Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Steelers - Giants Giants
August 9th, 2014, 7:30pmET

CBS
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-16-2014, 01:19 PM   #21
CanSteel7
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Binbrook, ON Canada
Posts: 258
Gender: Male
Member Number: 25607
Thanks: 27
Thanked 267 Times in 143 Posts
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagen View Post
It gets worse than that.

The Creationists have managed to permeate mainstream historical dialogue with their bullshido.

They have done it so well that even Richard Dawkins has failed to spot it.

The truth is that Darwin's work was banned in Nazi Germany and in the USSR until 1936.

Nazi racial theory rested on Creationism, not Darwinism.

http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/...-to-darwinism/

I mean, why the fck would people who believe in Common Descent want to commit genocide?
Really, Nazi theory rested creationism now Darwinism? Dude, read credible historical books that show Hitler and Stalin were never Christians by the way. They both leaned on Darwinism to kill how many millions of people? In fact, used to tape victims being tortured and their skin taken off their bodies and drank wine and laughed at the tapes as he listened to them. He also used to have lamp shades made of human skin. Why don't you read Hitler's book that he wrote and tell me how much he truly believed in creationism.
CanSteel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2014, 01:52 PM   #22
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSteel7 View Post
Really, Nazi theory rested creationism now Darwinism? Dude, read credible historical books that show Hitler and Stalin were never Christians by the way. They both leaned on Darwinism to kill how many millions of people? In fact, used to tape victims being tortured and their skin taken off their bodies and drank wine and laughed at the tapes as he listened to them. He also used to have lamp shades made of human skin. Why don't you read Hitler's book that he wrote and tell me how much he truly believed in creationism.

Overall, Hitler had a muddled view on it. For the most part though, Hitler believed in what we would call "Social Darwinism", which had nothing to do with Darwin at all. Those are the views he expresses in Mein Kampf.

He occasionally suggests that natural selection takes place, but it is not in an evolutionary way (not in a way Darwin would have suggested it at least). But in a way that a superior race would progress into a higher state of being.

From Mein Kampf -

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. . . . [F]or if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.

He believed in racial hierarchy, not that the genes could evolve into another species, or even that a mixing of breeds could result in a species that was better suited to its environment, as Darwin did.

From Mein Kampf -

The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape.


From the book Hitler's Table Talk -

Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.



Here are his thoughts on what we would call Intelligent Design. All quotes from Mein Kampf.

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

[I]t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.

The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.


Again, he had a twisted view on the subject. One that both atheists and creationists have tried to pin on the other. All that is certain though, is that it is NOT the kind of evolutionary view that Darwin held, nor is it the kind of view that (most) creationists hold. (I say most because there are plenty of people, like KKK members who may be both creationists and hold the same twisted view of sub-humans as Hitler did.)

__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SteelCityMom For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (02-16-2014), Wagen (02-17-2014)
Old 02-16-2014, 02:36 PM   #23
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,089
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 511
Thanked 4,058 Times in 2,084 Posts
My Mood: Innocent
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Exactly. H was a catholic. "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." Of course he borrowed from the Lutherans
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (02-16-2014)
Old 02-16-2014, 04:26 PM   #24
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,047
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 1,826
Thanked 5,751 Times in 2,658 Posts
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Science Guy Bill Nye is a busy bee - he also was on Meet the Press "debating" The Honorable Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on climate change. That went about as you might expect.

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to stop questioning the facts behind climate change Sunday morning, as the congresswoman said the “engineer and actor” didn’t know enough about climate science to claim authority.

The two sparred over the the most appropriate response to extreme weather events and global warming on NBC’s Meet the Press, and disagreed on the scientific consensus regarding climate change.

Rep. Blackburn maintained that there is not consensus in the scientific community about global warming, pointing to two vocal dissenters, Richard Lindzen of MIT and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who claim that humans are not causing climate change.

“Neither (Bill Nye) nor I are a climate scientist. He is an engineer and actor, I am a member of Congress. And what we have to do is look at the information that we get from climate scientists,” said Rep. Blackburn. “There is not agreement around the fact of exactly what is causing this.”

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, according to NASA. Experts say that there is still some uncertainty in absolutely linking isolated extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy or bad droughts to global warming, but the vast majority of scientists ascribe climate change and the increase in extreme weather to human activity.

Bill Nye responded harshly to the congresswoman.

“We have overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing. That you cannot tie any one event to that is not the same as doubt about the whole thing,” said Nye. “There is no debate in the scientific community. I encourage the congresswoman to really look at the facts. You are our leader. We need you to change things, not deny what’s happening.”

Rep. Blackburn argued that responding to climate change will involve balancing the costs of not preventing climate change with the benefits of continuing at high rates of carbon emissions.

“One of the things that we have to remember is cost-benefit analysis has to take place,” said the congresswoman. “And it is unfortunate that some of the federal agencies are not conducting that cost-benefit analysis.”

Nye said that the U.S. could stand to gain economically by investing in new technologies, but warned against the cost of denial.

“For me as a guy who grew up in the U.S. I want the U.S. to lead the world in this,” he said. ”These are huge opportunities and the more we mess around with this denial, the less we’re going to get done.”


http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/16...sha-blackburn/

I know the GOP wants to up its appeal to women voters by showcasing GOP members of Congress who are women (GOP Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash) delivered the official GOP rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union). But is someone with this background the best they have to recite the usual talking points about climate change?

Blackburn graduated from Mississippi State University with a Bachelor's in Home Economics. She owns Marketing Strategies, a promotion event management firm

http://library.msstate.edu/cprc/blackburn.asp
__________________
The Internet — and the Twitterverse, which is the Internet on crystal meth — is a marvelous environment for raising up an unthinking mob.
Atlanta Dan is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atlanta Dan For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (02-16-2014), SteelerEmpire (02-16-2014)
Old 02-16-2014, 06:05 PM   #25
SteelerEmpire
Team President
 
SteelerEmpire's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,314
Gender: Male
Member Number: 14355
Thanks: 1,123
Thanked 1,509 Times in 686 Posts
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Quote:
Science Guy Bill Nye is a busy bee - he also was on Meet the Press "debating" The Honorable Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on climate change. That went about as you might expect.
I saw that interview. Bill Nye ate her alive... and not in a sexual or cannibalistic way.
__________________

A HOUSE DIVIDED WILL FALL TO IT'S ENEMIES;
BUT IN UNITY THERE ARE 6' SUPER BOWLS !!!
SteelerEmpire is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SteelerEmpire For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (02-17-2014)
Old 02-17-2014, 08:04 PM   #26
Wagen
Bench Warmer
Supporter
 

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Black Country, England
Posts: 299
Gender: Male
Member Number: 25328
Thanks: 523
Thanked 381 Times in 186 Posts
My Mood: Fine
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSteel7 View Post
Really, Nazi theory rested creationism now Darwinism? Dude, read credible historical books that show Hitler and Stalin were never Christians by the way. They both leaned on Darwinism to kill how many millions of people? In fact, used to tape victims being tortured and their skin taken off their bodies and drank wine and laughed at the tapes as he listened to them. He also used to have lamp shades made of human skin. Why don't you read Hitler's book that he wrote and tell me how much he truly believed in creationism.
Is that why the works of CharlesDarwin and Ernst Haeckel was banned in Nazi Germany? Darwin's work was also banned in the USSR until 1936.

The Nazis commenced a policy of banning, burning or censoring books, as soon as they took office in the early 1930's.

This appeared at number 6 of "General Principles for the Compilation of Blacklists", in May 1933.

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism"

Another list called "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries", included this;

"All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."

As for Mein Kampf, well this quote seems fairly cut and dried.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Nazi racial theories had nothing to do with Charles Darwin. They were based on the work of a French aristocrat called Joseph Arthur comte de Gobineau, titled Essay on the Inequality of Human Races, and the work of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an English writer on political philosophy and natural science.

The formers theories are incompatible with Darwin, as de Gobineau believed that the races of Man were created separately, with the Aryan Race as the Master Race. As shown in the diagram in SteelCityMoms post.

The Nazis believed that Aryans inter breeding with the lesser races would cause degeneracy. They believed this degeneracy came in the form of what we would recognise as disabilities, mental illness, etc.

They believed that by murdering people so afflicted, that they would purify the Aryan blood, and preserve the Aryan Race.

This is a form of ethnic cleansing rather than Eugenics, not as though Eugenics is particularly Darwinian in any case.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, another intellectual father of Nazism, openly opposed Darwinism.


“Darwin specially recommends his theory for our acceptance in that it also promises to mankind that all corporal and mental endowments will tend to progress in the direction towards perfection. I, on the contrary, should have thought that we might have contented ourselves with the gifts of a Plato, a Descartes, a Leonardo, a Goethe, a Kant … how far better this than that we, fooled by delusions out of a bestial past that is no past … should with outstretched greedy hands, without cease or rest, clutch at a phantastic future in which natural selection, in its blind choice, is forsooth to transfigure us into an exalted being, the like of which is beyond the imagination of the great and holy and sublime men of the present generation!”



By the look of it, he also appeared to completely fail to understand Darwin.
Wagen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Wagen For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (02-17-2014)
Old 06-04-2014, 06:31 AM   #27
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,089
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 511
Thanked 4,058 Times in 2,084 Posts
My Mood: Innocent
Default Re: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creation) Debate @ Creation Museum

Evolution sparks silence of the crickets

Males on two Hawaiian islands simultaneously went mute in just a few years to avoid parasite.

Populations of a male cricket on different Hawaiian islands have lost their ability to chirp as a result of separate, but simultaneous, evolutionary adaptations to their wings. The changes, which allow the insects to avoid attracting a parasitic fly, occurred independently over just 20 generations and are visible to the human eye, a study reveals.

The findings could help to shed light on the earliest stages of convergent evolution — when separate groups or populations independently evolve similar adaptations in response to natural selection.

Male field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) are known for their chirping sound, which is produced by scraping their wings across one another. The wings’ veins form special structures that make the vibrations that we hear as the crickets’ song. “The mechanism is like rubbing your fingernail on the file of a comb,” says study leader and evolutionary biologist Nathan Bailey of the University of St Andrews, UK.

The nightly serenades lure in females and facilitate reproduction — but unfortunately for the males in Hawaii, the chirping also attracts a deadly parasitic fly, Ormia ochracea. The fly larvae burrow into the cricket and grow inside, killing the host when they emerge a week or so later.

Both species are likely to have arrived in Hawaii at the end of the last century — the cricket from Oceania, and the fly from North America. To protect themselves from their new enemy, large numbers of male crickets on the Hawaiian island of Kauai quickly stopped chirping.

Song of strife

The change seems to have been caused by a mutation that altered the shape of their wings, making them incapable of producing the chirping noise. The feat was achieved over less than 20 generations, a mere evolutionary blink of an eye, and, with the crickets living just a few weeks, a very rapid process. By 2003, a study by Marlene Zuk at the University of California Riverside found that up to 95% of male crickets on Kauai were no longer able to chirp1. The mutation had erased almost all the wing structures that help to make the sound, leaving the wings flattened but still airworthy.

Just two years later, in 2005, male crickets on the island of Oahu, 101 kilometres from Kauai also began to fall silent. Today, about half of the males on Oahu are chirpless, Bailey has found.

His team was intrigued by the existence of silent mutants in more than one population. The researchers suspected that the flatwings had simply migrated to Oahu from Kauai, probably by hitching a ride on boats or planes.

However, it turned out that while the Oahu crickets, too, had flat wings, they were very distinct from those of their Kauai neighbours. The difference is noticeable even to the naked eye, with the Oahu crickets losing many fewer chirping structures than those on Kauai.

In their study, published today in Current Biology2, Bailey and his team analysed the genomes of crickets from both islands using a technique that slices DNA into small fragments and then detects hundreds of thousands of genetic markers, or small distinct regions of the genome. The genetic markers associated with the flat wing are very different in the Kauai and Oahu populations. “It means that different mutated portions of the genome cause males to be flatwing in either population,” says Bailey.

Evolution in action

This evidence suggests that the mutations happened independently on both islands, making the Hawaiian silent crickets “an excellent example of convergent evolution”, says evolutionary biologist Richard Harrison of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Although evidence for convergent evolution can be seen throughout the natural world, it is difficult to catch it as it happens. The study shows that superficially similar convergent solutions to attacks by parasites attracted by sound “can evolve in radically different ways”, says Tom Tregenza, an evolutionary ecologist at University of Exeter, UK. “The genome can create similar results using very different sets of genes.”

Bailey's team is now working to pinpoint the genes involved and understand how they interact with the rest of the cricket genome.

Tregenza says that besides identifying the genes, another “exciting avenue for future research” will be to investigate how the loss of chirping affects the ability of females to choose their mates, and the consequences this has for the evolution of the population.

http://www.nature.com/news/evolution...ickets-1.15323
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
JonM229 (06-04-2014), NSMaster56 (06-04-2014), SteelerEmpire (06-04-2014), Wagen (06-05-2014)
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts