What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Myths

  • #61
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It is evolution that states that a meteor(sp) destroyed the dinosaurs right?
no.
it just states that the organisms today have the common ancestors and that that happens through natural selection, blah blah...
why do people keep wanting it to encompass everything from the big bang and how the solar system/earth formed to the origins of life and meteors striking the earth? (rhetorical question...)
 
  • #62
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Feb. 16 2005,9:18)]It's so creepy how there are periods of time when certain themes occur... like with the evolution... I was debating evolution in three sites at once. Then with racism, I had chosen to do a paper (still doing it darn it... nothing to do with black history month by the way) and that comes up. then gender differences pop up in my myth thread, another site, and the study about the brain comes up.
Like a week or two after the evolution thread got closed I picked up an issue of Discover that had an article (the cover story) about how people were testing evolutionary theory using computer simulations, and finding that not only did problems often get solved in fewer iterations than the testers expected, but that complex "structures" frequently emerged that couldn't function as simpler parts (the analogy being eyes and wings and such). In some cases the "lifeforms" would even outsmart the testers when they tried to inhibit their adaptations. Funny thing is the software now has hundreds of creationists combing it for bugs for free.
smile.gif


I'd say the article is required reading for anyone interested (Feb 2005, Vol. 26, No. 2). I don't meant to steer this thread in that direction or anything (though it seems I accidently did that with gender anyway)... it was just frustrating that the timing was off by only a couple weeks.
smile_h_32.gif
 
  • #63
Since this will happen anyway. My least favorite myth is Creationism and basically the Christian Religion mainly because it is basically imposed in the US.
Stroking the Fire Is Fun
smile.gif
 
  • #64
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Feb. 16 2005,9:18)]
Like a week or two after the evolution thread got closed I picked up an issue of Discover that had an article (the cover story) about how people were testing evolutionary theory using computer simulations, and finding that not only did problems often get solved in fewer iterations than the testers expected, but that complex "structures" frequently emerged that couldn't function as simpler parts (the analogy being eyes and wings and such). In some cases the "lifeforms" would even outsmart the testers when they tried to inhibit their adaptations. Funny thing is the software now has hundreds of creationists combing it for bugs for free.
smile.gif
This is nothing new.  Numerous evolution simulations have been written over the last 10 years and many even before then!  Heck, I was was writing them 10 years ago...now I feel old.
 
  • #65
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm sure everyone has heard about cottonmouths being so aggressive they chase you

I hate that one too.. especially because I have personal experience that proves that one wrong. I was on a trail ride at the ranch I go to, just me and the ranch owner, Shirley. Towards the end of the ride, we came by a cottonmouth in the pine straw, about 2' long. It just sat and looked at us. Shirley rode her horse close to it and agitated it, and since the snake wasn't cornered, it only turned and made its way in the opposite direction. Like any other animal, they aren't aggressive unless they have a good reason to be, like if they're cornered.

I also dislike the myth that women don't smell as bad as men when they sweat.. that is a total lie. There are two kinds of sweat glands: the kind that don't smell, which are primarily active during childhood, and the ones that do, which become active around puberty. Women actually have MORE sweat glands that DO produce body odor than men do.

Also, the myth that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago. I have proof against that: The galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object the unaided human eye can see, is 2 million light years away, meaning that it takes light from Andromeda 2 million years to reach us. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, we wouldn't be able to see the light of Andromeda yet.

Also the myth that women are always the weaker sex. Have you guys ever seen the training female cops undergo? They HAVE to be just as physically capable as a man and are in no way the weaker sex. So a woman CAN achieve the same physical strength of a man.

If I had the time, I'd sit here and think of so many myths I can knock down, I'd add three more pages to this thread TONIGHT.
 
  • #66
Ahh the advantages of having no odor glands. They are so numerous I cannot count.
 
  • #67
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Quote (TheAlphaWolf @ Feb. 16 2005,9:18)

Like a week or two after the evolution thread got closed I picked up an issue of Discover that had an article (the cover story) about how people were testing evolutionary theory using computer simulations, and finding that not only did problems
lol... I never said that :p
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] Shirley rode her horse close to it and agitated it, and since the snake wasn't cornered
lol... I'm not even going to say it.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also, the myth that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago. I have proof against that: The galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object the unaided human eye can see,
are you sure? I know andromeda is the closest galaxy... it doesn't make sense that it would be the most distant object the unaided human eye can see.
... that sounds very familiar... do you go to other forums/places I go to?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also the myth that women are always the weaker sex.
well, physically females are naturally weaker because of hormones and stuff. although like you said they can be even stronger than males.
and actually I think some sort of champion weightlifter is a woman isn't it?
 
  • #68
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]are you sure? I know andromeda is the closest galaxy... it doesn't make sense that it would be the most distant object the unaided human eye can see.
... that sounds very familiar... do you go to other forums/places I go to?

Any other object would have to be another galaxy... which could easily be many times as far away. From what I've read (I haven't seen a clear night sky in a long time) it's really fuzzy and dim as it is.

She mentioned that before in the evolution thread... that might be why you remember it. And like I said there, if a person can believe the universe is that young, believing that the light was created already on its way to earth is a very very tiny mental step to take. Those numbers are obviously inconsequential to them.
 
  • #69
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] Shirley rode her horse close to it and agitated it, and since the snake wasn't cornered
lol... I'm not even going to say it.

What's your problem?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]are you sure? I know andromeda is the closest galaxy... it doesn't make sense that it would be the most distant object the unaided human eye can see.

Yes, it's the closest galaxy, and that's the only reason we CAN see it, because it's close enough to be bright enough for us to see through the light of our own galaxy, the Milky Way. We can't see farther than that because our vision of the rest of the universe is obscured by the light of our own galaxy. Read any science book. I know this is right.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]... that sounds very familiar... do you go to other forums/places I go to?

No, this is the only board I go to other than the Sonesta Farms Live Foaling Cam forum. You probably remember it from the Evolution thread.
 
  • #70
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Feb. 17 2005,12:14)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It is evolution that states that a meteor(sp) destroyed the dinosaurs right?
no.
it just states that the organisms today have the common ancestors and that that happens through natural selection, blah blah...
why do people keep wanting it to encompass everything from the big bang and how the solar system/earth formed to the origins of life and meteors striking the earth? (rhetorical question...)
Sorry, I was just asking... so what does that belong to? I am a creationist as you all know, and it isn't under that view, if it isn't evo, what is it? AHHHHHHH I'm so lost.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Since this will happen anyway. My least favorite myth is Creationism and basically the Christian Religion mainly because it is basically imposed in the US.

I won't say anything except for this: My least favorite myth is Evolution and all that... stuff. Stroking the Fire really is fun! LOL. By the way that is your view on life, and this is my view. We have different views but I won't hold anything against you for it, and I hope you won't hold anything against me for it. I really don't wanna get back into the EVO vs CRE thing so I am gonna leave it at that.
 
  • #71
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Feb. 17 2005,9:29)]Sorry, I was just asking...  so what does that belong to?  I am a creationist as you all know, and it isn't under that view, if it isn't evo, what is it?  AHHHHHHH I'm so lost.
Astronomy? Paleontology? Ecology?

I don't think there's a Meteorkilledthedinosaursology... it's just a mixture of disciplines like most things.
 
  • #72
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also, the myth that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago. I have proof against that: The galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object the unaided human eye can see, is 2 million light years away, meaning that it takes light from Andromeda 2 million years to reach us. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, we wouldn't be able to see the light of Andromeda yet.

If I'm not mistaken that is an estmant(sp) that can not be proven. Even if it were a "fact" it would still be unprovable. We have no way of knowing because we can't send anything to that system to find out. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, the fossil record limb to be exact. It would be the same as using the fossil record. It depends on how you look at it. If you use Darwin's view that he got from another guy(I forgot his name), the earth could easily be a few million or billion years old. But if you look at it from my view, a worldwide flood could easily lay down that many layers of earth quickly. The "simpler" creatures would be caught first, followed by the more "complex" creatures. So both views are able to disprove each other because niether view is provable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Quote (Wesley @ Feb. 17 2005,9:29)
Sorry, I was just asking... so what does that belong to? I am a creationist as you all know, and it isn't under that view, if it isn't evo, what is it? AHHHHHHH I'm so lost.

Astronomy? Paleontology? Ecology?

I don't think there's a Meteorkilledthedinosaursology... it's just a mixture of disciplines like most things.

Thank you for clearing that up.
 
  • #73
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]My least favorite myth is Evolution and all that... stuff.
how can you say something is a myth/not true if you don't even know what that thing is?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What's your problem?
agitating a cottonmouth? on a horse? do I really need to say that's just asking for trouble?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But if you look at it from my view, a worldwide flood could easily lay down that many layers of earth quickly.  The "simpler" creatures would be caught first, followed by the more "complex" creatures
do we need another evolution thread? or should we make the next one a "noah's ark/global flood" thread? first of all a worldwide flood is physically impossible, and your logic about the "simpler" and more "complex" organisms doesn't make sense.
If you want to debate about this I'd be glad to but make another thread :p (watch it become like the evolution thread... nobody makes another religion thread and it ends up being totally off topic :p)
 
  • #74
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If I'm not mistaken that is an estmant(sp) that can not be proven. Even if it were a "fact" it would still be unprovable. We have no way of knowing because we can't send anything to that system to find out. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, the fossil record limb to be exact. It would be the same as using the fossil record. It depends on how you look at it. If you use Darwin's view that he got from another guy(I forgot his name), the earth could easily be a few million or billion years old. But if you look at it from my view, a worldwide flood could easily lay down that many layers of earth quickly. The "simpler" creatures would be caught first, followed by the more "complex" creatures. So both views are able to disprove each other because niether view is provable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That has nothing to do with the galaxy Andromeda. I'm not an Evolutionist or a Creationist. I believe what I believe and what I believe can't be labeled that simply. I believe some stuff from each. Andromeda is 2 million light years away. I'm just stating the facts.
 
  • #75
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If I'm not mistaken that is an estmant(sp) that can not be proven.  Even if it were a "fact" it would still be unprovable.  We have no way of knowing because we can't send anything to that system to find out.

My high school astronomy class covered how to determine those sorts of distances. Not college... high school.

And if we did somehow travel to that galaxy and brought back an exact figure, it would be just as easy to say that their numbers couldn't be proven... maybe because there might have been a glitch in their computers, or because they were in hibernation for the trip and didn't actually experience it, or whatever other reason people could come up with. It's one of those neverending philosophical problems.

But for all practical purposes... mountains of evidence are at your fingertips. Take from them what you will.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't mean to sound accusatory or hostile here... but people spent pages and pages doing exactly that in the other thread. What more are you looking for?
 
  • #76
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Feb. 17 2005,9:29)]My least favorite myth is Evolution and all that... stuff
Your least favorite fact is evolution.
 
  • #77
Yeesh... first gender and now evolution... I need to stop opening my mouth in these threads.
smile.gif
 
  • #78
ARGH! it ate my post!
... anyway..
well what do you know... you're talking about it and ta-da! a news article that relates to it.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0217_050217_space.html
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How can we measure the cluster's age? Because astronomers are able to analyze light waves and thereby tell how long it took for the light, and the images the light creates, to reach Earth. The light that created the images of the galaxies in the photo above is about 12.7 billion years old, so you're actually looking into the distant past as well as the distant limits of the universe
even if the calculations were wrong, they could be older... and if they're younger, I REALLY doubt that thousands of astronomers worldwide could possibly make mistakes THAT big.
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
  • #80
FTG female cops do not have to be as physically capable as their male counterparts. The physical standards that they are forced to meet in order to become a police officer are significantly lower then the tests males must complete. Just for an example here in Michigan we have a physical test you must take in order to get into a police academy and then a test you must pass in order to get certified as a police officer. The pre-employment test requires (among other excercises) a male age 21-25 to do 38 push-ups in a minute and a female age 21-25 to do 7 push-ups in a minute.

Craig
 
Back
Top