The Daily Show With Jon Stewart - Evolution Schmevolution

[Believer]

Agreed,

On an off note we actually use 100% of our brains.
The 10% thing is a myth and continues to survive despite it being obviously wrong.

Well, okay, but what is that brain mass used for that you claim is used when it is so widely accepted that there is a % that isn't used? What do you think it is? I have heared of doctors reports that for whatever reason holds a spiritual side to it, my dad being a doctor, so he would know, he is always updated. What is your take?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Agreed,

On an off note we actually use 100% of our brains.
The 10% thing is a myth and continues to survive despite it being obviously wrong.

Well, okay, but what is that brain mass used for that you claim is used when it is so widely accepted that there is a % that isn't used? What do you think it is? I have heared of doctors reports that for whatever reason holds a spiritual side to it, my dad being a doctor, so he would know, he is always updated. What is your take?

Yes, its a popularly held belief. But it is not an accepted figure. Remove any part of the brain and one will suffer consequences.

Ask your father to clarify, perhaps he can help you.

Also heres are some imformative websites.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca ... o=0&fpart=
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_028.html

[bizzt]

Something to think about... If we believe that everything is Physical then Doctors by doing stuff with the Brain should be able to control your thoughts etc. This cannot be done and is seperated from your Consciousness or Soul. So does the Brain hold your Soul/Spirit? No I don't think so...

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

And, really, what physical evidence is evolution based on?

There are many.

Let us first state the fact that all living organisms must come from other living organisms.

Next there are many types of organisms.

And Finally the fossil evidence contains many more species than are living today. And does not always contain examples of species living today.

Examine the evidence and it is clear that organisms have changed over time.

We could continue to what organic chemistry has contributed to our knowledge base, but I will save that for another post if need be.

A living organism must come from another living organism..yes, we call this the law of biogenesis-life comes from life. But then you have a problem, because evolution is built upon the assumption of abiogenesis-life coming from non-life. I win.

This is not true, study the topic more and we can continue the argument.
Evolution concerns speciation and change of organisms through time. It does not pose the origins of life.

Many types of organisms...? So?

The fossil record has more types of life than currently are living...well, yes, extinction occurs at a certain rate (can't remember the number, but a certain number of species die out per year) Your point? Also, almost ALL phylums of the animal kingdom have been found in the fossil record, in ONE small section!....some scientists venture to say ALL are in there, but only about 5 are missing according to our current knowledge. What does this have to do with evolution? Have you heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

Yes your right all phylums of life did occur in the precambrian along with other animal types which are fantastic and no longer exist. But, you don't even have to take a close look to see that life at that period was extremely alien to life forms which exist now. The phylum chordata which mammals belong to was represented by a lone urochordate, a very primative organism. Also arthopod like forms dominated the cambrian seas. Fish, nowhere to be found. So where did the fish come from? Did they microevolve from the urochordates? Did they appear out of nowhere? What happened to the law of biogenesis?

Organisms change over time...yes, microevolution...your point?

Organic chemistry...?? Continue with your evidence, don't stop at the title.

Lets finish this topic before going onto more complex matters. Fossil finds are the most basic and tactile of evidence for evolution.

Yes, evolution is built upon the assumption that abiogenesis is true-Darwin, as well as modern rabid atheists, want to explain life as it is found using naturalistic explanations, as august has said, Darwin was an atheist, or at best an agnostic, so there is no reason to assume that Darwin thought "God started the first life, and it evolved and went on from there"...I can't quote like August, but Darwin, in his Origin of Species, cooks up a nice little story, along the lines of "you know, life could have come about in some warm pond that had an electric current and was full of organic material"

No, no, no...almost all phylums of animal life appears IN the Cambrian explosion, not after. Which then begs the question...how was this life alien to life we see today? Since many of the lifeforms found in the explosion EXIST today!

Also, what if all life wasn't found there? I dont' see your point? So what if humans aren't found there...my point is, it is not possible that there was enough time for so many new forms of life to pop up, so different from each other, with no link to any simpler forms of life that they could have evolved for. And, remember, all forms of life wouldn't have been created that far back-you wouldn't have found humans. And, when you throw Michael Behe into the fray, you have a bigger smaller problem-the evolution of a myriad of biochemical irreducibly complex machinery. It's all fun and games when you're making a story about evolution on the scale of gross anatomy...but when you peek under the surface, at the molecular building blocks...you have a problem. For example, Dawkins, as well as Darwin, draws up a vague story of how an eye could have evolved from a light sensitive spot...BUT, they only talk on the level of gross anatomy, but Behe continues on and says that even at the stage of light sensitive spot, you have complexity, and as the two evolutionists go along in their story, they gloss over a myriad of problems on the level of molecules. Which is what you just did.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

This is where researching would come in handy...*AHEM*...AUGUST!!!!

[Believer]

"Evolution Schmevolution" - Day Two - 9/13/05

Jon Stewart continues on day two with God vs. Darwin, a focus on the classroom debate between God and a guy who sort of looks a little bit like him:


Click Picture To Watch

Ed Helms, the "correspondent" of the "news team" on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, explores the 1.5% difference between primates and us by spending the day with a monkey:


Click Picture To Watch



Kurt Vonnegut

Kurt Vonnegut is welcomed on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart to present his new book - A Man without a Country.


Click Picture To Review And/Or Purchase His Book

Kurt Vonnegut is in favor of God directed evolution and mentions his training is scientific. He feels that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer and he can't help thinking that. The legendary novelist also talks about the 51st American state: the state of denial.


Click Picture To Watch

KURT VONNEGUT'S LIST

LIBERAL C.RAP I NEVER WANT TO HEAR AGAIN

Give us this day our daily bread. Oh sure.

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those wh trespass against us.
Nobody better trespass against me. I'll tell you that.

Blessed are the meek.

Blessed are the merciful. You mean we can't use torture?

Blessed are the peacemakers. Jane Fonda?

Love your enemies - Arabs?

Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. The hell I can't! Look at the Reverand Pat Robertson. And He is as happy as a pig in s**t.


Evolution Facts: Magic Reed
An in-depth analysis of the Navajo creation myth.


Click Picture To Watch

[August]

This is where researching would come in handy...*AHEM*...AUGUST!!!!

Popcorn and soda.......

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Yes, evolution is built upon the assumption that abiogenesis is true-Darwin, as well as modern rabid atheists, want to explain life as it is found using naturalistic explanations, as august has said, Darwin was an atheist, or at best an agnostic, so there is no reason to assume that Darwin thought "God started the first life, and it evolved and went on from there"...I can't quote like August, but Darwin, in his Origin of Species, cooks up a nice little story, along the lines of "you know, life could have come about in some warm pond that had an electric current and was full of organic material"

So what if Darwin was an athiest evolution is not based on him, in fact its not even based on a person at all. Also speculating on the origins of life may offend you but it has nothing to do with evolution.

No, no, no...almost all phylums of animal life appears IN the Cambrian explosion, not after.

Do you even know what a phylum is? Its an arbitrary division of organisms based on phenotypic and supposed genetic relationships. In other words so what if the phylum arthropoda was present. The representatives of that phylum were primative forms and distinct from todays crabs lobsters and dragonflies. And most phylums present in the Cambrian period existed before the "Cambrian explosion".

Which then begs the question...how was this life alien to life we see today? Since many of the lifeforms found in the explosion EXIST today!

The bodyplan exists, the forms are not the same here are some picture of the burgess shale creatures.
arthropod
modern shrimp

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/b ... s/bs02.jpgparasitic worm
http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/armstrong/crtr ... etworm.jpgmodern velvet worm

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/b ... s/bs07.jpgpikaia of the phylum chordata.
frog also chordata.
As you can clearly see the burges shale representative of chordata does not resemble the frog physically only in body plan.

Also, what if all life wasn't found there? I dont' see your point? So what if humans aren't found there...my point is, it is not possible that there was enough time for so many new forms of life to pop up, so different from each other,

The Cambrian explosion occurred over 53 million years. Not exactly a short period. Also this period was charachterized by rapid diversification not rapid increase in complexity.

with no link to any simpler forms of life that they could have evolved for.

Are you so sure?
Check out the Vendian period.

And, remember, all forms of life wouldn't have been created that far back-you wouldn't have found humans.

So where did the new life forms including humans come from?

And, when you throw Michael Behe into the fray, you have a bigger smaller problem-the evolution of a myriad of biochemical irreducibly complex machinery. It's all fun and games when you're making a story about evolution on the scale of gross anatomy...but when you peek under the surface, at the molecular building blocks...you have a problem. For example, Dawkins, as well as Darwin, draws up a vague story of how an eye could have evolved from a light sensitive spot...BUT, they only talk on the level of gross anatomy, but Behe continues on and says that even at the stage of light sensitive spot, you have complexity, and as the two evolutionists go along in their story, they gloss over a myriad of problems on the level of molecules. Which is what you just did.

Not true at all actually when going into the level of molucules one can create drastic morphological changes with the tiniest of modification to the chemical and genetic makeup of an organism. Not the other way around. I wish to continue focus on the physical evidence because chemistry is much more advanced and we have yet to conclude the simpler matter.

[Believer]

Okay, do you guys not think that God used any form of evolution for the creation of the universe, seriously? As I was watching the third day (third day media to follow) of "Evolution Schmevolution", and the panel of experts came on, it got me thinking that, yes, evolution is the core of biology, it has given us medical breakthroughs and whatnot. The pro Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian evolutionist on the 3 person panel said that miracles, the supernatural, etc... cannot be tested, falsified, etc... Well, DUH!!! How do you capture a divine being and test it like it is a lab rat? You can't. We are given what we have on earth for science, do you not think this comes from God? This pro Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian evolutionist said because you cannot test the supernatural, this rules it as taking ID or creationism as a phoney which ID or creationism does not test for. Later, he admitted that, yes, there very well could be a God working in the background driving evolution, it was more of "if you want to hear it, I will say it" remark. The ID person believes in some of the evolution components with more complex things in nature, but with God. The metaphysics person said that we live in a virtual world based on a 12 square grid, so what we see, is really an illusion of the mind, kind of like being plugged into the matrix .

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Something to think about... If we believe that everything is Physical then Doctors by doing stuff with the Brain should be able to control your thoughts etc. This cannot be done and is seperated from your Consciousness or Soul. So does the Brain hold your Soul/Spirit? No I don't think so...

Who beleived that everything was physical?

[bizzt]

Something to think about... If we believe that everything is Physical then Doctors by doing stuff with the Brain should be able to control your thoughts etc. This cannot be done and is seperated from your Consciousness or Soul. So does the Brain hold your Soul/Spirit? No I don't think so...

Who beleived that everything was physical?

Give me a Sec and I will find a Link

Here it is... Suprising Enough this is one of the users that use to post on godandscience...
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

[bizzt]

Something to think about... If we believe that everything is Physical then Doctors by doing stuff with the Brain should be able to control your thoughts etc. This cannot be done and is seperated from your Consciousness or Soul. So does the Brain hold your Soul/Spirit? No I don't think so...

Who beleived that everything was physical?

Some believe in Physicalism. Which more or less means there is no Soul or your Soul is a part of your Brain.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

This is pointless. You don't seem to get what I'm trying you to understand..... Origins of life does have something to do with evolution, there aren't any fossils leading up to those in the fossil record, and 54 million years may be a long time to you, but if you want evolution of extremely varied typed of life, it's extremely short. And, you're right, evolution isn't based on one man, it's based on a religion-atheism.

The Cambrian explosion occurred over 53 million years. Not exactly a short period. Also this period was charachterized by rapid diversification not rapid increase in complexity.

Rapid diversification from NOTHING though...lol-all you get before the Cambrian is....you see all these things popping up from no previous organism.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

This is pointless. You don't seem to get what I'm trying you to understand..... Origins of life does have something to do with evolution, there aren't any fossils leading up to those in the fossil record,

No, origin of life is not evolution. Origin of life is another theory.

and 54 million years may be a long time to you, but if you want evolution of extremely varied typed of life, it's extremely short. And, you're right, evolution isn't based on one man, it's based on a religion-atheism.

Read my previous post there is no extreme varied types of life just new morphologies based on new niches in the ecosystem.
And under what authority is 54 million years short. And are you denying that organisms are changing over time?

The Cambrian explosion occurred over 53 million years. Not exactly a short period. Also this period was charachterized by rapid diversification not rapid increase in complexity.

Rapid diversification from NOTHING though...lol-all you get before the Cambrian is....you see all these things popping up from no previous organism.

Again wrong there is fossil evidence going back further than the Cambrian. Look up Vendian.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Something to think about... If we believe that everything is Physical then Doctors by doing stuff with the Brain should be able to control your thoughts etc. This cannot be done and is seperated from your Consciousness or Soul. So does the Brain hold your Soul/Spirit? No I don't think so...

Who beleived that everything was physical?

Some believe in Physicalism. Which more or less means there is no Soul or your Soul is a part of your Brain.

I see, thanks for the link.
=)