Jump to content
Science Forums

Chance and evolution


eMTee
 Share

Recommended Posts

You obviously have 0 understanding of evolution. A fish does not mutate into a mouse. Your lack of understanding is incredibly obvious.
How then can you say that humans came from monkeys? the fish to a mouse is a metaphor. (example)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How then can you say that humans came from monkeys? the fish to a mouse is a metaphor. (example)

Who said that? Just because we think humans and monkeys may have a common ancestor doesn't mean humans evolved from monkeys. Have you considered that possibly apes evolved from man? Are you open minded enough to consider any possibilities other than those espoused by the church? We don't have all of the answers but at least we're looking for them unlike the theologists that jsut claim that it's all to complicated to understand so some supernatural being must have made it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us take another mathematical look at creationism. The Earth is 4500 years old. God made Adam and Eve (population = 2). So in 4500 years we go from 2 to about 8 billion. That is a population growth rate at over 100%. Current growth rates are at 1.14% (and probabaly about as good as it gets, more than likely average rates were much lower in the past). Using the current modern growth rate it would take alomst a trillion years to grow this population. Did your god make some more people after killing all but a handful in the flood. (Which was ignored in this calualtion).

If you want to support a literal interpretation of the bible, thats fine. But showing that point A is correct because point B(involving a completely different subject) may be correct is a false argument and really not proving anything other that a blind acceptance of what someone else interpreted for you.

eMTee, quite simply your argument is empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piano's should only be pre-war Steinways and over 9 feet long.
Now, finally we have a serious disagreement. Steinways are the third best piano on the planet. The Steinway "D" (their 9 footer) is a great machine, but most folks can't put a device that big anypalce. The Steinway "B" (6"10 1/2") is more common in homes, and is their normal reference standard for non-concert use.

 

I have a 1972 7"5" Grotrian Steinweg. It is a FAR better machine than a Steinway B. Any well maintained 7' Grotrian will outperform a well maintained Steinway B. Further, the Bosendorfer 7"4" is also usually much better than a Steinway B as well. And the Bosendorfere Imperial (9'6") blows away the Steinway D in concert settings.

 

Now THIS is a religious discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, finally we have a serious disagreement. Steinways are the third best piano on the planet. The Steinway "D" (their 9 footer) is a great machine, but most folks can't put a device that big anypalce. The Steinway "B" (6"10 1/2") is more common in homes, and is their normal reference standard for non-concert use.
We used to have a 1939 Steinway "M". The "M" is six inches longer than the "B" and was also known as the "studio" grand. Post-war Steinways went downhill, just like post-CBS Fenders...

 

We sold the M for a small fortune, but nothing I've played since holds a candle to it...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used to have a 1939 Steinway "M". The "M" is six inches longer than the "B" and was also known as the "studio" grand. Post-war Steinways went downhill, just like post-CBS Fenders...

 

We sold the M for a small fortune, but nothing I've played since holds a candle to it...

Steinway M pianos were shorter tham B's (over a foot shorter) at 5'10", but they were great machines. Most think they are better than the current Steinway L models, that replaced them. I had a 1910 Steinway O that I rebuilt when I lived in San Fransicso for a couple of years (so I could have a piano down there.) That was a great machine too (5'10 1/2") and was also better than the current L product. Mine was actually played by Toscanini in New York at one time.

 

CBS bought Steinway in 1972 and caused some damage, although they did pour in some cash at a difficult time. Steinway got repurchased away from CBS by some investors in 1985. It has improved since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there was an interesting blurb in the June SciAm about RNA's role in *reversing* some wierd mutations, like the six toed cat. Might have some implications for explaining punctuated equilibrium...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

Almost makes me wish I hadn't stopped buying SciAm instead of AmSci, almost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Earth is 4500 years old. God made Adam and Eve (population = 2). So in 4500 years we go from 2 to about 8 billion. That is a population growth rate at over 100%.
adam lived to be 930 Y.O. and had a lot of kids. Population shrunk to 8 after the flood, but they still had a lot of kids. is it set in stone that yhe Earth is 6000 Y.O.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Buffy,

 

Strewth this threads gone crazy! Replying to your post 194 or there abouts.

 

Point finally grasped and acknowledged, science haters should not be ignored. Now to my new grizzle. How dare you and Bio argue about your grand pianos as well as managing your science so WELL! Don't you realise the Renaissance was over 300+ bl**dy years ago? Get with the times and SPECIALISE!

 

Just because I'm burning with envy, thereby flying my green credentials for all the world to see, has nothing to do with the issue of your flagrant dilettantism and frivolity. God! I wish I could play the bl**dy thing, Keith Jarrett can absolutely leave me breathless. May you and Bio keep on playing, keep on making music and I'll star in my dreams.

 

I'll have to spend some time on your debate with Bio when I find some space, flat out at the moment, cheers gub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare you and Bio argue about your grand pianos as well as managing your science so WELL! Don't you realise the Renaissance was over 300+ bl**dy years ago? Get with the times and SPECIALISE!
There ya go Bio: You're officially an anachronism. Renaissance men are out of style. Wait...he's calling me an anachronism too! Hmph. Well as long as gub appreciates me for my brains as well as my many other assets...I'm okay with that!

 

Renaissance-Grrrl-in-Residence,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There ya go Bio: You're officially an anachronism. Renaissance men are out of style. Wait...he's calling me an anachronism too! Hmph.
Anachronistic, and pleased to be.

 

Gub, you can come to Portland and sip suds while we play piano anytime. You to Buff (no letchery intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us take another mathematical look at creationism. The Earth is 4500 years old. God made Adam and Eve (population = 2). So in 4500 years we go from 2 to about 8 billion. That is a population growth rate at over 100%. Current growth rates are at 1.14% (and probabaly about as good as it gets, more than likely average rates were much lower in the past).
According to our government research, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html there were only about 350 million people on the planet when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. So it wouldn't be a struggle to reach that population from 8 (rour women) in 3000 years or so. They would have to start very quickly and have multiple births every year or so for their entire life times, which could have been 700 or so. (Better to be a man in those days.) And each of their offspring (assuming half women) would have to do the same. Even if life span lowered to age 50 and they still kept giving birth at the rate of one or two a year, the population could have reached 350 million by 1493. Now, how they spread out over the world is another matter. If the native americans were discovered by Columbus, then there must have been some previous colonization of the "new world." I'll leave that to someone else's imagination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

adam lived to be 930 Y.O. and had a lot of kids. Population shrunk to 8 after the flood, but they still had a lot of kids. is it set in stone that yhe Earth is 6000 Y.O.?

 

In the olden days, round about the time the Bible and similar religious texts were written, the concept of time recording differed from area to area. Some people swore by the phases of the moon in recording a "year", others went by the seasons.

 

In short - the idea of any one person living to 930 years probably came as a result of a mistranslation of the original texts where two different cultures referred to a "year" as either the cycle from full moon to full moon or from summer to summer.

 

In other words, any one of the grizzled old men referred to in Genesis who lived to, say, 600 years, in fact only lived for 600 months. Which is 50 years. Which means that Adam lived for 77 years and 6 months. Which is very old for those days, but still plausable.

 

Just goes to show - don't rely on texts which have been translated umpteenth times with the chances of error increasing exponentially with every translation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just goes to show - don't rely on texts which have been translated umpteenth times with the chances of error increasing exponentially with every translation...

 

In most of the Biblical texts, the real chances of error don't come from the words being mistranslated, but the meanings, as you elucidated. I'd never heard that month to month possibility. Very interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, any one of the grizzled old men referred to in Genesis who lived to, say, 600 years, in fact only lived for 600 months. Which is 50 years. Which means that Adam lived for 77 years and 6 months. Which is very old for those days, but still plausable.

 

I think that analogy is wrong, because you do not see any improvement in the agespan or and thus also the health. I am afraid that you are wrong

 

You can go by seasons...that would be more likely being that Adam would have lived 232.5 years.

 

But sence the age always seems to go down slowly, all the way to modern age, when can one determin when this stops, and starts going by years as years, and not by months or seasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that analogy is wrong, because you do not see any improvement in the agespan or and thus also the health. I am afraid that you are wrong

 

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, average lifespan have been increasing ever since we climbed down from the trees and figured out a way to advance our medicine. Go and look at any statistical analysis of lifespan increase over the last 100 years, for instance. Obviously it might be going down now due to the proliferation of junk food, the increase in obesity in the States, for example, but in general it's been climbing.

 

You can go by seasons...that would be more likely being that Adam would have lived 232.5 years.

 

No, not the number of seasons, the number of seasonal cycles, i.e. from summer to summer - including fall, winter and spring - as one cycle. Therefore, Adam would have been 900+ years. Which is patently impossible. If it was lunar cycles being wrongly translated as years, he would have been in his seventies, which was way old for the times, but not impossible.

 

But sence the age always seems to go down slowly, all the way to modern age, when can one determin when this stops, and starts going by years as years, and not by months or seasons?

 

The average lifespan is not going down slowly. Quite the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...