Evolution

  • 81 Replies
  • 10898 Views

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #61 on: November 27, 2011, 10:29:08 AM »
This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.
You mean cheap philosophy, or dumb word games, as most "FE'ers" play.

Evolution is not just a synonym for change, it is the name of a specific biological process. And it involves specific mechanisms which appear in living beings and do not appear in rocks or planets or stars.

What you are naming "philosophical" is actually a bad metaphor, where you play with the other meanings of the word "evolve" and try to jump back to the first meaning without others seeing your deplorable sleight-of-hand.

He's absolutely right though.  The universe evolved into galaxies and stars etc due to the laws of physics.  It was those same laws of physics (we presume) that led to the genesis of life, and those same laws of physics led to the evolution of life.  So unless you attach some kind of religious or spiritual significance to the existence of life itself, you have to concede that it's all part of the same continuous flow of evolution.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Evolution
« Reply #62 on: November 27, 2011, 10:49:45 AM »
This has nothing to do with FET. It's actually kind of philosophical. The point is, although the mechanism is slightly different, cosmic evolution and the evolution of life are inherently similar so long as one does not give special significance to life.
You mean cheap philosophy, or dumb word games, as most "FE'ers" play.

Evolution is not just a synonym for change, it is the name of a specific biological process. And it involves specific mechanisms which appear in living beings and do not appear in rocks or planets or stars.

What you are naming "philosophical" is actually a bad metaphor, where you play with the other meanings of the word "evolve" and try to jump back to the first meaning without others seeing your deplorable sleight-of-hand.

No, you're just an angry noob. You see, when one strips away the special importance we put on life, evolution becomes nothing more than the gradual change of living objects to better suit their environment. Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Evolution
« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2011, 02:46:13 AM »
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Evolution
« Reply #64 on: November 28, 2011, 02:54:57 AM »
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.

You're still putting special significance on life

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Evolution
« Reply #65 on: November 28, 2011, 05:00:59 AM »
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap.
So you actively ignore the three posts that proved you wrong? How hilarious.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Evolution
« Reply #66 on: November 28, 2011, 06:36:11 AM »
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap.
So you actively ignore the three posts that proved you wrong? How hilarious.

Its just as hilarious as the thread where it took around 10 pages to explain to you that a flat map must exist for a flat Earth.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #67 on: November 28, 2011, 08:59:15 PM »
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Evolution
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2011, 12:36:56 AM »
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.

Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.

You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.

And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 12:38:59 AM by trig »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2011, 04:40:29 AM »
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap.
So you actively ignore the three posts that proved you wrong? How hilarious.

Yes, just like you and the bendy light disproof: "Duh, nobody has EVER posted that, herp derp"
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #70 on: December 01, 2011, 08:00:22 PM »
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.

Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.

You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.

And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.
Exactly.  It doesn't matter.  So stop talking about it.

Re: Evolution
« Reply #71 on: December 05, 2011, 10:34:31 AM »
Talk about going in circles. I am no advocate of FE theory but I like to debate and I respect anyone or anything that challenges mainstream ideas. Lets face it though, ideas change (evolve if you want) and a hundreds of years from now people will probably laugh at all of us. But anyway ...

I would like to add something that all here might find worthy of note. I watched a documentary called "IMAX Hubble" about the (alleged to FE'ers) Hubble space telescope and all the amazing pictures and data that it has provided on its journeys.
In one section it showed the birth process of stars in the Orion nebula which take on a perceptible 'disc-like' shape as the various gases and clumps of matter (not an expert so please excuse me if Im inaccurate with terminology) swirl around the central ... um ... "nucleus?" ... Anyway, is this not an example of a heavenly body in a the shape of a disc? Galaxies also apparently have a disc-like shape (roughly disc-like) for reasons that Ive always wondered about ... are galaxies not also heavenly bodies when seen with the naked eye or through a telescope?  This documentary was partly the reason that I joined this whole debate. Scientists are constantly learning something new about the universe and are usually taken by complete surprise by what they find ...
To stick to your current debate though, I think that the word "evolution" can be used in both the traditional sense (ie gradual change) and the evolutionist sense of it. Why not? Is this not the English language where one word can mean multiple things?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Evolution
« Reply #72 on: December 05, 2011, 10:43:09 AM »
You can tell FE'ers are all trolls when they believe the earth is flat (a religous phenomenon arguing that humans are special creatures) and then go to argue evolution. They take the side that receives the most negative criticism in any given argument to ensure they receive maximum attention. The exact same strategy a troll would use.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #73 on: December 05, 2011, 01:08:04 PM »
Talk about going in circles. I am no advocate of FE theory but I like to debate and I respect anyone or anything that challenges mainstream ideas. Lets face it though, ideas change (evolve if you want) and a hundreds of years from now people will probably laugh at all of us. But anyway ...

I would like to add something that all here might find worthy of note. I watched a documentary called "IMAX Hubble" about the (alleged to FE'ers) Hubble space telescope and all the amazing pictures and data that it has provided on its journeys.
In one section it showed the birth process of stars in the Orion nebula which take on a perceptible 'disc-like' shape as the various gases and clumps of matter (not an expert so please excuse me if Im inaccurate with terminology) swirl around the central ... um ... "nucleus?" ... Anyway, is this not an example of a heavenly body in a the shape of a disc? Galaxies also apparently have a disc-like shape (roughly disc-like) for reasons that Ive always wondered about ... are galaxies not also heavenly bodies when seen with the naked eye or through a telescope?  This documentary was partly the reason that I joined this whole debate. Scientists are constantly learning something new about the universe and are usually taken by complete surprise by what they find ...
To stick to your current debate though, I think that the word "evolution" can be used in both the traditional sense (ie gradual change) and the evolutionist sense of it. Why not? Is this not the English language where one word can mean multiple things?

Stars form when a clump of matter in a large dust cloud gets disturbed, these clouds are usually rotating.  This rotation causes the shape of a disk until the gravitation of the central cluster can pull in the rest of the surrounding matter.

Galaxies are not always thin disks, and they have similar physics as stars when you think of the stars as dust particles.  as galaxies age they are less likely to be thin disks, as the black holes at their center/ collisions with other galaxies gradually draw the stars in.  These Galaxies tend to be filled with much larger more red stars, unlike our own milky way which is younger and still filled with plenty of young blue stars.

The spinning we see in many aspects of the universe is what can account for disks, but only in non solid bodies.  Dust clouds and galaxies are fluid, while planets are much more solid.  Sure the planets spin, but the mass of the central object prevents a disk shape, instead a bulge around the equator can be found.  But the earth and moon's orbit are both disk shapes, but only because they are not combined into one.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #74 on: December 05, 2011, 02:49:34 PM »
You can tell FE'ers are all trolls when they believe the earth is flat (a religous phenomenon arguing that humans are special creatures) and then go to argue evolution. They take the side that receives the most negative criticism in any given argument to ensure they receive maximum attention. The exact same strategy a troll would use.

Did I read this wrong, or did you just suggest that belief in evolution receives more negative criticism than belief in Creationism?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Evolution
« Reply #75 on: December 05, 2011, 05:52:19 PM »
Meanwhile, celestial evolution is the gradual change of celestial objects to better suit their environment. I admit that the mechanism is slightly different, but that doesn't make the two processes different. As a matter of fact, there's a logical fallacy about that.
This is not just cheap philosophy, this is just a bunch of crap. Living organisms actively work to adapt to their environment, both through adaptation during their lifetime and through Evolution (the one Darwin explained, not just dictionary definition #3), working hard to get their genes into the next generation (even though most do not know about genes).

Rocks are just acted upon. If they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time, they become sand (assuming this is a bad thing). If they fall into a river, they are sometimes polished to nice round shapes (if you consider round a nice feature). They do not adapt to anything, they are just shaped or destroyed by whatever conditions exist around them. The same happens to planets, stars and even galaxies.
Oh, come now, that's not what he means.  I think what he's trying to say is that life is based on DNA which is based on chemistry and physics.  Celestial motion acts by the same laws.  You're the worst kind of rationalist.  To you, there is no in-between and all reason based on something that isn't reason itself is not valid at all.  What Spock's dad didn't understand was that marrying a human to understand their species better is not rational at all.  It's just silly.
It is not rationalism. Darwin and others in his time chose the word "Evolution" instead of creating a new word, and they had the right to do so. They created a new concept and pretty much overtook the word.

Playing with the various definitions of one word as if they were just one is exactly what I have been saying: useless word games. No special powers are transferred from one meaning to the other just because the same word is used for both.

You may find a sense of beauty and a sense of purpose on any random occurrence. You can see the Virgin Mary on a stained wall if you want. But this does not transfer any purpose to the wall. Darwinian Evolution is not the same as "things evolve from a state I like less to a state I like more". It is a huge lot more than that.

And Physics and Chemistry are everywhere, but that does not mean anything either. There is Physics and Chemistry in my brain and in a computer, but that does not mean I think like a computer.

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is nothing other than the other definition, but more precise. Your argument is equivalent to me arguing that algae are nothing like sea grass because algae are plant-like, and not sea grass-like.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Evolution
« Reply #76 on: December 05, 2011, 06:20:05 PM »
You can tell FE'ers are all trolls when they believe the earth is flat (a religous phenomenon arguing that humans are special creatures) and then go to argue evolution. They take the side that receives the most negative criticism in any given argument to ensure they receive maximum attention. The exact same strategy a troll would use.

Did I read this wrong, or did you just suggest that belief in evolution receives more negative criticism than belief in Creationism?

Depends on who you're arguing with. If I go into an advanced biology class and start discussing creationism I'm going to receive a lot of negative criticism. If I go into a church and start discussing evolution, same thing.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Evolution
« Reply #77 on: December 20, 2011, 07:31:49 PM »
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo.   All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Evolution
« Reply #78 on: December 20, 2011, 08:42:23 PM »
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo.   All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.
Are you saying that irregularly shaped asteroids can't be of a sizable mass (whatever that means)?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Evolution
« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2011, 11:41:45 PM »
Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.
Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo.   All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.
Are you saying that irregularly shaped asteroids can't be of a sizable mass (whatever that means)?
Yes.  "Sizable" generally means something like "pretty big."  So a celestial object of a pretty big mass will always collapse into a sphere due to gravity.  A giant cube is a sphere with eight huge mountains that are incredibly unstable and will immediately crash in a huge mess of avalanches and rockslides, etc.

In this context, I'd take "sizable" to mean big enough to collapse into a sphere.  Of course asteroids aren't spheres, because they aren't a big enough mass to collapse into a sphere, whereas a planar Earth (assuming the mantle and core to still exist underneath) would.  Do you know of any other celestial planes?

Re: Evolution
« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2011, 11:51:58 PM »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

kbthiede

  • 63
  • RE, because I actually learned high school science
Re: Evolution
« Reply #81 on: December 22, 2011, 06:10:47 PM »
The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society! Where everythin is made up and good science doesn't matter (because it's all a part of a big bad conspiracy!!!)
Science - logic + (lots and lots of) magic = FLAT EARTH THEORY