Found a video of badecker circa 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MUVNuD3MiU
Topic: The Basic Stupidity of the Idea of Evolution (Read 3015 times)
The basic implications of the term...
You bring up some important ideas BADecker. Where did evolution/life start? The answer from science so far is "I don't know". It is a true mystery and to just say randomness... That is not an answer. We don't really even know what life is. We can't do it in a lab, we don't know if life started here or somewhere else. We don't know if life is common in the universe or if this is the only occurrence.What can be observed is that over time life on Earth has become more complicated and that older forms change via DNA into different forms. That we do in the lab every day. It happens to all living things from germs evolving resistance or into new species like HIV, or whale flukes evolving from feet.
There is also a vast amount of fossil and DNA evidence about our own species. For most of our history there was more than one species of human on Earth. Just 40,000 years ago you could have met at least five species of humans. Today there is only one species, but the reconstructions below show just some of the others in our larger family tree. We (all life on Earth) are just variations of the DNA molecule and in the future it will get even more confusing. Soon we will swap out sections of our DNA the way we modify computer code. It's easy we are all just DNA monsters.
Actually, that which we observe over time is not necessarily a more complicated Earth. Archaeology over the last two or three decades has shown that there was in the past a great trading organization that covered the Earth. You can see that it was united by all the similarities in the structures (often pyramids) and carvings that are gradually being found around the world.
While technology in the prehistoric past of man was not the same as ours today, it also was not necessarily inferior. Consider that we would find it very difficult if not impossible to build The Great Pyramid with our current technology. And at least one of the pyramids in Bosnia is a lot larger than The Great Pyramid. In addition, pyramids seem to focus a healing energy that seems rejuvenate people in ways that our medical has no understanding about.
Consider the fact that within the fossil record we find about three times the number of species around today. These died off, not because things are advancing, but rather because they seem to be declining.
Consider Neanderthal man. There is no evidence that would suggest that he was less intelligent than we. In fact, the larger size of his cranium would suggest just the opposite. The smart Neanderthal would never want to live in the crowded cities of today. He is smart enough to know that there is a whole lot more freedom in the peace of nature.
As for the 40,000 years you mentioned, without bringing my personal beliefs into it, you can check into the fact that there is much disagreement about the ages of prehistoric things and times. The general understanding was set in place, arbitrarily, by the universities, simply so that there could be an orderly setting down of timelines. Dates and ages are certainly not agreed on by all the experts in the field. Even C-14 dating is wildly off at times. If you, as a teacher, check in what others say about timelines into ancient prehistory, do it discretely. Universities don't like it when people find out that that their timelines are arbitrary.
Since we are just getting a first more or less solid understanding of DNA and how the DNA systems work, we don't know that there isn't an underlying, imbedded method for adaptation to protect the species that we haven't seen yet. In other words, germs that become resistant, could have a process built right into their whole system, a process that we simply haven't discovered, one that acts like a more complex computer program, one that will need decompiling once we find out that it is there. Don't rule it out just yet.
Even quantum mechanics, which is simply probability extended, might be able to be extended to the place where Einstein's principles of cause and effect fit right in with quantum entanglement. It would lie in understanding further dimensions, mathematically at least. The reason for quantum mechanics is that people have gone about as far as they can in direct cause and effect observation. Complex probability fills in the gaps in direct cause and effect observations.
it tends to take approx. 30 years cause Saturn takes 30 years to come again to your sign.
just remember. staurn is good. not EVIL. like some Capricorns want u to belive..
just remember. staurn is good. not EVIL. like some Capricorns want u to belive..
From the book of WTF;
Pray for BADecker, as he has embarked on a long journey of ignorance. He knows not, what science he chooses to ignore. For what he believes, is the pure randomness that he chooses to spew forth.
Let ussnicker pray!
Pray for BADecker, as he has embarked on a long journey of ignorance. He knows not, what science he chooses to ignore. For what he believes, is the pure randomness that he chooses to spew forth.
Let us
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour.
I think that's what he's saying. This is a good example of dummies like badecker trying to spread their "knowledge" to other simple minded dummies.
exactly
imho badecker is far from being a idiot, he seems more like someone you would describe as a fanatic or fundamentalist?
he definitively knows how to use rhetoric to persuade people (more so people that lack knowledge about certain scientific topics - check his post history)
his arguments are less scientific and much more of a rhetoric nature.
Well I agree with both of you, but I will maintain I don't think he is skilled at rhetoric, or presenting an argument. He's just shouts the loudest, many people consider this good enough. Look at a cable news debate.
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour.
I think that's what he's saying. This is a good example of dummies like badecker trying to spread their "knowledge" to other simple minded dummies.
exactly
imho badecker is far from being a idiot, he seems more like someone you would describe as a fanatic or fundamentalist?
he definitively knows how to use rhetoric to persuade people (more so people that lack knowledge about certain scientific topics - check his post history)
his arguments are less scientific and much more of a rhetoric nature.
I think you don't understand evolution, ...
I teach evolutionary biology and I am sure this is a misunderstanding. There is no mystery here it is very well understood. I assume everyone believes in DNA. Well if you understand what DNA is then you understand evolution.
Any person in the world may launch a scientific experiment to test the concept of evolution. They can publish their results for peer review and further testing. Science works by testing ideas with logic. It does not look at claims, rather results of tests. There have been thousands of such experiments but there has never been a finding that contradicts evolution and it is the basis of all modern biology.
I suspect the real reason why people don't "believe" in evolution is because of the greater implications in their lives. Few of us who are atheists recognize what is being asked of a person when they look logically at the issue of evolution. It is as clear as day that it is and has happened. Anyone can see that. Except for those who would have to alter their whole world view just to recognize an obvious fact. It is why for centuries astronomers knew that the sun was the center of the solar system but refused to acknowledge it. Opening their eyes meant questioning everything they thought they knew.
100 years ago the issue was dinosaurs. Many people simply could not admit they once lived here. It would call into question the Koran or the Bible or the Bahgavadgita. There can't have been dinosaurs!
Eventually religion found ways to accommodate the millions of bones now found in museums. I think that will happen for evolution also. Evolution is modern biology and we use it everyday in medicine etc. In 10 years denying evolution will be like denying the existence of dinosaurs. There will always be some, but very few.
It's not only that it changes their entire world view, its worse than that. They have to admit to themselves that they were wrong and fooled. This is a common defence mechanism, people will fight to the death rather than admit they were wrong. Only evolution could produce such a defective species.
The basic implications of the term...
You bring up some important ideas BADecker. Where did evolution/life start? The answer from science so far is "I don't know". It is a true mystery and to just say randomness... That is not an answer. We don't really even know what life is. We can't do it in a lab, we don't know if life started here or somewhere else. We don't know if life is common in the universe or if this is the only occurrence.What can be observed is that over time life on Earth has become more complicated and that older forms change via DNA into different forms. That we do in the lab every day. It happens to all living things from germs evolving resistance or into new species like HIV, or whale flukes evolving from feet.
There is also a vast amount of fossil and DNA evidence about our own species. For most of our history there was more than one species of human on Earth. Just 40,000 years ago you could have met at least five species of humans. Today there is only one species, but the reconstructions below show just some of the others in our larger family tree. We (all life on Earth) are just variations of the DNA molecule and in the future it will get even more confusing. Soon we will swap out sections of our DNA the way we modify computer code. It's easy we are all just DNA monsters.
Again from which accredited institution did you receive your education?
Really? You think the entire universe is deterministic and we just need a big enough model? Quantum effects are well established in cellular function. The existence of virtual particles is established. Physics says the universe is random, your understanding of science is stuck in the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=quantum+effects+in+biology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7BXuVOGfLszaoATtw4CgCg&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA
The basic implications of the term "evolution" seem to be that life and everything else came about spontaneously. The spontaneity seems to be understood as pure randomness. There isn't any evidence of pure randomness existing.
Really? You think the entire universe is deterministic and we just need a big enough model? Quantum effects are well established in cellular function. The existence of virtual particles is established. Physics says the universe is random, your understanding of science is stuck in the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=quantum+effects+in+biology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7BXuVOGfLszaoATtw4CgCg&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA
The basic implications of the term "evolution" seem to be that life and everything else came about spontaneously. The spontaneity seems to be understood as pure randomness. There isn't any evidence of pure randomness existing. There might be some math that suggests that it can exist. But there is no evidence of its existence. Everything exists completely orderly, according to cause and effect.
If "evolution" simply means "change" then, obviously, there is evolution all over the place. But when you consider Darwin's "tree," you can see that evolution does NOT simply mean change.
Human life is more than simply patterns of life that have been handed down over the millennia. Human life is something that does NOT evolve. It comes into existence for the first time when the sperm and egg get together. It is not a random coming together (cause and effect), and it is not a life that existed for untold eons of time. It is new life, that comes about in a moment, even though it is patterned after combinations of older life.
Standard evolution teaching does not say much of anything to these things. Perhaps it says nothing to them. If standard evolution writings included the cause and effect that penetrates the universe, as part of the important things in its "doctrine," stating cause and effect right out in the open (because it is probably the most important part of evolution), then evolution might have some true meaning.
As it is, the idea of evolution is being used to deceive people. At the very least, it is entirely remiss in explaining one of the most important of its basic tenets - cause and effect.
If "evolution" simply means "change" then, obviously, there is evolution all over the place. But when you consider Darwin's "tree," you can see that evolution does NOT simply mean change.
Human life is more than simply patterns of life that have been handed down over the millennia. Human life is something that does NOT evolve. It comes into existence for the first time when the sperm and egg get together. It is not a random coming together (cause and effect), and it is not a life that existed for untold eons of time. It is new life, that comes about in a moment, even though it is patterned after combinations of older life.
Standard evolution teaching does not say much of anything to these things. Perhaps it says nothing to them. If standard evolution writings included the cause and effect that penetrates the universe, as part of the important things in its "doctrine," stating cause and effect right out in the open (because it is probably the most important part of evolution), then evolution might have some true meaning.
As it is, the idea of evolution is being used to deceive people. At the very least, it is entirely remiss in explaining one of the most important of its basic tenets - cause and effect.
I think you don't understand evolution, ...
I teach evolutionary biology and I am sure this is a misunderstanding. There is no mystery here it is very well understood. I assume everyone believes in DNA. Well if you understand what DNA is then you understand evolution.
Any person in the world may launch a scientific experiment to test the concept of evolution. They can publish their results for peer review and further testing. Science works by testing ideas with logic. It does not look at claims, rather results of tests. There have been thousands of such experiments but there has never been a finding that contradicts evolution and it is the basis of all modern biology.
I suspect the real reason why people don't "believe" in evolution is because of the greater implications in their lives. Few of us who are atheists recognize what is being asked of a person when they look logically at the issue of evolution. It is as clear as day that it is and has happened. Anyone can see that. Except for those who would have to alter their whole world view just to recognize an obvious fact. It is why for centuries astronomers knew that the sun was the center of the solar system but refused to acknowledge it. Opening their eyes meant questioning everything they thought they knew.
100 years ago the issue was dinosaurs. Many people simply could not admit they once lived here. It would call into question the Koran or the Bible or the Bahgavadgita. There can't have been dinosaurs!
Eventually religion found ways to accommodate the millions of bones now found in museums. I think that will happen for evolution also. Evolution is modern biology and we use it everyday in medicine etc. In 10 years denying evolution will be like denying the existence of dinosaurs. There will always be some, but very few.
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour.
I think that's what he's saying. This is a good example of dummies like badecker trying to spread their "knowledge" to other simple minded dummies.
Cause and effect is good, sound, scientific logic. Since we have absolutely no evidence of anything other than cause and effect operations in nature and the universe, this means that everything is pre-programmed. This is probably the most fundamental idea that IS and should be held by all scientists in all scientific examination, because it exists everywhere. Nothing exists or operates without cause and effect.
What exists without a cause? Nothing!
When modern science ignores cause and effect within their theories, the theories are flawed. If it isn't a flaw when it is ignored, then it is downright attempted deception.
His kind are dying out. Atheists in the first world are growing fast, religion is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion
He should be afraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion
Quote
In terms of absolute numbers, irreligion appears to be increasing (along with secularization generally).[101] (See the geographic distribution of atheism.)
The American Religious Identification Survey gave nonreligious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers: 14.3 million (8.4% of the population) to 29.4 million (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990–2001 in the U.S.[57][96] A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports, "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling."[102] A similar pattern has been found in other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Mexico. According to statistics in Canada, the number of "Nones" increased by about 60% between 1985 and 2004.[103] In Australia, census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give "no religion" the largest gains in absolute numbers over the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, from 2,948,888 (18.2% of the population that answered the question) to 3,706,555 (21.0% of the population that answered the question).[104] According to INEGI, in Mexico, the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.[105][106] In New Zealand, 39% of the population are irreligious making it largest percentage of total population in Oceania region
The American Religious Identification Survey gave nonreligious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers: 14.3 million (8.4% of the population) to 29.4 million (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990–2001 in the U.S.[57][96] A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports, "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling."[102] A similar pattern has been found in other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Mexico. According to statistics in Canada, the number of "Nones" increased by about 60% between 1985 and 2004.[103] In Australia, census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give "no religion" the largest gains in absolute numbers over the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, from 2,948,888 (18.2% of the population that answered the question) to 3,706,555 (21.0% of the population that answered the question).[104] According to INEGI, in Mexico, the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.[105][106] In New Zealand, 39% of the population are irreligious making it largest percentage of total population in Oceania region
He should be afraid.
Since Atheism is a religion, it is only a shift in the religions, and which religious group has the larger population.
Atheists should fear more. They will have to face God in the judgment, and have a very good reason why they did not believe in Him. There probably won't be a reason that will be good enough, and they will be condemned.
Since all people die, my fear is mostly a fear of the passing operation itself... a natural fear, like everyone else has of death.
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour.
I think that's what he's saying. This is a good example of dummies like badecker trying to spread their "knowledge" to other simple minded dummies.
thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).
No he isn't. S/He uses tired arguments, logical fallacies and ignorance. An intelligent high school student can see though it. Arguments like this would fail in any liberal arts course, forget science. The only people convinced are equally as ignorant and uneducated. To think stupidity would be worn as a badge of honour.
His kind are dying out. Atheists in the first world are growing fast, religion is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion
He should be afraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion
Quote
In terms of absolute numbers, irreligion appears to be increasing (along with secularization generally).[101] (See the geographic distribution of atheism.)
The American Religious Identification Survey gave nonreligious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers: 14.3 million (8.4% of the population) to 29.4 million (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990–2001 in the U.S.[57][96] A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports, "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling."[102] A similar pattern has been found in other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Mexico. According to statistics in Canada, the number of "Nones" increased by about 60% between 1985 and 2004.[103] In Australia, census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give "no religion" the largest gains in absolute numbers over the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, from 2,948,888 (18.2% of the population that answered the question) to 3,706,555 (21.0% of the population that answered the question).[104] According to INEGI, in Mexico, the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.[105][106] In New Zealand, 39% of the population are irreligious making it largest percentage of total population in Oceania region
The American Religious Identification Survey gave nonreligious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers: 14.3 million (8.4% of the population) to 29.4 million (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990–2001 in the U.S.[57][96] A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports, "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling."[102] A similar pattern has been found in other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Mexico. According to statistics in Canada, the number of "Nones" increased by about 60% between 1985 and 2004.[103] In Australia, census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give "no religion" the largest gains in absolute numbers over the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, from 2,948,888 (18.2% of the population that answered the question) to 3,706,555 (21.0% of the population that answered the question).[104] According to INEGI, in Mexico, the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.[105][106] In New Zealand, 39% of the population are irreligious making it largest percentage of total population in Oceania region
He should be afraid.
I feel sorry for you, badecker. I sincerely hope you won't live the rest of your life in ignorance.
I feel the same way. Do you think we could get a donation fund set up for Badecker and all others in a similar position? He needs all the help he can get.
In all seriousness, only time can help. Religion is a dying problem, it becomes less and less relevant every day as it has been for a long time. We are too connected and intelligent for it to be a viable means of control in this day and age for most people. Hopefully we're only a few generations away from religion being in the same camp as smallpox.
On a very related note, have you guys watched the documentary "Jesus Camp"? It's an interesting look at hard-core religious beliefs, available on Netflix.
Thanks, kids, for feeling sorry for me. I should feel sorry for you more, but I don't, 'cause you are young enough that you just might survive.
The two weakest religions that will crash first are the religion of atheism, and the religion of faulty science like evolution. It is happening among a lot of folks right now. And you can see me crashing them right here in this forum.
I don't have anything against you kids. I should feel sorry for you, because you will be receiving the backlash of your crashed religions in the near future. But I don't have time to feel sorry. I'm too busy preparing for the crash, because it will not only be a crash of your religions. It will go into finance, and all kinds of other things.
Should I say, "good luck to you?" I don't have time. But, thanks again for feeling sorry for me.
I feel sorry for you, badecker. I sincerely hope you won't live the rest of your life in ignorance.
I feel the same way. Do you think we could get a donation fund set up for Badecker and all others in a similar position? He needs all the help he can get.
In all seriousness, only time can help. Religion is a dying problem, it becomes less and less relevant every day as it has been for a long time. We are too connected and intelligent for it to be a viable means of control in this day and age for most people. Hopefully we're only a few generations away from religion being in the same camp as smallpox.
On a very related note, have you guys watched the documentary "Jesus Camp"? It's an interesting look at hard-core religious beliefs, available on Netflix.
Thanks, kids, for feeling sorry for me. I should feel sorry for you more, but I don't, 'cause you are young enough that you just might survive.
The two weakest religions that will crash first are the religion of atheism, and the religion of faulty science like evolution. It is happening among a lot of folks right now. And you can see me crashing them right here in this forum.
I don't have anything against you kids. I should feel sorry for you, because you will be receiving the backlash of your crashed religions in the near future. But I don't have time to feel sorry. I'm too busy preparing for the crash, because it will not only be a crash of your religions. It will go into finance, and all kinds of other things.
Should I say, "good luck to you?" I don't have time. But, thanks again for feeling sorry for me.
I feel sorry for you, badecker. I sincerely hope you won't live the rest of your life in ignorance.
I feel the same way. Do you think we could get a donation fund set up for Badecker and all others in a similar position? He needs all the help he can get.
In all seriousness, only time can help. Religion is a dying problem, it becomes less and less relevant every day as it has been for a long time. We are too connected and intelligent for it to be a viable means of control in this day and age for most people. Hopefully we're only a few generations away from religion being in the same camp as smallpox.
On a very related note, have you guys watched the documentary "Jesus Camp"? It's an interesting look at hard-core religious beliefs, available on Netflix.
I feel sorry for you, badecker. I sincerely hope you won't live the rest of your life in ignorance.
I feel the same way. Do you think we could get a donation fund set up for Badecker and all others in a similar position? He needs all the help he can get.
Jump to: