Send a Message
to nothingUnreal

Comments

1,514

Joined

Aug 18, 2010

nothingUnreal's Favorites

nothingUnreal Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Top Stories

Do you believe in Evolutuion or the Bible?

Does it require faith to believe that poor maintenance increases the risk of plane crashes?  (Feb 22, 2012 | post #14956)

Evolution Debate

Rick Perry's true ID: creationism in the classroom | Andr...

I agree absolutely. Creationism SHOULD be taught in science, as an example of the foolishness one gets from taking iron age myths seriously, the lengths to which the ignorant will go to debase human achievement, and how easily one can dispel their lies and misrepresentations with a little SCIENCE.  (Aug 23, 2011 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

Michele Bachmann: Public Schools Should Teach Creationism

We absolutely should teach all about creationism in school. We should teach why the catholic church rejects it, and a survey of the lies and misrepresentations and outright frauds perpetrated in support of it. And once children see how desperate some churches are to fool justify their belief in iron age fantasy, the jib will be up. In the process, children will learn what creatards want to keep them from, an understanding of how science works, why we need it, and what it has taught us about the world as it really is.  (Jun 19, 2011 | post #7)

Evolution Debate

And that's why we call them IDiots

I dissent. Forget ID. I have been engaging many theists in a much simpler question--why do you believe in God? Bottom line is, they don't understand that the claims made by others---by themselves--are only evidence about the claimant. There is no debate that theists exist, the question is, is what they believe true? They often reply "You can't prove it isn't", and when I demonstrate that there is no proof in life, but that I can, in fact, demonstrate that it is among the least persuasive and most remarkable of ideas, they respond by giving "evidence ": 1. I've always believed it. 2. Millions believe it. 3. Scripture supports it. Then I point out that 1. Belief is STILL not evidence. 2. Millions believe contradictory things, including demon possession and alien abduction, and that close examination never supports these claims, and that these claim are only evidence about the human mind. 3. Everything in scripture that can be validated against the world is wrong. Therefore scripture is NOT of the creator. Therefore scripture is only a claim--only evidence about the authors. And then, if they keep engaging at all, they whine about how I'm trying to rob their life of meaning (I am not) or how morality cannot exist without theism (It can--and must) or, ultimately, how they just want to believe (knew that--sad). And that's why we call them fools.  (Jun 18, 2011 | post #1)

Evolution Debate

Age of the Earth?

ProjectionUnless a little radiation comes along and creates it, as sometimes happens in some granites and other radiologically active deposits.The amount of radiogenic C14 is terrible small, creating background signal that real scientists account for, and that creation scientist use to commit fraud on dupes like youActually No. Radiometric dating is CALIBRATED. For example, C14 dating has been calibrated against tree ring data that goes back tens of thousands of years. Other dating methods are calibrated in different ways. The methods used for dating the earth are based only on the assumption that the rate of radiological decay is approximately constant over time. Since we actually UNDERSTAND decay, we know that this must be true in order for the universe to remain stable, and the methods are self calibrating. The earth is 4.54 billion years old. Humans split from the other great apes about 6-7 million years ago. If you don't have this straight, you are a repeater of creationist propaganda--and a moron.  (Jun 15, 2011 | post #124)

Evolution Debate

Age of the Earth?

Then perhaps you should study the subject before forming an opinion upon a mistaken foundation. Evolution is how populations of living thing change over time and from place to place. Generally, selective pressure favors populations becoming better adapted over time--but not always. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" but "survival of the survivors" Perfectly fit species can be destroyed for natural disasters or bad luck. Species can become too well adapted to one environment, so that they fail to adapt to a change. I religious fanatics manage to blow up the world, this will certainly have been true for us and our giant brain. Life is not climbing a ladder of perfection. It is just growing and changing and branching. Further, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. If you don't know this and know how I can say it with such certainty, you need more scientific literacy before you are ready to question the wisdom of the global scientific community. Hint: You will NOT get it by visiting young earth creation websites.  (Jun 13, 2011 | post #40)

Evolution Debate

Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown University

It never occurred to him because "devolution " is crack-pot nonsense just s inconsistent with reality as "flat earth theory" and "hydroplate theory".  (May 16, 2011 | post #5)

Biology

Should evolution be taught in high school?

I have better things to do than argue with the professional reality deniers here, but I thought the educated might enjoy this article, called "Why humans have big brains but don't have whiskers or penises with spines" http://articles.la times.com/2011/mar /10/news/la-heb-pe nile-spines-201103 09 Enjoy, and chew the full time morons a new one for me. Chow.  (Mar 13, 2011 | post #53290)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

The Humanist fanifesto is indeed a statement of beliefs. Some are empirically provable (if anything is) and some are not. I reject the seventh "Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained." This is not an empirical truth but an asserting, an attempt to redefine religion in a way that is presumably more paletable to rationalists. All well and good, but most atheists define religion as "everything having to do with baseless belief in majic" and reject the concept out of hand. I also reject the hourteenth, " that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world." I believe this to be nonsense, that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism can be just, and that many of our modern American problems stem from the artificial and childish polarization between the two, rather than the common sense acceptance that a just society must be an alloy of both, and that arguing over where and when to set the balance it the perpetual and legitimate work of free men--in other words, not radical but minor adjustments are called for and not just now, but for all time.  (Jan 14, 2011 | post #51898)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

A series of fossils, that progressively transform from one form to a related form to another related form over time, as measured by multiple overlapping means, DOES imply inheritance. And where genetic evidence is available, it conclusively confirms the correlation, allowing us to reliably carry it back into the distant past. A book of bronze age myths does not imply historical fact.  (Jan 14, 2011 | post #51897)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

You weren't at the creation of the earth, and neither were the folks who wrote genesis. But an 4.64 billion year old oblate spheroid earth is consistent with all the physical evidence, whereas a flat earth surrounded by magic waters and covered by an inverted dome to keep them out is not.  (Jan 14, 2011 | post #51896)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

Except that this is not a claim made by scientists but a distortion on your part. The cambrian "explosion " took about 50 MILLION years. It is only explosive in that it is a striking feature within the slow forming strata. And this is how it always is. Nothing of the real world supports your crazy view, so you pretend that science says something others than what it really does. This does not help your case, it only exposes the desperation of your position.  (Jan 14, 2011 | post #51895)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

1. We observe fossils that show that ape like animals were progressively replaced by every more human like animals over a span of 8 million years. 2. Skeptics demand missing links. Theory predicts that while not all of these animals are human ancestors, many probably are or are closely related to human ancestors, and that if this is so, we will find the intermediates, and eventually more intermediates, and more and more. Eventually we find more than twenty, and have just scratched the surface. 3. Theory predicts that the genes of the most similar of these fossil will be distinct from ours but that the more recent and more humanoid they appear, the more similar the DNA is likely to be--it is. 4. Theory predicts that harmless mutations will tend to occur in the same locations on animals that evolved from a common ancestor, and ERVs and SNP and several other markers demonstrate that this is true. The number of mutations shared by two animals are directly proportional to how closely related they appear to be based on fossil and anatomical evidence. 5. Theory PREDICTED that our 23 chromosomes could only be explained by a fusion of the type we have observed in the laboratory. We THEN found human chromosome 2 to be, quite obviously such a fusion, displaying exactly the markers we expect to see from such a mutation--two extra back to back telomeres with some mission bases pairs in the middle (and as exactly the right spots in the sequences to match the ends of the ape versions, and a redundant centromere (also in just the right place) that (no longer active) shows an appropriate amount of random decay to allow us to estimate what the split occurred (in the between 1 and 6 MYA--so we may yet recover fossil DNA to tell us when exactly). 6. Human chromosome #6 mutated about 17MYA and it's centromere moved to a new location and later moved back, leaving what in lay terms we will call a latent measurable affinity for jumping to the wrong location. We haven't looked yet, but human descent from apes all but guarantees we will find the same thing true of all living great apes that the fossil indicate split from our last common ancestor more recently than that.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #51645)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution d...

Not that continually repeating the same errors really constitutes much of a defenseNo, science is BASED on observation. Last week I found efflorescence in my garage. This observation, coupled with an understanding of nature based on countless other observations bu myself and others, is sufficient to proove that water from my gutter is wicking into the concrete and leaching minerals out of the cement (so I need to apply some epoxy floor paint to arrest this process before the cement grows weak and starts crumbling--which it WILL if I do nothing. All of this I know. All is based on observation. I do not need to leave a slow motion camera running in the garage, or build a chemical laboratory there. Water is wicking through the concrete. Man evolved. Reality bites.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #51644)

Q & A with nothingUnreal

Headline:

Science is the waytof truth

Hometown:

Earth

Neighborhood:

Where common sense lives

When I'm Not on Topix:

I am am fighting for common sense elsewhere

I'm Listening To:

Tangerine Dream

Read This Book:

The Age of Reason

I Believe In:

1. The universe is real. 2. The only way to understand it is through physical evidence and reasoned logic therefrom. 3. The foundation of morality is the welfare of humanity and prevention of suffering. 4. Evil is what humans do when they fail to test their beliefs against the ruler of reality.