In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2049
Online now 1823 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
To be fair, this is from the 1920's.
I would say that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. That's cool, they aren't the ones trying to teach intelligent design in science classes.
Darwin messed up the title of the book anyways - "Origin...."
The theory has nothing to do with the origin of anything.
Buncha communist manifesto mumbo jumbo from the North.
As to facts and laws - I don't see an guarantees attached to them - just more Big Ten mumbo jumbo.
"Look I'm an evolved Ohio State Fan
Damn didnt realize. Well, its ridiculous.
I read through a bit of OP's link, and the second point about language interested me. I won't go into great detail, but simply put, the author relies almost exclusively on the work of Friedrich (Max) Muller, a philologist contemporary of Charles Darwin. Muller was anti-Darwinist to the core, to the point where he actively sought out methods and research in a desperate attempt to prove Darwin wrong. W.D. Whitney published a full critique of Muller's work and its many shortcomings, but I'll give you bits and pieces.
Basically, Muller glosses over what many philologists to this day maintain - that the origin of language is one of the most difficult scientific inquiries, because unlike evolution, there is no fossil record nor hard evidence of any kind. As a result, the vast majority of conjecture regarding language's origins is just that - nothing more than mere conjecture. There is simply no evidence whatsoever of the origin of language until written languages begin to appear.
The author's (and Muller's) main argument is as follows: the similarities between certain words across multiple languages indicates that all language came from a common origin, and since there are only a few identified branches of this language, there can't have been billions of years of evolution, or else there would be many more languages.
Now, Whitney gets into a number of criticisms, but I'll just go through a quick list of my own criticisms and some of Whitney's.
1. The author fails to consider the extinction of languages through means other than (ironically) natural selection. Catastrophic events that destroy entire populations don't warrant a mention.
2. The author predicates his beliefs on Muller's theory that animals don't demonstrate language. Modern research has found that not only do animals communicate in many, many different ways, but they're even capable of learning and understanding English.
3. The author cites the change in total words in Johnson's dictionary as evidence. (58,000 at first publication, 300,000+ now). However, the author fails to consider the ever-increasing innovative curve - as new things are invented, new words are needed to describe these things. The author assumes that the breadth of the lexicon must increase at some steady amount, not exponentially as the growth of population and innovation now indicate.
Ultimately, the author relies on flawed "science" from a biased source that was discredited 150 years ago when it was first published.
Pretty sure Muller was an athiest - another 19th century Big Ten wannabe.
Do you ever take the time to think about some things and think ''Someone had to have planned this.''?
@CMXI Doesn't everyone use "biased" articles to prove their points? Kind of what you do to get your own agenda across.
This post was edited by Rebel 30 14 months ago
The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy
I don't speak for anyone else, but I try to bring as many objective studies as possible to tBB.
Everyone does not use articles with terrible science and erronious conclusions to prove their points.
However, if you're talking about me saying Muller is biased, this is a guy who literally devoted large portions of his life trying to disprove Charles Darwin's theories. I'm not putting any spin on it when I say he was biased.
Very good response to the first time. OP, population does not grow on any set mathematical scale. There are a variety of factors as to how populations of any human or animal species can grow. The Jews, living under different circumstances, could grow in a drastically different manner from Europe in the Black Plague. It's obviously not as simple as doubling every X years. This Wiki article has a chart of world population since 10000 B.C...... the curve does not suggest any set doubling rate. If one existed before, the last 100 years have completely thrown that away.
As for the many remaining "arguments", the first few don't even address evolution... mostly just Biblical arguments for a literal interpretation of creationism. This talkorigins article can help you out on some points:
By "objective" do you mean studies that show good points on both views? Creation and evolution?
So it's ok for Darwin to spend his life trying to disprove creation, but it's not ok for Muller to try and disprove Darwin?
I really am trying to understand your reasoning.
No, he was simply stating that he was very against Darwin and made it his life work to disprove Darwin's findings, therefore using him as a source is not a good basis for forming an objective argument, it had nothing to do with who was doing the right or wrong work
Why So Serious?
Are you saying that Darwin also is not a good source to form an objective argument since he spent his life trying to disprove creation? Why does it matter if that particular person is against someone and their theory/findings?
This logic doesn't make sense. Any time you delve into a study you run across opinion and that persons opinions of their findings.
That guys "numbers" are flawed. Mass Extinctions happen. World disasters happen. Asteroids hit. He included none of these in his numbers. What he tries to say is things happening in a perfect wold. This guy is tring to shock u with alot of writing and fancy numbering. It works great on stupid people.
Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Accepting one doesn't have to mean the rejection of the other. I don't know why people feel the need to think that it does.
Cause people are incredibly retarded
fsufsu said... I've got about 10 great stories on Lane but all you need to know is he will never be a loser, that's for sure.
Darwin didn't spend his life trying to disprove creation. He was a scientist that observed variation in nature and came up with a hypothesis to explain it. He made testable claims and then followed the evidence. It is the difference between trying to fit data to a preconceived idea and following where the evidence leads.
Evidently, I am very much a Christian, but evolution makes sense and there is quite a bit of evidence for it. I don't see the incompatibility.
There is no incompatibility
Basically, the difference between science and demagoguery.
I made it one sentence before I found an error:
"Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted."
The author does not understand that a theory of science, by definition, is as proven as can be.
Of course, there are other amusing ramblings that made me chuckle:
"1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."
There is no god, so obviously all matter is eternal and/or came by chance. No jump in logic there. Also, I do not find it an accident that the author says "believe in no god" instead of "do not believe in god".
OP, if this is the nonsense you read, I'm not surprised that you parrot it on this forum.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports