Economic consequences of Evolution vs. Creation.

[Brian Schuh]

Can the mods please move this thread to the appropriate jokes and games forum?

Thank you.

Yeah, only if you move your mythological neanderthal to the jokes and games forum. At least one of these "prehuman" skulls you brag about turned out to be nothing but an ape skull. And that was not the only hoax supporting evolution.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, only if you move your mythological neanderthal to the jokes and games forum. At least one of these "prehuman" skulls you brag about turned out to be nothing but an ape skull. And that was not the only hoax supporting evolution.

Why don't take a deep breath and have a banana?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Why don't take a deep breath and have a banana?

Tryptophan is the amino acid that affects mood in not only bananas but also chicken. WIll you buy it for me? It's expensive.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Tryptophan is the amino acid that affects mood in not only bananas but also chicken. WIll you buy it for me? It's expensive.

Sure, I've got plenty of money. I work in a scientific field. We get paid well because we actually get results that work.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Sure, I've got plenty of money. I work in a scientific field. We get paid well because we actually get results that work.

In the state hospital, we have to buy our own chocolate, but they give us a free banana every day. So tryptophan is vital. We need to pursue more natural solutions to mood and mind problems than just resorting to Haldol and Thorazine. Tryptophan is a natural chemical that can relieve depression. Do you agree?

 

[Revoltingest]

Part of the truth of a theorey is in its effect of people and how they behave.

There's no diplomatic way of saying this....
That is one of the most blitheringly ignant statements I've ever heard.
I strongly recommend some study of not just science, but especially the philosophy of science.
Interesting & embiggening stuff.

Tryptophan is the amino acid that affects mood in not only bananas but also chicken.

I can see a chicken having a mood....but a banana?

 

[Kemosloby]

Survival of the luckiest. "God judges between the quick and the dead".

 

[Brian Schuh]

There's no diplomatic way of saying this....
That is one of the most blitheringly ignant statements I've ever heard.
I strongly recommend some study of not just science, but especially the philosophy of science.
Interesting & embiggening stuff.


I can see a chicken having a mood....but a banana?

first off, no truth is going to inspire evil in many multitudes of people, that is given in my definition of truth. If an objective "truth" inspires evil such as the holocaust, then it doesn't meet the criteria of being a "truth."

Oh, and I meant, tryptophan inspires a good mood from chicken, I meant tryptophan from chicken inspires a good mood.

 

[Revoltingest]

first off, no truth is going to inspire evil in many multitudes of people, that is given in my definition of truth. If an objective "truth" inspires evil such as the holocaust, then it doesn't meet the criteria of being a "truth."

This illustrates why I suggest reading up on the philosophy of science.
Theories aren't "true"....just useful.
Just as even Newtonian mechanics took a back seat to general relativity,
so will the latter some day. All theories are subject to revision when
something better comes along to explain what we see, & what we have yet to see.

Oh, and I meant, tryptophan inspires a good mood from chicken, I meant tryptophan from chicken inspires a good mood.

I know what you meant.
But awkward language must be punished!
Btw, I just ate a chicken taco, a banana & a pear (to expand the experiment).
All three were "meh" about it.

 

[Brian Schuh]

This illustrates why I suggest reading up on the philosophy of science.
Theories aren't "true"....just useful.
Just as even Newtonian mechanics took a back seat to general relativity,
so will the latter some day. All theories are subject to revision when
something better comes along to explain what we see, & what we have yet to see.

I know what you meant.
But awkward language must be punished!
Btw, I just ate a chicken taco, a banana & a pear (to expand the experiment).
All three were "meh" about it.

We hold it as a political truth, that all persons are created equal, but now that blacks, women and homosexuals are being considered equal persons, our country is starting to fall apart. Now look, a truth is only as good as it helps society. A truth is not the same as a fact or a theory. A truth is self evident, and given by God for the benefit of society. I can prove beyond the benefit of a doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution was not a "truth" that benefited society, and therefore is not to be considered a truth. Maybe a theory, but not a self evident truth. But it is self-evident that we have a Creator, but it is not self evident that those fittest to survive will survive, and those "inferior" Jews will not survive. If anything is self evident, it is that those Jews would survive a third world war, for it is becoming obvious that they are the chosen ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

We hold it as a political truth, that all persons are created equal, but now that blacks, women and homosexuals are being considered equal persons, our country is starting to fall apart.

We've been falling apart for a couple hundred years now.
I expect that we'll keep doing so for a long time.
And now we have more company.....blacks, women, homosexuals, etc.
Even atheists (the horror!) are allowed to vote now.

But a political "truth" isn't true in the sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is "true".
It's simply a premise we adopt, & treat as a basis for our law.
This is very different from a scientific fact or theory, which are
equally valid in other countries with different values.

Now look, a truth is only as good as it helps society. A truth is not the same as a fact or a theory. A truth is self evident, and given by God for the benefit of society. I can prove beyond the benefit of a doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution was not a "truth" that benefited society, and therefore is not to be considered a truth. Maybe a theory, but not a self evident truth. But it is self-evident that we have a Creator, but it is not self evident that those fittest to survive will survive, and those "inferior" Jews will not survive. If anything is self evident, it is that those Jews would survive a third world war, for it is becoming obvious that they are the chosen ones.

The problem with the above is that you're using different definitions for "truth", & conflating them all.

Consider the old joke....
Which weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?
The pound of feathers weighs more because the definition of
"pound" depends upon what is weighed. Context is everything.

 

[Kemosloby]

We hold it as a political truth, that all persons are created equal, but now that blacks, women and homosexuals are being considered equal persons, our country is starting to fall apart. Now look, a truth is only as good as it helps society. A truth is not the same as a fact or a theory. A truth is self evident, and given by God for the benefit of society. I can prove beyond the benefit of a doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution was not a "truth" that benefited society, and therefore is not to be considered a truth. Maybe a theory, but not a self evident truth. But it is self-evident that we have a Creator, but it is not self evident that those fittest to survive will survive, and those "inferior" Jews will not survive. If anything is self evident, it is that those Jews would survive a third world war, for it is becoming obvious that they are the chosen ones.

It's hardly self evident that all men are created equal, and it gets even worse when they start talking about inalienable rights. If rights were inalienable we wouldn't even have to worry about rights, they would be inalienable. What the truth is, the founders were good at BS.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I only have a high school education in evolutionary theory. I took Biology in high school. By the time I got to college, I chose a different course of study. All I remember is that evolutionary theory has some fatal flaws and that they anticipate they will be resolved soon. Although they never have.

Be interesting to know when you were in high school, and where. And possibly the religious views of your teacher (who may have been teaching evolution only because he/she was required to).

Nobody in evolution thinks there are any "fatal flaws" at all, although there are certainly disagreements over details. Probably the largest single disagreement is over "smooth" evolution or punctuated equilibria. In the former, the assumption is that evolutionary change is continuous, gradual and fairly uniform. In the latter (so well explained by Gould), the assumption is that local environmental changes serve to split a population, leaving part in one environmental situation, another part in another.

A good example might be what happens when an earthquake causes a geological change, or the sudden opening of a volcanic rift on the ocean floor. Where a large population was once fairly stable (in an evolutionary sense) because the environment was stable, a change (say a sudden ridge or rift) divides the population, and conditions differ on either side. If the two populations can't readily interact, they are likely to begin changing in response to their local conditions, and after some time, will wind up having evolved away from each other.

I hope you can see what this means -- not "one organism slowly evolving into another" but one organism leading to the development of two (or more) separate organisms, with the original simply disappearing.

 

[Brian Schuh]

It's hardly self evident that all men are created equal, and it gets even worse when they start talking about inalienable rights. If rights were inalienable we wouldn't even have to worry about rights, they would be inalienable. What the truth is, the founders were good at BS.

One of the popes asked a mathmatics

Be interesting to know when you were in high school, and where. And possibly the religious views of your teacher (who may have been teaching evolution only because he/she was required to).

Nobody in evolution thinks there are any "fatal flaws" at all, although there are certainly disagreements over details. Probably the largest single disagreement is over "smooth" evolution or punctuated equilibria. In the former, the assumption is that evolutionary change is continuous, gradual and fairly uniform. In the latter (so well explained by Gould), the assumption is that local environmental changes serve to split a population, leaving part in one environmental situation, another part in another.

A good example might be what happens when an earthquake causes a geological change, or the sudden opening of a volcanic rift on the ocean floor. Where a large population was once fairly stable (in an evolutionary sense) because the environment was stable, a change (say a sudden ridge or rift) divides the population, and conditions differ on either side. If the two populations can't readily interact, they are likely to begin changing in response to their local conditions, and after some time, will wind up having evolved away from each other.

I hope you can see what this means -- not "one organism slowly evolving into another" but one organism leading to the development of two (or more) separate organisms, with the original simply disappearing.

this is beyond the scope of my education, I have no comment. My problems with evolution involve the topics I am educated in. So therefore this is irrelevant to my complaints with Darwin.

 

[Brian Schuh]

One of the popes asked a mathmatics

this is beyond the scope of my education, I have no comment. My problems with evolution involve the topics I am educated in. So therefore this is irrelevant to my complaints with Darwin.

What I was saying before my computer messed up, was that one of the popes asked a math wiz, what proof was there that there was a god. The mathematician said that he had no math proof, but the proof he had to offer was that the Jews have survived all these thousand of years. If the god the Jews serve is not the true and real God, then there is no chance in hell that the Jews could have survived through all the **** they went through.

 

[Brian Schuh]

What I was saying before my computer messed up, was that one of the popes asked a math wiz, what proof was there that there was a god. The mathematician said that he had no math proof, but the proof he had to offer was that the Jews have survived all these thousand of years. If the god the Jews serve is not the true and real God, then there is no chance in hell that the Jews could have survived through all the **** they went through.

so how can you say, only the fittest survive?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Part of the truth of a theorey is in its effect of people and how they behave. Evolution was used by Nazi's to justify what they did. I believe we can all agree that social darwinism is false, no matter if evolution is true or not, a government has no right to decide who is fit to survive or not survive.

If you look at the Torah, the Hebrews were not "fit to survive." Even Moses under inspiration of God said that "I did not choose you because your were the mightiest people, or the greatest people, or even the most intelligent people, in fact you are the weakest, smallest people." (That is paraphrased.) In fact the Hebrews survived these several thousands years against all odds. Which shows that survival of the fittest doesn't hold water.

The Creation Museam of Kentucky creates more jobs for Kentucky and pays more federal tax to keep the Feds afloat than all evolutionists combined ever had.

Look at the story of Abraham, his wife was barren and it is probably closer to the truth that he himself was impotent. If survival of the fittest were true, Abraham beat all odds.

No, there is no survival of the fittest. It just doesn't hold water.

The optimist in me holds out hope that you are a clever troll, while the realist ponders the implications the absolutely terrible public schooling in the USA could have towards the future of the world in general.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I once again have to get back to, one simple question, if humankind is unable to artificially engineer an organism such as a GMO that benefits humankind, then how could it happen naturally that a mutation of nature can benefit humankind? If we cannot even genetically engineer an organism for our benefit, then how could we expect a mutation occur to benefit us in a natural way? I'm assuming that you realize, no GMO has ever been created that benefits us in any way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ophelia in Shakespeare went to the insane asylum because she was the only one to rebuke the king.

Please try to avoid Shakespeare in future, as you clearly know less about his plays than you do about evolution. Ophelia did not go to an asylum, nor rebuke the king. Hamlet rebuked the king. Ophelia drowned after her father was murdered and Hamlet rejected her.

If I believed in gods, Shakespeare would be mine...now back to our regular trashing of science...

 

[Brian Schuh]

I once again have to get back to, one simple question, if humankind is unable to artificially engineer an organism such as a GMO that benefits humankind, then how could it happen naturally that a mutation of nature can benefit humankind? If we cannot even genetically engineer an organism for our benefit, then how could we expect a mutation occur to benefit us in a natural way? I'm assuming that you realize, no GMO has ever been created that benefits us in any way.