Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
In keeping with the new theme of this thread, forget creation, evolution and whether or not it even matters. In fact, who needs people at all?
Makes No Difference, (Discuss whatever you want).
- Thread starter Aussie Thoughts
- Start date
- Status
I recall watching Abe Lincoln stand up and talk at Disney world years ago...
The improvements today are amazing..
The earth does not, has not, needed people...people need the earth...
The improvements today are amazing..
The earth does not, has not, needed people...people need the earth...
I like that idea. Of course I dare not let Suzy watch. You know how sensitive she is.
If I remember right, originally the body had limited articulation, but the face itself didn't move at all. They projected a human image onto it. The effect was stunning, but the one they use now is beyond real.
Last edited:
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
LOL...!!! When NJ and I ended our business dealings, he got custody of Suzy. A full size female mannequin used to establish optimal camera angles and lighting prior to a shoot. His idea to reduce the amount of time paid talent needed to be on the clock.I like that idea. Of course I dare not let Suzy watch. You know how sensitive she is.
Last edited:
Getting back off track.... I found a couple of interesting scientific perspectives on YouTube regarding evolution.
I found a couple of interesting scientific perspectives on YouTube regarding evolution.A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Interesting perspectives? "Evolution is a lie". "Darwinism Debunked". I thought you were neutral? I thought we agreed there were no point to these discussions?Getting back off track....
It is interesting.... The only people who don't believe in evolution believe in a biblical creation....
There isn't a scientist I've seen yet that refutes it on scientific grounds and presents another alternative.
There isn't a scientist I've seen yet that refutes it on scientific grounds and presents another alternative.
Well made it through the first two...
Twice he said man from apes.... Clearly a biologist that has never really studied evolution...
He speaks of cognitive bias....and yes he is holding on to a cognitive bias that over the past couple centuries has fought to stay alive while proof after proof and evidence stacked upon evidence...
His proof that carbon dating includes the earth being encased in a shell of water in the sky until it fell from the flood... I previously wrote about sitting at a table of people who explained the same to me.
When your beginning assumption that you can't move from is that the bible is reliable as literal and infallible.... It isn't hard to spot the problem.
Nope....we ain't done with this discussion yet...
Twice he said man from apes.... Clearly a biologist that has never really studied evolution...
He speaks of cognitive bias....and yes he is holding on to a cognitive bias that over the past couple centuries has fought to stay alive while proof after proof and evidence stacked upon evidence...
His proof that carbon dating includes the earth being encased in a shell of water in the sky until it fell from the flood... I previously wrote about sitting at a table of people who explained the same to me.
When your beginning assumption that you can't move from is that the bible is reliable as literal and infallible.... It isn't hard to spot the problem.
Nope....we ain't done with this discussion yet...
My position hasn't changed. I still don't think either side has it exactly right. I just found it interesting to hear this perspective coming from two men of science and these are just 2 examples. There are many more. I especially like the 1st video where the Biochemist admits to making assumptions based on the bible, but goes on to point out that there are also scientific assumptions being made that scientist seldom admit too when presenting evidence of evolution. As such, no, there is no point to the discussion and that was the original point of this thread. Makes no difference what is said or how accurately or inaccurately it is presented. Opinions won't change. Not even the ones falsely presented as fact.
Any evolutionist/scientist could refute his arguments one by one... We've seen that in debates over and over since the monkey trials...
This is the reason they aren't debating....the reason they are posting YouTube videos without opposition....hmmm should I go look for the comments? Or have they closed them?
This is the reason they aren't debating....the reason they are posting YouTube videos without opposition....hmmm should I go look for the comments? Or have they closed them?
Note the vast majority of scientists that are religious...be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim are on board with evolution and realize the creation story is a story, a combination of allegory, metaphor, parable, mythology all valuable in their own right...just not anything to do with actual science.
I do know some creationists...very few...
But as to Aussie's what does it matter question... Again for most Christians I know most accept evolution as fact and it does not conflict with the bible as they are not literalists and know genesis is not factual but allegorical...
So what does it matter if the creation story is not literal?
I do know some creationists...very few...
But as to Aussie's what does it matter question... Again for most Christians I know most accept evolution as fact and it does not conflict with the bible as they are not literalists and know genesis is not factual but allegorical...
So what does it matter if the creation story is not literal?
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
'Many' is relative. If the number of scientists that hold the position carry weight for you note that 97% of scientists in the US* hold to the theory of evolution. If one puts stock in the principles of science then 'consensus' comes into play. There is a consensus. At a certain point the public might consider that 97% who's profession is "science" might understand "science" better than individuals, no? One could just disregard the scientific principles but that would turn everything we have accomplished scientifically into magic.
*Pew Research Center
It doesn't really. All that says to me is that 97% of scientist go along with the status quo and accept a particular theory based on certain scientific assumptions. I'm more interested in the reasons why 3% of scientists have drawn a different conclusion from the same data. I've never been one to go along with the crowd myself and I can appreciate what an uphill battle that is.
Consensus does not necessarily equate to correctness. At one time or the other some of the greatest scientific minds in the world, held erroneous assumptions based on their interpretations of the facts. The earth is flat. The only treatment for Polio is complete immobilization. Pluto is a planet. To name but a few. I can just hear that little voice in the back of the room while everyone else was nodding in agreement, "Really? Seems round to me." "Maybe it'd be better to exercise those joints." "Are you sure that's a planet? Seems a bit small." Oh how they must have been mocked and ridiculed for not going along with the others and holding fast to their convictions.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Like I said, you can reject it all you want, but consensus is a fundamental principle in the scientific process. If you leave that, you leave all claims to any scientific perspective of things. Which, again, is fine.
I don't think the scientists who disagree with evolution have rejected fundamental scientific principles. They've just drawn different conclusions from them which tends to disagree with the general consensus. That's the part I find interesting. Of course, as I've said, I don't completely agree with either side.
the reason? Religious... Find me one that objects not on the basis of replacing with some religious creation story.nj said:
OK, believe it or not, I do like an alternative theory (half my theology is .alt)
But I do weigh up the merits of the argument, rather than just support the .alt because it's an .alt.
Here's my notes on the first:
The speaker introduces the idea of cognitive bias that leads towards assumptions, and then claims that because he has faith and science, he is not falling into the cognitive bias assumption trap of those who support evolution are.
The problem is, he's assuming that, he's not demonstrating that. What of the evolutionary scientists who hold a faith position? He's presented an argument based not on facts (his only example is the high school teacher), but on an assumption.
I know people like to assume that scientist = agnostic or atheist, but it's demonstrably not true.
His example of cattle breeding – YES, it is the evolutionary process! But what he's trying to do is drive a wedge between selective breeding which is micro-evolution, and the 'Apes into man' or 'lizards into fish' which is macro evolution.
His wolf analogy – YES, it is called evolution and yes it is the evolutionary process. There are countless other examples which all go to building a body of evidence.
But a lizard does not become a fish just like that, not in a generation. The steps are incremental over huge timescales, unimaginable timescales, which makes it difficult for some to get their heads around. I can't ... I just accept the fact that it didn't happen 'overnight'.
So he's suggesting a lot, but actually demonstrating little, other than an imprecise, and it has to be said – seemingly biased – presentation of the theory.
Do we want a separate thread to discuss the viability of his argument?
+++
I'm looking at the 'Aquatic Theory' of evolution as opposed to the 'Savannah Theory'
What interests me is the Savannah Theory – man came out of the trees onto the plain and thus evolved to survive in the open landscape, walking upright, long-focus as eyes move closer, etc. – is a very macho theory, positing the primacy of the alpha male and relegating the female of the species to a role of utter dependence — very sexist, like the 'nature red in tooth and claw', 'survival of the fittest' view of evolution, very much a theory that discreetly asserts the primacy of he who gets to the top, and thus validates the position of the white educated elite who assumed the governance of the world was theirs by right, that the dark-skinned man was a sub-species, or at best locked in a perpetual childhood and needed to be managed for his own good ... and ladies just feint when they try and form an opinion, and shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things!
So a Theory of Evolution emerges that conveniently seems to endorse a number of possibly mere cultural memes — that men are better than women, that the woman's place is in the home, all women are good for is having babies ... but then maybe such a view was shaped by Biblical cognitive bias — these men were upright Christians! And The Good Book does rather tend towards an inescapable patriarchy.
Look at how artists portray Savannah man, the big fellah leads, looking straight ahead, usually carrying a bone-weapon, mums carry the children, other men form a protective cordon, all with eyes on him, it's a really macho scene ...
The Aquatic Theory was branded as 'nonsense' and 'a heresy', but is coming back into favour as it explains aspects of the human species that go against the evidence we have for the Savannah alternative.
But here it's different. Men and women like in coastal communities. They work the sea shore. They fish. They swim. They dive. No alpha male. Men and women both involved — if we follow the sexist stereotype, you'd have women weaving the nets, men fishing with harpoons — and the fact that a net catches more fish than a harpoon! ooops! Next thing, you'll have men cooking and cleaning ... God in Heaven, BURN THEM!
So, ladies and gentlemen, my theory is that the 'common' theory of evolution, that favours white men with beards, has been shaped by Biblical cognitive bias! And that it's responsible for many of our social ills — elitism, sexism, racism, etc., etc.
But hey ... this is way off topic. How we regard evolution has a day-to-day impact on how we regard our neighbour?
If we want to discuss this, and I'd much rather stick to discussing the merits of the three videos above, let's take it to somewhere, maybe a thread called 'Actually, it does make a difference'.
But I do weigh up the merits of the argument, rather than just support the .alt because it's an .alt.
Here's my notes on the first:
The speaker introduces the idea of cognitive bias that leads towards assumptions, and then claims that because he has faith and science, he is not falling into the cognitive bias assumption trap of those who support evolution are.
The problem is, he's assuming that, he's not demonstrating that. What of the evolutionary scientists who hold a faith position? He's presented an argument based not on facts (his only example is the high school teacher), but on an assumption.
I know people like to assume that scientist = agnostic or atheist, but it's demonstrably not true.
His example of cattle breeding – YES, it is the evolutionary process! But what he's trying to do is drive a wedge between selective breeding which is micro-evolution, and the 'Apes into man' or 'lizards into fish' which is macro evolution.
His wolf analogy – YES, it is called evolution and yes it is the evolutionary process. There are countless other examples which all go to building a body of evidence.
But a lizard does not become a fish just like that, not in a generation. The steps are incremental over huge timescales, unimaginable timescales, which makes it difficult for some to get their heads around. I can't ... I just accept the fact that it didn't happen 'overnight'.
So he's suggesting a lot, but actually demonstrating little, other than an imprecise, and it has to be said – seemingly biased – presentation of the theory.
Do we want a separate thread to discuss the viability of his argument?
+++
I'm looking at the 'Aquatic Theory' of evolution as opposed to the 'Savannah Theory'
What interests me is the Savannah Theory – man came out of the trees onto the plain and thus evolved to survive in the open landscape, walking upright, long-focus as eyes move closer, etc. – is a very macho theory, positing the primacy of the alpha male and relegating the female of the species to a role of utter dependence — very sexist, like the 'nature red in tooth and claw', 'survival of the fittest' view of evolution, very much a theory that discreetly asserts the primacy of he who gets to the top, and thus validates the position of the white educated elite who assumed the governance of the world was theirs by right, that the dark-skinned man was a sub-species, or at best locked in a perpetual childhood and needed to be managed for his own good ... and ladies just feint when they try and form an opinion, and shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things!
So a Theory of Evolution emerges that conveniently seems to endorse a number of possibly mere cultural memes — that men are better than women, that the woman's place is in the home, all women are good for is having babies ... but then maybe such a view was shaped by Biblical cognitive bias — these men were upright Christians! And The Good Book does rather tend towards an inescapable patriarchy.
Look at how artists portray Savannah man, the big fellah leads, looking straight ahead, usually carrying a bone-weapon, mums carry the children, other men form a protective cordon, all with eyes on him, it's a really macho scene ...
The Aquatic Theory was branded as 'nonsense' and 'a heresy', but is coming back into favour as it explains aspects of the human species that go against the evidence we have for the Savannah alternative.
But here it's different. Men and women like in coastal communities. They work the sea shore. They fish. They swim. They dive. No alpha male. Men and women both involved — if we follow the sexist stereotype, you'd have women weaving the nets, men fishing with harpoons — and the fact that a net catches more fish than a harpoon! ooops! Next thing, you'll have men cooking and cleaning ... God in Heaven, BURN THEM!
So, ladies and gentlemen, my theory is that the 'common' theory of evolution, that favours white men with beards, has been shaped by Biblical cognitive bias! And that it's responsible for many of our social ills — elitism, sexism, racism, etc., etc.
But hey ... this is way off topic. How we regard evolution has a day-to-day impact on how we regard our neighbour?
If we want to discuss this, and I'd much rather stick to discussing the merits of the three videos above, let's take it to somewhere, maybe a thread called 'Actually, it does make a difference'.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
I've been giving this whole 'going off topic' a lot of thought. Particularly for this thread, which didn't really seem to be going that far off topic in the first place. Partly I think you set up a conflicting set of statements where you asked why argue about it, then requested we not argue about it.
It's more than that though I think. People these days tend to use a counter method for defending their position. Instead of defending their position, they attack the opposing position. This is the core of the matter to me. We have reached a point where most of us believe that the way to settle a debate is to attack the other person's reasoning. And it is even worse than that because in today's world to 'defend' is considered weak, where to 'attack' is considered strong. Look at the god awful mess our politics are to see it writ on a grand scale. Why does your candidate believe they are right about <subject>. The response is always, my opponent sees it this way and what a mess that has created.
So my query is
A. Do you all agree or disagree with my logic.
B. If yes, what can be done about it. Can anything be done about it?
- Status