or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing... - Page 5  

post #161 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Evolution....creationism....we're all ignoring another possibility: "Interventionism". Perhaps the Earth is "someone else"'s petri dish and all life here is a "cosmic experiment", or a "species bank". Once it gets going, it requires little maintenance, just some observation or the collection of samples just like some of our scientific experimernts here. Farfetched? Wacky? Perhaps, but no weirder or outlandish than biblical "creationism".

What about "Hitchhikersguideianism", which says that the Earth is a giant computer designed by mice to calculate the question to the answer to the meaning of life?
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
post #162 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Actually, I did bring this up as being in the range of possibilities before, although more in the guise of divine interventionism rather than alien. In another context (not this particular thread) I've spoken before about the possibility of alien involvement.

Of course, the possiblility of alien involvement and the probability are two different things. Also, just like when you bring divine beings into the question, you have to ask what explanatory value aliens would add.

If you've dug up remains of very old, complex technological artifacts from well before the age of man, proposing aliens adds explanatory value. If you haven't, and you're simply proposing aliens because life seems too amazing or complex, so you're looking for a source of intelligence to create or direct that complexity, you're just moving the problem you're trying to answer, not solving it. Now you have to solve where the aliens came from and how the aliens reached their advanced state. More aliens that gave those aliens their start? Turtles all the way down?

I can think of speculative reasons to contemplate alien involvement. For example, let's take the assumption of natural biogenesis -- the chemical precursor to biological evolution -- but suppose that, although it can and has happened, it turns out to be so difficult and unlikely that it only occurs on one out of billions or trillions or more of worlds with suitable environments. If this is true, but life is still found on many worlds, then proposing alien assistance in establishing life on many of those worlds would have useful explanatory value.

But since we have no knowledge yet of the abundance of life or lack thereof outside of our own little planet, since (although I'm sure some Area 51 fans might disagree) we have no solid evidence of ancient or current intelligent alien life, and since we don't have any way to calculate the probability of spontaneous biogenesis -- throwing aliens into the picture, to use the wording of Occam's Razor, is simply a needless multiplication of entities.

One of the difficulties re. "have aliens been here, and are they still visiting" is the official public position of disinterest, and ridicule in the subject. If a "UFO" landed in the middle of Central Park with thousands of witnesses, how would anyone know for sure it was the "real thing", whatever that may be (we have no idea), or an elaborate hoax? Many people witness things, often with radar conformation, that defy standard explanations. The US Govt's own surveys into this stuff found that some 95% of "sightings" could be explained normally, but there were always those pesky 5% that remain unknowns. This is a pretty consistent ratio with UFO sightings. However, these phenomena happen to "a few people at a time", not en masse. And...how can you study something in the moment that occurs at random times and places, out of our control? If the president suddenly announced to the American (and world's) people one evening in an address from the White House that "we are not alone" in the universe, with all the big media hoopla to go with it, would you believe him, and why? Would an pronouncement be more believable than the testimony of military and airline pilots?

In the 1950s, one reason stated to keep the subject "above top secret" was the fear of "mass panic and the collapse of traditional religious institutions". Why has this subject has been relegated to the bailiwick of loonytunes publications like the Weekly World News etc., when the knowledge of "is there other life out there" is considered one of the holy grails of science? There is far too much circumstantial evidence to ignore it, or not to study this seriously.

I realize this is a little bit of a sidebar to the topic...but still relevant.
http://www.mufon.com/fastfacts.htm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #163 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
mind purge

What gives you the sense that all mutations are bad?

You must realize that life doesn't function perfectly. The DNA encoding our genes isn't perfect. The fact that it is mutable by nature (like sunlight, aromatic carcinogens obtained from the decay of long lost plant and animal life) should throw doubt on any faith based interpretation on how life was created.
post #164 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
OK!

He did answer the baleen question. Directly, comprehensively and technically.


An untested theory, not a "comprehensive" or "technical" answer.

Honestly, people, anyone here involved with game or fisheries management of any kind? Pat answers of that nature might fly on TV but in the real-world solutions are a bit more elusive.

But I think decievingly simple answers are par for the course here, hiding from demanding questions in abstractions and rehtoric is insidiously easy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #165 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
But I think decievingly simple answers are par for the course here, hiding from demanding questions in abstractions and rehtoric is insidiously easy.

I think you just summed up Creationism quite nicely.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
post #166 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Your argument do not stand. The evolution is an exponantial process. If only one specie give ten new species every one million year, you will have an astronomical number of species in one hundred millions of years (10e 100).



That is a sensible answer---but I think that it would have to allow for exponential population growth among the species. I don't think that the Earth's resources and surface area are big enough to support the levels of trial-and-error that that solution would require.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #167 of 213
I have a simple question... besides the Jewish Bible, what evidence is there for ID?

Really, I don't want to know what's wrong with Evolution, but what's right with Creationism.
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
post #168 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
What gives you the sense that all mutations are bad?

You must realize that life doesn't function perfectly. The DNA encoding our genes isn't perfect. The fact that it is mutable by nature (like sunlight, aromatic carcinogens obtained from the decay of long lost plant and animal life) should throw doubt on any faith based interpretation on how life was created.


I understand reasonably well where you guys are coming from on this, I really do.

But when you start adding years vs. number of species, vs the sheer quantities of "trail-and-error" to produce the genomes that we see today and the time involved to accomplish all this....and do it on one planent.....and do it in harmony and boidiversity suffiecient to support the odd symbiosis that we see in Nature---and not run out of resources in the process. I can't see it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #169 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
An untested theory, not a "comprehensive" or "technical" answer.

It's an answer that doesn't contradict any of the observable evidence offered us by the world. It's fine by physics, it's fine by genetics, it's fine by anatomy, it's fine by the fossil record. It allows us to cross-corroborate genetics with vestigial anatomical features, fossils and inter-species similarity. It allows us to do this without recourse to any scripture, Christian, Hindu or Yoruban, which are all utterly unverifiable, impossible to prove empirically, and only accord with what what we see by coincidence.

The world's more magnificently beautiful than you choose to see and I feel sorry for you. If your God's watching and He sees you choosing not to see the majesty and beauty of His creation I expect He's sorry for you too.
post #170 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by 709
I think you just summed up Creationism quite nicely.

indeed, and a typical religious mindset too.
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #171 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's an answer that doesn't contradict any of the observable evidence offered us by the world. It's fine by physics, it's fine by genetics, it's fine by anatomy, it's fine by the fossil record.

It's a very, very general answer. The hard issues are set aside.

There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations, which would naturally produce a rough population size over the course of development. This shouldn't be hard to theorize. In the case of whales and other sea cratures, you would have to box this in somewhat in terms of what balances you have expect from the marine biome---number of krill, groundfish, etc. competing species, that sort of thing.

Apparently whales evolved from land mammals, who in turn evolved from reptiles, who in turn evolved from amphibians---the point being, we have(?) mapped the genomes of frogs---how hard could it be to genetically map a transition from an amphibian to a reptile, while still keeping the in-between creatures(the most)viable? If not frogs and reptiles, do it with another very simple organism, turn one into another, through information-adding mutations, and do it in spades, where each individual phase is the healthiest, and most apt to survive. if that is out of the question, do it by a rough gene count---something that would begin to get a handle on the numbers of "tries" and the populations that this would require over the "accepted" time.

Plug these steps into whatever information-adding mutation incidence is accepted, then continue extrapolating until you have a feel for population sizes relative to all other concurrent creatures competing for the same space.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #172 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by HOM
I have a simple question... besides the Jewish Bible, what evidence is there for ID?

Really, I don't want to know what's wrong with Evolution, but what's right with Creationism.
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
post #173 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by rampancy
What about "Hitchhikersguideianism", which says that the Earth is a giant computer designed by mice to calculate the question to the answer to the meaning of life?

42

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #174 of 213
Douglas Adams of course was an adamant atheist who supported the idea of evolution
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #175 of 213
5th time asking the essential question-

dmz-

Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?

Also, a question to the rest of you-

I sincerely respect the efforts of all here who try to enlighten dmz on the nature of evolutionary theory, but I must implore you to demand that he answer this question before you continue. After all, what if he answers no?

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #176 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It's a very, very general answer. The hard issues are set aside.

There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations, which would naturally produce a rough population size over the course of development. This shouldn't be hard to theorize. In the case of whales and other sea cratures, you would have to box this in somewhat in terms of what balances you have expect from the marine biome---number of krill, groundfish, etc. competing species, that sort of thing.

Apparently whales evolved from land mammals, who in turn evolved from reptiles, who in turn evolved from amphibians---the point being, we have(?) mapped the genomes of frogs---how hard could it be to genetically map a transition from an amphibian to a reptile, while still keeping the in-between creatures(the most)viable? If not frogs and reptiles, do it with another very simple organism, turn one into another, through information-adding mutations, and do it in spades, where each individual phase is the healthiest, and most apt to survive. if that is out of the question, do it by a rough gene count---something that would begin to get a handle on the numbers of "tries" and the populations that this would require over the "accepted" time.

Plug these steps into whatever information-adding mutation incidence is accepted, then continue extrapolating until you have a feel for population sizes relative to all other concurrent creatures competing for the same space.

"Me smart cause use big science words"
very impressive
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #177 of 213
^^^^^^ me inspired by AquaTeens episode on Adult Swim (in case you wondering)
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #178 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Douglas Adams of course was an adamant atheist who supported the idea of evolution

It's irrelevant, if you've read any of his stuff, you'll know it's hysterical, great writing. (Check out his daughter's video he did on iMovie over at Apple's site.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #179 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
5th time asking the essential question-

dmz-

Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory?


If you are reading my posts, it should be apparent. There are some fairly straightforward questions being asked.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #180 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It's irrelevant, if you've read any of his stuff, you'll know it's hysterical, great writing. (Check out his daughter's video he did on iMovie over at Apple's site.)

I've read all his stuff.(apparently you missed my joke, but I won't hold it against you)


If you like Douglas Adams you will likely enjoy Tom Robbins btw.
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #181 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
If you are reading my posts, it should be apparent. There are some fairly straightforward questions being asked.

So the answer is "no," then?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #182 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
If you are reading my posts, it should be apparent. There are some fairly straightforward questions being asked.

So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...

dmz-

Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #183 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...

dmz-

Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?

Good luck getting a straight answer. A straight answer = commitment. If you commit you have to address your committal => no straight answer will be forthcoming. DMZ may hint at the asnwer then chastise you later for misinterpreting his/her response, but you're not going to get a simple answer.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #184 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
[B]Honestly, people, anyone here involved with game or fisheries management of any kind? Pat answers of that nature might fly on TV but in the real-world solutions are a bit more elusive.
B]

Well DMZ, I got started with fisheries working on my old mans gillnetter on the Columbia River when I was 10. In high-school I started working on a purse seiner in Alaska every summer for the next 7 years until I graduated with a degree in zoology. Over the years I have worked off and on for the National Marine Fisheries Service collecting fisheries and marine mammal data on fishing boats from the Bering Sea to the Mexican Border. I calculate I have spent about 5 years of my life living and working at sea. I have dissected 42 marine mammals in the course of my work. I wouldn't say I was involved in management though. I don't like office work. I am the flunky they send out to collect the data in 30 foot seas and freezing weather so they can stay warm and toasty in Seattle. I prefer it that way. None of this particularly qualifies me to answer your question on baleen whales, but you are the one who asked.

I answered your question in a simple way because reading your writing here I can see you lack a fundamental understanding of biology. You write a lot of complicated sentences, but I find most of it incomprehensible. In fact I find most of the creationist literature, which I have in fact read a lot of, mostly incomprehensible too. Evolution, if you take the time to understand it with an open mind, makes much more sense than creationism.
post #185 of 213
meh
meh
post #186 of 213
I guess I'll chime in here too...

Hey, dmz, is there any evidence that would convince you that evolution is true?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #187 of 213
Good. a thread about creationism. DMZ - never actually come across anyone who believed in creationism before. So I'm quite interested in hearing more of your arguments for creationism, rather than arguments against evolution.

A couple of queries about creationist thinking...

- if the world was created 6000 years ago, do you think there has been evolution since, or have species been static?

- am I right in thinking that fossils, whether of dinosaurs or Neanderthals, as seen as a 'test of faith'

should point out that I'm a hardcore geneticist. big fan of DNA. but am happy to consider and debate alternative points of view, even though it seems strange to me to relate the origins of the Earth to a literal reading of the Old Testament. (which as a history of a middle-eastern people, describing their experiences and how they understood the world several thousand years ago, makes perfect sense. several thousand years later, less so)

was at the Human Genome Organisation meeting in Berlin last month. strangely enough, didn't meet any creationists there.
post #188 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...

dmz-

Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?

it is pretty clear that dmz isn't actually reading the posts, but rather scanning and then retorting with a variation of "there isn't enough time for evolution"
post #189 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by progmac
it is pretty clear that dmz isn't actually reading the posts, but rather scanning and then retorting with a variation of "there isn't enough time for evolution"

there isn't enough time to read the posts
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #190 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by craiger77
Well DMZ, I got started with fisheries working on my old mans gillnetter on the Columbia River when I was 10.....


Excellent---someone who has seen the elephant.

Then you know first hand the unpredicatbility in Fisheries managment---and how frustrating it is to hear F&G biologists give one opinion, and the commies trot in their guys and tell the opposite story.

Ah yes, can we get more studies? VERY frustrating.

It floors me to have to deal with that sort of uncertainty at the real-life level and then hear FAR OUT theorizing about millions of years ago whales just "got along" with figuring out how to use the baleen that mysteriously appeared in the mouths.

Not to mention NO ONE here on this fourum wants to tackle the genetic path, or populations it would take to fight the odds and arrive at a what we have today.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #191 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by brandnewfatboy
should point out that I'm a hardcore geneticist.


You should be able to answer this quesiton, what is the accepted incidence of information-adding mutations? There has to be a rate of change that can be quantified when you consider the transformations over time from one genus/spiecies to another. Since we have quantified the genomes of several species, you should be able to start seeing whether or not you have the time, or space for the populations involved, to make that transformation. Or what it would take in any case.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #192 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You should be able to answer this quesiton

Funny, a lot of people have been saying the same thing to you.

You expect to ask and ask and ask, complain when you don't get answers, heap on objections with more questions when you do, and still won't answer anything yourself.

You're about a dozen questions behind at this point.


I propose that no one responds to dmz until he answers several questions himself, pretty damned thoroughly, with him also providing clarifications when asked to any (increasingly hypothetical) responses he might provide.

Waiting for this to happen will probably put this thread out of its misery.

<...sounds of crickets chirping...>
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #193 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You should be able to answer this quesiton, what is the accepted incidence of information-adding mutations? There has to be a rate of change that can be quantified when you consider the transformations over time from one genus/spiecies to another. Since we have quantified the genomes of several species, you should be able to start seeing whether or not you have the time, or space for the populations involved, to make that transformation. Or what it would take in any case.



We're apparently on chapter 9 now, folks.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #194 of 213
Want 'information'? Here you go (from our good friend T.O.).


Mutations Adding Information.

Quote:
A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances where this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
  • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors [Lang et al. 2000].
  • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. [Zhang et al. 2002]
  • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. [Brown et al. 1998]

A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references to the biological literature.
I'm RICH beotch!!!
I'm RICH beotch!!!
post #195 of 213
7th time (8th actually, since shetline joined in) asking the essential question-

dmz-

Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #196 of 213
He will either

A: Dodge (like he did a while a go)

B: Say 'no'

or

C: Ask you the opposite question.
I'm RICH beotch!!!
I'm RICH beotch!!!
post #197 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by DiscoCow
Want 'information'? Here you go (from our good friend T.O.).


Mutations Adding Information.


That's interesting, but I'm already willing ---only for the sake of argument---to accept that information-adding mutations are incidental. There should be a pathway of getting from one species to another. Based on a rate of information-adding mutation incidence we should be able to match this up with the time it is "believed" to have taken.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #198 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by DiscoCow
He will either

A: Dodge (like he did a while a go)

B: Say 'no'

or

C: Ask you the opposite question.


Actually, falling for juvenile rehtoric techniques isn't habit forming. But then most of you guys are either in high school or fresh out of college---get a clue.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #199 of 213
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Actually, falling for juvenile rehtoric techniques isn't habit forming. But then most of you guys are either in high school or fresh out of college---get a clue.

Okay, but is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
post #200 of 213
I am not impressed, here guys. Couldn't you could run of out of ideas more gracfully?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › That Pesky "Dinsoaurs lived millions of years ago" thing...