instance, we know what inertial mass is, and we know what gravitational mass is. They are two completely different variables, were discovered separately, and have never been mathematically proven to be one and the same. And yet we find that they are. How is it that mass extrapolated from resistance to gravitational pull is the exact same value as mass extrapolated from that gravitational force itself? The answer is as elusive as the answer to the question of what happens to us after death.

I have progressed through Quantum Mechanics and through Nth order Differential Equations, and I have concluded that the farther one travels from the concreteness of classical science and mathematics, the closer one comes to the bizarre realm of what I can only describe as the spiritual beyond. String Theory and Chaos Theory alone yield enough new frontiers of scientific mystery to allow for anyone's spiritual beliefs.

I firmly feel that, if a world of Pluralism is to survive beyond this century, it will need ideologies that bridge the gap between secularism and religiosity. Neither corner is powerful enough to completely dominate the other, and the only other real alternative I can think of is that we tear each other to pieces over our differences, which I would rather not have to witness.
Decolourised, debolded, downsized.
Khudros, I also am a scientist, currently studying maths - and yes, I'm studying String Theory and Chaos Theory, Nth order DEs, and Quantum Mech. through the Phys Department. Yes, these topics are downright weird - they mess with your mind, pull your neurones into extraordinary acrobatical feats, and most of all start you wondering which drugs the pure mathematicians were on, and where can you get some for the exam tomorrow.

I don't quite see how they translate into a closeness to a spiritual realm, though ... I've never had a religious experience from maths.

For some reason the Christian Union people have stopped trying to convert me too :confused:

This is interesting. Maybe they can sense communism. I'm quite sure I don't look like a typical 'Anarchist'.

Have pity on those with older eyes..
Anyway, misquoting Laws of Physics just makes me laugh. You can misquote all you like, have it completely wrong--

BUT YOU WILL OBEY THEM!!! MWAAHHAHAHA!


That's what the bigger font's for.
Would you mind explaining to me how I have misquoted the Laws of Physics? Unless you can prove that inertial and gravitational mass are the same thing, I do not think that I have.