# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

## Pianist4Freedom

Is it only design if one moment the life form was not there, the next moment it was?

Say there really is a natural process that can spontaneously generate a living cell. Would scientists say they've disproved the existence of God if such a process were discovered? The question would still remain: how did the universe itself get created such that order can spontaneously generate?

To make an analogy to music: maybe God is an improviser, not a composer? Either way there would be intelligent design, a mind creating something.

I guess I think the whole debate is silly. Religious minded people should not feel threatened by evolution, and atheist minded people should not feel threatened by creationism. Neither religious minded people nor atheists can possibly know whether there was a God---but it would be nice if the more vociferous factions on both sides would admit this.

Atheists often assert there is no evidence for something supernatural such as a God---but then again, that's taking scientific evidence out of context. Evidence for a theory is only evidence for a description of something, not evidence for an explanation.

Fire away...

----------


## Kotin

hah, it basically means they know in some way that creationism is true, that it cant all be an accident that everything works in nature harmoniously and they dont want to admit it.


"hey it's raining!"

"no, its not raining, water is just falling from the sky."

----------


## Theocrat

> Is it only design if one moment the life form was not there, the next moment it was?
> 
> Say there really is a natural process that can spontaneously generate a living cell. Would scientists say they've disproved the existence of God if such a process were discovered? The question would still remain: how did the universe itself get created such that order can spontaneously generate?
> 
> To make an analogy to music: maybe God is an improviser, not a composer? Either way there would be intelligent design, a mind creating something.
> 
> I guess I think the whole debate is silly. Religious minded people should not feel threatened by evolution, and atheist minded people should not feel threatened by creationism. Neither religious minded people nor atheists can possibly know whether there was a God---but it would be nice if the more vociferous factions on both sides would admit this.
> 
> Atheists often assert there is no evidence for something supernatural such as a God---but then again, that's taking scientific evidence out of context. Evidence for a theory is only evidence for a description of something, not evidence for an explanation.
> ...


Simply put, if we know this *Jaguar car* was intelligently designed,



then how much more this *Jaguar cat* is intelligently designed.



It's just a matter of *common sense*.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Simply put, if we know this *Jaguar car* was intelligently designed,
> 
> 
> 
> then how much more this *Jaguar cat* is intelligently designed.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a matter of *common sense*.


Thanks for the nutty comparison. A non living thing that can't reproduce compared to something that can. YEAH THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!!!

Intelligent Design = God did it

----------


## Pianist4Freedom

Hey, stop the presses for a sec. Please read my OP. Have any of you drilled down that far? Have any of you stopped for a second to consider the question: "What does design even mean?"  I don't care which side of the debate you're on. What is "design?" to you? Is it planning beforehand? Is it spontaneously almost randomly doing something but then responding when something cool happens (my analogy to improvisation)? What is it?

----------


## yongrel

It means: "We want creationism taught in schools, but know that it won't make it past the courts if it contains blatant Christian labels like God, Genesis, so on and so forth, so we made the language and doctrine intentionally vague so that we can argue it is nondenominational and scientific."

----------


## Pianist4Freedom

> It means: "We want creationism taught in schools, but know that it won't make it past the courts if it contains blatant Christian labels like God, Genesis, so on and so forth, so we made the language and doctrine intentionally vague so that we can argue it is nondenominational and scientific."


Ok, I get it. I understand this is a very emotional debate and most people just want to leap in and fling mud (not at me, at each other, because I don't consider myself part of the debate). But I'm asking a NEW question: What do YOU think design means? Read my previous post.

----------


## asgardshill

> Have any of you stopped for a second to consider the question: "What does design even mean?"  I don't care which side of the debate you're on. What is "design?" to you?


I know my enemies will be shocked to hear this, but I do not possess the cognitive ability to completely understand God's handiwork and design, much less explain it adequately to somebody else.  It would be like expecting a hammer to understand everything about the machine that produced it and every person who ever worked at the factory where it was constructed.  Or as we used to say in the Navy, "that question is above my pay grade."

There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

----------


## yongrel

> Ok, I get it. I understand this is a very emotional debate and most people just want to leap in and fling mud (not at me, at each other, because I don't consider myself part of the debate). But I'm asking a NEW question: What do YOU think design means? Read my previous post.


It means: "Let's be intentionally obfuscatory when talking about faith in order to disguise it as science."

According to some, life is to complex to exist with out a designer. As Theocrat posted above, if a car required a designer to figure out how to attack the engine to the drive shaft, than the animal must have required a designer in order to "figure out" how to connect the esophagus to the stomach.

Let's just ignore for a moment that biologic life is an entirely different ballgame than mechanical operations.

----------


## Pianist4Freedom

yongrel: You just repeated your previous post. You are answering my question based on what creationists/intelligent design proponents think about "design." I already know that. What do YOU think of as design (regardless of whether you believe it or not):  Is it the idea that God sat at a workbench with a blueprint (so to speak) and designed beforehand, or is it something else?

----------


## yongrel

I think that design would require conscious manipulation of life, if not necessarily creation. For instance, the engineering of various organism through genetic tweaking would qualify as "design."

Also, the notion of panspermia could potentially be accompanied by design, if one were to postulate an alien intelligence that decided to bugger around with life on Earth.

----------


## Theocrat

> Thanks for the nutty comparison. A non living thing that can't reproduce compared to something that can. YEAH THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!!!
> 
> Intelligent Design = God did it


I was talking about *design* attributes in the complexity of an object or organism, not the ability or capacity for something to *reproduce*. Quite frankly, I agree with the thread starter that this whole debate over whether something is intelligently designed is *silly*. It's so obvious that life is designed that it's simply ridiculous and at the height of ignorance for anyone to argue contrary to this fact. It would be like two people debating over whether Mount Rushmore was designed from a rock formation or if torrential rains over millions of years formed Mount Rushmore.

Usually, those who have a problem with intelligent design really also have a problem with God (as has been illustrated in a recent post here from yongrel). The evidence is so easy to see that life is intricately and delicately made, so the opponents of intelligent design choose rather to have subjective and irrational debates (craftily *designed*) with creationists to make themselves feel better, while ignoring the objective, scientific evidence which conclusively shows that the creation has a Creator.

----------


## yongrel

> ... while ignoring the objective, scientific evidence which conclusively shows that the creation has a Creator.


Post proof or retract.

----------


## Theocrat

> Post proof or retract.


The proof is here. By the way, this would be an expanded explanation of what intelligent design is for those of you with eyes that can see and ears that can hear.

----------


## Pianist4Freedom

Say there were no proof one way or the other (we could argue all day on what is and is not proof),

*If scientists were able to cause biochemicals to spontaneously form a cell in a lab---would they declare they have refuted the creationists, the intelligent design proponents?*

----------


## Truth Warrior

Check out the last sentence in Darwin's "Origin of Species" 6th edition. 

" There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed *by the Creator* into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. "
http://www.literature.org/authors/da...hapter-15.html

----------


## Primbs

Intelligent design has to help answer the question, who or what created most of the laws of the universe. Who or what set up the parameters so that scientists could learn the rules rules of physics, math, biology, geology and astronomy.

The hundreds of laws of physics and math get very complex. Many of the great scientists have begun to discern that most of these laws work too well and didn't just get 
set up by chance.

Here is the latest book on the subject.
Archimedes to Hawking: Laws of Science and the Great Minds Behind Them 

http://www.amazon.com/Archimedes-Haw...9406110&sr=1-1

----------


## Kade

> Intelligent design has to help answer the question, who or what created most of the laws of the universe. Who or what set up the parameters so that scientists could learn the rules rules of physics, math, biology, geology and astronomy.
> 
> The hundreds of laws of physics and math get very complex. Many of the great scientists have begun to discern that most of these laws work too well and didn't just get 
> set up by chance.
> 
> Here is the latest book on the subject.
> Archimedes to Hawking: Laws of Science and the Great Minds Behind Them 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Archimedes-Haw...9406110&sr=1-1


The Anthropic Principle has nothing to do with "Intelligent Design".

Intelligent Design is a non-science. It is an assertion, based on nothing but observation. An argument from incredulity. As defined by the National Academy of Sciences:  "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

The assertion is, literally, the modern form of the teleological argument for the existence of GOD, merely modified to avoid using "god" as a term. Intelligent Design asserts that living things and the universe are best explained by an "intelligent cause".  

In order to promote the nonsense as legitimate, there is a culture war of sort, which the movie "Expelled" is part, that involves an active attempt to redefine science to include supernatural explanations. 


Comprehensive list of scientific communities rejecting Intelligent Design.

The problem is, and remains the finality of it all.

If you desire to put *faith* on the altar of *science*, you are prepared to allow faith to be falsifiable.

Who among the faithful are willing to do this? Who are willing to put their beliefs to the test, and if wrong, reject the hypothesis, like science does with thousands of bad ideas a day?

----------


## Pianist4Freedom

> The Anthropic Principle has nothing to do with "Intelligent Design".
> 
> Intelligent Design is a non-science. It is an assertion, based on nothing but observation. An argument from incredulity. As defined by the National Academy of Sciences:  "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
> 
> The assertion is, literally, the modern form of the teleological argument for the existence of GOD, merely modified to avoid using "god" as a term. Intelligent Design asserts that living things and the universe are best explained by an "intelligent cause".  
> 
> In order to promote the nonsense as legitimate, there is a culture war of sort, which the movie "Expelled" is part, that involves an active attempt to redefine science to include supernatural explanations. 
> 
> 
> ...


Faith and religion have nothing to do with evidence and hypotheses. They deal with things that are by definition outside the realm of evidence and scientific description. For example: can you tell me what an electron is?  Oh, it is a subatomic particle? What's that? A small point of energy? A vibrating string? What are those? What is energy? All of these things are labels. We can put labels on as many things as we want---none of it will explain *WHAT* an electron is. It just is. Thus, asking how it got here, why, and what it really is EXTERNAL to the universe is impossible to answer scientifically. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to suggest that science might one day refute faith or God or anything else. It cannot. Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

----------


## familydog

> I guess I think the whole debate is silly. Religious minded people should not feel threatened by evolution, and atheist minded people should not feel threatened by creationism. Neither religious minded people nor atheists can possibly know whether there was a God---but it would be nice if the more vociferous factions on both sides would admit this.


I normally stay out of these religious arguments, because I'm secure enough in my beliefs that I don't have to push them down other people's throats in these threads, but I'm feeling frisky tonight. With that said, I am a devout Catholic, and I will admit that I don't "know" if God exists. I agree with what many of other religious minded people say on this forum when they say they don't _know_ there is a God, but have _faith_ that there is one. Religion, and spirituality in general relies on faith.

I have to say that I completely agree that the whole debate is silly. It is a distraction plain and simple. Rather than debating whether there is a God or not, we could be debating things that actually have immidiate tangible relevence on our lives. Again, which is why I tend to stay out of these arguments.  I understand why religious people are threatened by evolution and I understand why athiests feel threatened by creationism. I don't agree with why they feel that way though. These arguments lately have been very divisive. Ron Paul supporters, freedom and liberty-minded supporters are now being spereated into groups. "The Christian Ron Paul supporters" vs. "The Athiest Ron Paul supporters." A divided movement is no movement at all. With so many people with such big egos, I'm very curious to see if this movement is just a fad, or is here to stay.

Anyways, to answer your question on what intelligent design means to me. It simply means that living organisms on Earth came about and are maintained by an intelligent entity that "designed" things that way. It means a more intelligent, thought-provoking, and ellaborative way to express the word creationism.

----------


## FreeTraveler

Okay, if the answer truly is that there must be a designer because life is too complex to generate spontaneously...

Who designed and created God? This all-powerful, all-powerful being must have been created instantaneously, and that's a lot harder to believe than that the simple life form we call man evolved over billions of years.

----------


## american.swan

It means the chair your sitting on did not just happen by accident and neither did you.  




> Is it only design if one moment the life form was not there, the next moment it was?
> 
> Say there really is a natural process that can spontaneously generate a living cell. Would scientists say they've disproved the existence of God if such a process were discovered? The question would still remain: how did the universe itself get created such that order can spontaneously generate?
> 
> To make an analogy to music: maybe God is an improviser, not a composer? Either way there would be intelligent design, a mind creating something.
> 
> I guess I think the whole debate is silly. Religious minded people should not feel threatened by evolution, and atheist minded people should not feel threatened by creationism. Neither religious minded people nor atheists can possibly know whether there was a God---but it would be nice if the more vociferous factions on both sides would admit this.
> 
> Atheists often assert there is no evidence for something supernatural such as a God---but then again, that's taking scientific evidence out of context. Evidence for a theory is only evidence for a description of something, not evidence for an explanation.
> ...

----------


## american.swan

> Okay, if the answer truly is that there must be a designer because life is too complex to generate spontaneously...
> 
> Who designed and created God? This all-powerful, all-powerful being must have been created instantaneously, and that's a lot harder to believe than that the simple life form we call man evolved over billions of years.


Good question.  Is not it interesting that we can ask questions we cannot answer.

----------


## Theocrat

> Who designed and created God? This all-powerful, all-powerful being must have been created instantaneously, and that's a lot harder to believe than that the simple life form we call man evolved over billions of years.


I wasn't going to answer this question for the sake of being germane on this thread, but I now feel compelled to do so, due to some of the responses that will inevitably come from such a question. The answer to the question, "Who designed and created God?" is a ridiculous question. God, by His own character and nature, is uncreated. This is due to the fact that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as the Bible tells us.

The question of asking who created God is similar to asking if a triangle has four sides. By definition, a triangle has only three sides. If it had four sides, then it would no longer be a triangle but a square or rectangle. By the same reasoning, God cannot be created or else He would cease to be God, and the person (or thing) which "created" Him would be "God." God is eternal by nature; therefore, He has no beginning nor end.

Some skeptics like to use the hypothetical syllogistic argument (in a weak attempt to shut down creationists arguments for God's existence) that if God doesn't need to have a Creator, then perhaps the universe doesn't require a Creator, either. I think that's what you're implying, FreeTraveler, but consider the reversal of that argument. If the universe doesn't require a Creator (as most evolutionists would postulate), then neither does God require a Creator. As I've mentioned before, the attributes of God presuppose a Being Who simply does not have an origin. Yet, God is wise enough and powerful enough to create life and non-living materials that we observe in natural sciences today. For the creationist, the purpose of scientific experimentation and exploration is to venture into the deep mysteries and wonders of how God has created His own creation so that we may praise Him for His wondrous works and use His creation for the benefit of all mankind as we take dominion of the earth (Genesis 1:28; Matthew 5:5) to His glory. In many ways, that is what intelligent design is all about. It's about acknowledging God's handiwork in His own creation, which, rationally speaking, we know did not and could not come about on its own.

----------


## Aratus

aquinas was comfortable with the idea of a creator.
the arrival of everything via god. the creator of the creator?
one of my initial postings here was in a thread where
a 6 day creationist happily told me i might be correct...
namely the span of time before our lil' world came into being
could have been trillions of years insted of billions!!!

stephen hawking has this 12 billion or 13 billion figure being
way more accurate than either less than seven days or perhaps
more than a 100 trillion years. stephen hawking like aquinas
does not say what happens before the big cosmic singularity
that "BIG BANG" implodes at the start of this current universe
cycle. this is like a modification of john milton via modern standard
text physics. even string theory or scalar theory is a modification
of einstein, dirac and nils bohr. the science of the current day has
the same issues in a more scientific manner that GENESIS and
theology have. aquinas's science was almost the same as aristotle's.
our science is after newton and einstein. the question of a creator of a 
creator and/or a creation is also a question at the core of all the sciences...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Okay, if the answer truly is that there must be a designer because life is too complex to generate spontaneously...
> 
> Who designed and created God? This all-powerful, all-powerful being must have been created instantaneously, and that's a lot harder to believe than that the simple life form we call man evolved over billions of years.


IF you want the correct answers, it is often necessary to ask the correct questions.  

Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy?

----------


## Banana

> Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy?


For some odd reasons, this made me thinking of the phrase, "strain at a gnat but swallow a camel!"

----------


## Truth Warrior

> For some odd reasons, this made me thinking of the phrase, "strain at a gnat but swallow a camel!"


It causes me to think of Alexander Pope's, "The Riddle of the World".  Different strokes, .... etc. I guess.

----------


## Kade

> Faith and religion have nothing to do with evidence and hypotheses. They deal with things that are by definition outside the realm of evidence and scientific description. For example: can you tell me what an electron is?  Oh, it is a subatomic particle? What's that? A small point of energy? A vibrating string? What are those? What is energy? All of these things are labels. We can put labels on as many things as we want---none of it will explain *WHAT* an electron is. It just is. Thus, asking how it got here, why, and what it really is EXTERNAL to the universe is impossible to answer scientifically. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to suggest that science might one day refute faith or God or anything else. It cannot. Correct me if I misunderstood your post.


This response was so absurdly off topic and without qualification that I can only estimate that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

----------


## sophocles07

> I wasn't going to answer this question for the sake of being germane on this thread, but I now feel compelled to do so, due to some of the responses that will inevitably come from such a question. The answer to the question, "Who designed and created God?" is a ridiculous question. God, by His own character and nature, is uncreated. This is due to the fact that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as the Bible tells us.


Yeah.  I knew that, I had it written down in my red notebook.  I wish I was so many omnis as God.  




> The question of asking who created God is similar to asking if a triangle has four sides. By definition, a triangle has only three sides. If it had four sides, then it would no longer be a triangle but a square or rectangle. By the same reasoning, God cannot be created or else He would cease to be God, and the person (or thing) which "created" Him would be "God." God is eternal by nature; therefore, He has no beginning nor end.


Wow that’s some super-diaherea logic.  Calm down and think before you write, man.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

intelligent design is an intellectual dead end.  It has no value, and does nothing to broaden our understanding of the universe.  

Intelligent Design is NOT science.  Its not even a theory.  It hardly qualifies as a hypothesis.  


And about this, "Teach the controversy/other side of the argument" nonsense.  Complete bull$#@!.  Scientific arguments are not debated by high school kids who lack a rudimentary understanding of the basic ideas being discussed.  Science is debated by peer review, evidence, and stringent scrutiny.  


Just because a theory has holes, it does not mean you fill those holes with mythical gods and superstition.  When the Periodic Table was first thought of, only 66 elements had been discovered.  Huge gaps, noble gases were missing, no room for isotopes. Science didnt fill in all the missing elements with "God".  The missing elements were filled in over time by scientific discovery.



On a seperate note, I have come up with a theory to compete with the existing theory of "lift" in aerodynamics.  There are still huge holes in that theory, and there is no scientific consensus as to what actually causes it.  Lift is only a thoery.

----------


## yongrel

^he's more than just a pretty face

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

And while Im at it, I have just solved 108 years of scientific idiocracy.  Take that Planck.  Quantum theory can suck it.



That there is no quantum leap.  Its God.

----------


## Truth Warrior

You tell Ron!

----------


## Dr.3D

What in the world makes people automatically connect God with Intelligent Design?

The designer could have been an alien for all we know.

People need to stop and think before they make an association between things.

----------


## amy31416

> And while Im at it, I have just solved 108 years of scientific idiocracy.  Take that Planck.  Quantum theory can suck it.
> 
> 
> 
> That there is no quantum leap.  Its God.


I'm sure you can also give Heisenberg some certainty--brilliant!

While you're at it, can ya fill in the holes in the theory of gravity as well? 

Thanks in advance.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> atheist minded people should not feel threatened by creationism



We already went through a thousand years of intellectual dark ages brought on by religious doctrine and superstition.  I for one am not looking forward to trying that again.

Religion is a danger to human civilization.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> What in the world makes people automatically connect God with Intelligent Design?
> 
> The designer could have been an alien for all we know.
> 
> People need to stop and think before they make an association between things.


Because by its very nature, an intelligent designer could only have been a super-natural designer.


Who designed your hypothetical alien? The alien must have been a sentient life form.  Where did it come from?

You really have to stop and think before making such illogical statements.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> We already went through a thousand years of intellectual dark ages brought on by religious doctrine and superstition. I for one and not looking forward to try that again.
> 
> Religion is a danger to human civilization.


Unlike state, I assume.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I'm sure you can also give Heisenberg some certainty--brilliant!
> 
> While you're at it, can ya fill in the holes in the theory of gravity as well? 
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Quantum physics fills in the holes of Relativity.  Relativity fills in the holes of Newtonian Physics.  

Too bad all that "science" is a waste of time.  There is no need to go to college and study physics.  No need to waste money on fancy book learn'n.  Just open up your bible.  Says right there God created everything.  Gravity works because God says so.  Doesnt get much more simple than that.

----------


## yongrel

> What in the world makes people automatically connect God with Intelligent Design?



Because the leading ID textbooks cite Creationist textbooks for the majority of their sources.




> The designer could have been an alien for all we know.


As has been said often by evolutionists, their is definitely the possibility that life came to this planet from an alien source. Whether it be by bacteria on an asteroid or E.T.s on a spaceship, it's possible. However, panspermia is ultimately not an answer to the question "How did life come to be?" nor "How has life changed since." Panspermia doesn't solve the origin of life or disprove evolution, it just places these occurences offworld.

Say, for instance, we were designed by an alien intelligence. This alien came to our planet and introduced life, and proceeded to manipulate it. He would then be the designer.

But where did this alien come from? *cough*he evolved*cough*




> People need to stop and think before they make an association between things.


And once they're done thinking, they'll be even more aware of how connected ID and Creationism are.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Because by its very nature, an intelligent designer could only have been a super-natural designer.
> 
> 
> Who designed your hypothetical alien? The alien must have been a sentient life form.  Where did it come from?
> 
> You really have to stop and think before making such illogical statements.


So it is illogical to say a pocket watch has an intelligent designer?
More likely it would be illogical to assume the watchmaker would be some sort of super-natural designer.

If we don't know who the designer was then we can only make an assumption as to his super-natural nature.  Maybe the designer is able to make all sorts of living things and that does not mean he or they is necessarily some kind of god.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> People need to stop and think


I already did.  I came to the conclusion that superstition an mythology are no match for observable reality, rationality, and scientific discovery.

----------


## Dr.3D

I suppose a pocket watch would think the one who made it was some kind of god.  (if it had a brain to think)

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I already did. I came to the conclusion that superstition an mythology are no match for observable reality, rationality, and scientific discovery.


Like Anthropogenic Global Warming?

----------


## Theocrat



----------


## Truth Warrior

> I already did. I came to the conclusion that superstition an mythology are no match for observable reality, rationality, and scientific discovery.


What about thread post #16?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I suppose a pocket watch would think the one who made it was some kind of god.  (if it had a brain to think)


Ahhh, the watchmaker falacy.  

I have a better one.




Who designed this stone archway?  Is it evidence of a designer?  An ancient civilization? 



Why cant I look at this stone archway and know that it must have been designed?   It looks complicated.  It MUST have been designed.  


The reality is, we do know how that stone archway came into existence.  We know the natural process by which it was formed, designer free.  

Just as we know the geological process by which this stone archway was formed, we know the biological processes by which evolution occurs

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> What about thread post #16?


What does that have to do with anything?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Ahhh, the watchmaker falacy. 
> 
> I have a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who designed this stone archway? Is it evidence of a designer? An ancient civilization? 
> 
> ...


Much simpler than a pocket watch.  Now about those natural selection processes and random chance mutations creating RNA, not even to mention DNA?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Much simpler than a pocket watch.  Now about those natural selection processes and random chance mutations creating RNA, not even to mention DNA?


But how do you know the stone archway was not designed?

----------


## amy31416

> Quantum physics fills in the holes of Relativity.  Relativity fills in the holes of Newtonian Physics.  
> 
> Too bad all that "science" is a waste of time.  There is no need to go to college and study physics.  No need to waste money on fancy book learn'n.  Just open up your bible.  Says right there God created everything.  Gravity works because God says so.  Doesnt get much more simple than that.


Yes, but who will fill the holes in my dark, doubting heart? 

Jesus, that's who! 

(sorry, sometimes I can't resist.)

P.S. I won't waste any more time on that blaspheming science crap. Thanks!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Ahhh, the watchmaker falacy.  
> 
> I have a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who designed this stone archway?  Is it evidence of a designer?  An ancient civilization? 
> 
> ...


What purpose does the arch fill?
A work of art perhaps?
It does not serve the purpose as a bridge as I see no road going to it or from it.
It would not be necessary to have a bridge there in the first place as it would be easier to cross that area without going to the trouble of going over the top of it.

If we for once leave God out of this discussion, what constitutes intelligent design?

Now, I don't want to hear about any myth or supposition, but only about what constitutes intelligent design.

Let's stick to things that are not living for the time being too.  As it may be too complicated for us if we start going into living things.

Anything that is not living and serves a purpose, please tell me what would make it the product of intelligent design?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Other than pointing out "holes" in scientific theory, what would an intelligent design course consist of?

Ok, you win the court battle.  Evolutionary biology is supplemented with a semester long course on Intelligent Design.

What is the lesson plan?  What is the scientific data and evidence?


What on earth would go on in an ID classroom?

----------


## Theocrat

> Ahhh, the watchmaker falacy.  
> 
> I have a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who designed this stone archway?  Is it evidence of a designer?  An ancient civilization? 
> 
> ...


Ultimately, I would say that God did create that stone archway. You have to understand that God, as sovereign Creator of the universe, designed all living organisms and natural materials (such as rocks, atoms, and molecules) that we see upon the earth. Rocks do not form themselves in nature, but how wonderful it is to see that each one has its own distinct shape which is different and unlike any other rock! To conclude that rocks are just formed by blind, impersonal forces in nature without any superintendence by God is just silly, to me. I mean, would you conclude from this photo that Mount Rushmore was formed just by random processes, unaided by an intelligent agent?



Absolutely not! Its complexity and structure is evidence enough that someone more complex and intelligent than the rock created it. As a theologian once put it, "You don't need faith to know there was a designer, just eyes that can see and a brain that works."

If we don't assume that there was a designer of the stone archway, then what natural process created it, and who observed the process in action? Evolution cannot answer this question of how rocks evolved because evolution only deals with living organisms in nature, which rocks are not.

----------


## yongrel

> What on earth would go on in an ID classroom?


...God?

----------


## Dr.3D

Is this not evidence of intelligent design?

It was after all, designed was it not?
Was there any intelligence involved in the design of this monument?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then it is in fact the product of intelligent design.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> What purpose does the arch fill?
> A work of art perhaps?
> It does not serve the purpose as a bridge as I see no road going to it or from it.
> It would not be necessary to have a bridge there in the first place as it would be easier to cross that area without going to the trouble of going over the top of it.


maybe it is the remainder of an ancient bridge that once crossed a body of water that has apparently dried up and become a desert.


Of course that is bull$#@!.  i just made it up.  The entire argument stems from ignorance.  I havnt done one bit of research, have not collected one shred of evidence to support my claim.  I just looked at it and made $#@! up, ignoring scientific data to the contrary.  

Which is exactly what you are doing.


you see, here is what you are doing.  You are looking at the arch and saying, "There is no natural mechanism to create such a thing.  It must be intelligently designed by a creator."  The thing is, there IS a natural mechanism to create the arch.  Its a completely natural occurrence.  Just because you lack the scientific literacy to understand it, does not mean you have a solid argument.


Intelligent Design comes down to this:

"I dont understand science, therefore science must be wrong."

----------


## Theocrat

> Intelligent Design comes down to this:
> 
> "I dont understand science, therefore science must be wrong."


You've just committed a strawman fallacy here. That is not what intelligent design is about. Brush those sideburns from your eyes, and see the truth.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You are looking at the arch and saying, "There is no natural mechanism to create such a thing.


I'm sure there is a natural mechanism to create such a thing.
I never said there wasn't.

You are trying to put words in my mouth.

Answer the questions in my Mount Rushmore post if you know so much about science.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Is this not evidence of intelligent design?
> 
> It was after all, designed was it not?
> Was there any intelligence involved in the design of this monument?
> 
> If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then it is in fact the product of intelligent design.


It is not proof of intelligence because of it's complexity, it is proof of intelligence because the physical evidence conforms to human creation rather than geological creation.  The physical design is consistent with the work of man, not the work of nature.  Complexity is irrelevant.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I'm sure there is a natural mechanism to create such a thing.


Why are you sure?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Why are you sure?


Because I have seen it happen from water erosion.  It doesn't take a million years for it to happen either.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The physical design is consistent with the work of man, not the work of nature.  Complexity is irrelevant.


Then you concede it is the product of Intelligent design?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Show me evidence that the design of a cell is inconsistent with creation by natural biological, chemical, and physical process. 




If God designed eyeballs, why do so many people have to wear glasses?

----------


## yongrel

> Then you concede it is the product of Intelligent design?


Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore. I maintain that it is the product of unintelligent design.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Then you concede it is the product of Intelligent design?


Mr. Rushmore is indeed designed.  This is shown through physical evidence, as well as documented historical evidence.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Mr. Rushmore is indeed designed.  This is shown through physical evidence, as well as documented historical evidence.


Good, then we have gotten this far in our evaluation of what constitutes Intelligent Design.   What other points may be observed from things we know are the product of Intelligent Design?

----------


## Theocrat

> Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore. I maintain that it is the product of unintelligent design.


Maybe putting Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore was a result of an *unwise choice* by the sculptor, not unintelligence in design.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Good, then we have gotten this far in our evaluation of what constitutes Intelligent Design.   What other points may be observed from things we know are the product of Intelligent Design?


Gotten this far?  The fact that I conceded that Mt. Rushmore was designed?


I also concede the fact that bottled water was put in the bottle by a creator.  That does not further the debate on the existence of Poseidon.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Gotten this far?  The fact that I conceded that Mt. Rushmore was designed?
> 
> 
> I also concede the fact that bottled water was put in the bottle by a creator.  That does not further the debate on the existence of Poseidon.


Oops... you violated the rules.... we don't include myth when working with science.

We are trying to scientifically determine what constitutes Intelligent Design.

So far we have found there needs to be physical evidence of a designer. 
We have also discussed the need for there to be historical evidence.

What else are we going to be able to find out about the subject?

Once we have a good list, then we can begin to break it down to determine what items on the list may or may not be necessary to define Intelligent Design.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> But how do you know the stone archway was not designed?


I didn't claim that it wasn't, now did I?  I'm, however, open to the possibility, that maybe it was.  Let's check the evidence, shall we?  

Thanks, for finally "kinda" acknowledging one of my questions?  Though answering a question with a question, could hardly be considered an adequate or acceptable answer.

----------


## Dr.3D

Let's take another item.....

Would you say this is a naturally occurring item or was it designed?

What are the attributes you used to determine your answer?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Let's take another item.....
> 
> Would you say this is a naturally occurring item or was it designed?
> 
> What are the attributes you used to determine your answer?


I would have to look at the physical evidence.


First I would have to gain some knowledge on geological rock structures.  Figure out what type of rock this is, what are its natural characteristics, natural environmental mechanisms that effect its structure (was it in a river, at the top of a mountain, at the base of a mountain, on a beach), chemical makeup.   

I would then compare this rock to the knowledge I have on the science of rocks.


If the rock is consistent with known natural geological mechanisms, It is possible the rock is the result of natural process.  

If the rock is inconsistent with known natural geological mechanisms, one of two things can be true.  1.  The rock is not the result of natural geological mechanisms.  2.  The rock is the result of natural geological mechanisms that I have not yet gained knowledge of.


if I have determined that the rock is not the result of known geological mechanism, I can explore the possibility that it is the result of unnatural process.  I would then look for evidence to support unnatural process.  In this example of what appears to be an arrow head, I can look for evidence of wearing that is consistent with the act of sharpening.  If the rock was sharpened with a second rock of a different material,  I can look for markings along the sharp edge consistent with what occurs when two rocks are banged against each other in such a fashion.  I can also look for residue of the second rock that was used in the sharpening process.  if the markings are uneven, that may suggest another rock was hit against it.  If the markings are even and consistently sized, it may suggest a more precise tool was used.



As for this rock, in limited knowledge of geology, i can say it is likely not the result of natural process.  I know of no natural geological mechanism that would cause the rock to form into this shape.   The rock is inconsistent with natural geology 

In my limited knowledge of human made tools, i can say it is likely that this was crafted intentionally by a human.  The shape and markings are consistent with what I know to be an arrow head.


It is always possible that I could be wrong.  I have only studied basic college level geology.  And there are things that occur in nature that are often mistaken for being man-made.  For instance, certain types of rock erodes in such a way that it appears to be a paved stone walkway.  But its completely naturally occurring.  Our knowledge of geology can explain the process by which it happens.  In these cases, we must look at the physical evidence.  We must rely on our scientific understanding.  We must rely on research, the collection of data, the collection of evidence.  

Science doesnt work by looking at something for 2 seconds and going with whatever your intuition tells you.  

*SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK BY INTUITION*

----------


## Banana

Second law of thermodynamics is a bitch.

----------


## Theocrat

> Second law of thermodynamics is a bitch.


01001001 01101110 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01101111 01110000 01101001 01101110 01101001 01101111 01101110 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010011 01100101 01100011 01101111 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001100 01100001 01110111 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01101101 01101111 01100100 01111001 01101110 01100001 01101101 01101001 01100011 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101001 01110010 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101100 01100101 01101101 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01110010 01111001 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100101 01111000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100001 01110111 01100001 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 00101110

----------


## DrYongrel

> 01001001 01101110 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01101111 01110000 01101001 01101110 01101001 01101111 01101110 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010011 01100101 01100011 01101111 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001100 01100001 01110111 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01101101 01101111 01100100 01111001 01101110 01100001 01101101 01101001 01100011 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101001 01110010 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101100 01100101 01101101 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01110010 01111001 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100101 01111000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100001 01110111 01100001 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 00101110


01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110110 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100100 00101110

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Second law of thermodynamics is a bitch.


Dont worry, soon these guys will be pushing "Thermo-God-namics"

----------


## Theocrat

> 01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110110 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100100 00101110


01001001 00100111 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 01111001 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01110110 01100101 01101110 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101100 01100001 01101001 01101101 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 00100000 00101000 01100011 01110010 01100101 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01101001 01110011 01101101 00101001 00101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01101111 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01100101 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100010 01110110 01101001 01101111 01110101 01110011 00100000 01100101 01110110 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110101 01101110 01101001 01110110 01100101 01110010 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101110 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100110 01101111 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 01110011 01100101 01101100 01110110 01100101 01110011 00101110 00100000 01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100101 01110001 01110101 01101001 01110110 01100001 01101100 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01100111 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01001101 01101111 01110101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01010010 01110101 01110011 01101000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01100011 01110101 01101100 01110000 01110100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100010 01111001 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01110011 01100011 01110101 01101100 01110000 01110100 01101111 01110010 00101110

----------


## DrYongrel

> 01001001 00100111 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 01111001 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01110110 01100101 01101110 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101100 01100001 01101001 01101101 01110011 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 00100000 00101000 01100011 01110010 01100101 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01101001 01110011 01101101 00101001 00101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01101111 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01100101 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100010 01110110 01101001 01101111 01110101 01110011 00100000 01100101 01110110 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110101 01101110 01101001 01110110 01100101 01110010 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101110 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100110 01101111 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 01110011 01100101 01101100 01110110 01100101 01110011 00101110 00100000 01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100101 01110001 01110101 01101001 01110110 01100001 01101100 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01100111 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01001101 01101111 01110101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01010010 01110101 01110011 01101000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01100011 01110101 01101100 01110000 01110100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100010 01111001 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01110011 01100011 01110101 01101100 01110000 01110100 01101111 01110010 00101110


RGlub3NhdXJz

----------


## Dr.3D

> I would have to look at the physical evidence.
> 
> 
> First I would have to gain some knowledge on geological rock structures.  Figure out what type of rock this is, what are its natural characteristics, natural environmental mechanisms that effect its structure (was it in a river, at the top of a mountain, at the base of a mountain, on a beach), chemical makeup.   
> 
> I would then compare this rock to the knowledge I have on the science of rocks.
> 
> 
> If the rock is consistent with known natural geological mechanisms, It is possible the rock is the result of natural process.  
> ...



So with limited study of the object, one may determine it to be designed by a human and not the result of a natural process because:

1. It is inconsistent with natural geology.
2. It is consistent with what is known to be an arrowhead.



So now we may add two new observations to our list of how we may determine if an object is naturally occurring or designed.

Attributes of an object that was designed:
It may be shown to be designed by physical evidence.
It may be verified as being designed though documented historical evidence.
It may be inconsistent with naturally occurring objects.
It may be consistent with what is known about other similar objects.

I am learning a lot today.  I have to wonder how many more attributes we can come up with in determining if something was designed, rather than naturally occurring.

This would be the scientific study of Intelligent Design.
Today we have a start with the four observations you have come up with.

----------


## constituent

> 01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110110 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100100 00101110


one thread, two names.... tsk tsk... 


starting to look like another doctor i know!

----------


## Theocrat

> RGlub3NhdXJz


57686174206C616E677561676520697320746861742C20616E  64207768617420646F6573206974206D65616E3F00

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I have to wonder how many more attributes we can come up with in determining if something was designed, rather than naturally occurring.
> 
> This would be the scientific study of Intelligent Design.
> Today we have a start with the four observations you have come up with.


I can see what you are saying.  But either way, at some  point you must produce evidence to support a claim.


Now back to biology.  Do you have any evidence to support the ID concept of "irreducible complexity"?  


Take DNA for example.  What evidence can be presented that suggests DNA could not have come into existence by natural chemical, physical, and biological means?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Take DNA for example.  What evidence can be presented that suggests DNA could not have come into existence by natural chemical, physical, and biological means?


The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since we always observe entropy in non biological systems (organisms), it does not make sense, disorder would somehow change to order without a coordinated external source of energy applied with the purpose of bringing the organism into existence.

In a world void of organisms, it would be necessary to construct an organism in order for one to exist.  Once in existence, the organism would only be able to adapt to the environment if it had been constructed with the ability to reproduce. 

The ability to reproduce would have to have taken place instantly or the organism would only live for one generation and then cease to exist. So the DNA would have to suddenly become able to reproduce at the same time it came into existence.    

Is it possible DNA could come into existence and and also have the ability to reproduce at the same time?  What are the chances of this taking place?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics.


wrong

Here are a few scientific journal articles that discuss Disorder-to-Order

http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/6/2083
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/i13/p8878_1
http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S010876819301167X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...464177ef07b2de
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/36/22/336
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0





> What are the chances of this taking place?


First off, in an infinite universe, big scary numbers are irrelevant.

Second, you assume things happen by random chance.  Thats not really accurate.  Things happen by natural process.  Say you put hydrogen and oxygen together?  What are the chances that all those hydrogen atoms will just happen to join with all those oxygen atoms?  Well, chance and probability have nothing to do with it.  Its a natural process.  The atoms will join together to create H20

----------


## amy31416

> The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.


That's not necessarily true. The second law of thermodynamics essentially states that all matter will eventually go toward the lowest energy states. If you recall from E diagrams, sometimes that means that the lowest E state is a bond. For instance, an H ion is in a much higher energy state than H2. Carbon needs to form four bonds to be in the lowest E state. 

So, while the state of being bonded is a temporary low energy state, over vast time, all matter and energy will naturally find its lowest E state and we (possibly) will settle into a state where everything is balanced and separated. Or, we could find that the lowest E state is through bonding and eventually be back at a singularity. Incredibly high potential energy--what sets it off to become kinetic energy? ....

I probably shouldn't post this because I'm talking on the phone at the same time as I'm writing and it may very well make no sense............but what the hell.

----------


## Dr.3D

> wrong
> 
> Here are a few scientific journal articles that discuss Disorder-to-Order
> 
> http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/6/2083
> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/i13/p8878_1
> http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S010876819301167X
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...464177ef07b2de
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/36/22/336
> ...


The first article refers to smooth muscle myosin, a biological entity.

The second article is in reference to crystal formation as does the third article.  Yes crystals are orderly because they form as the substance begins to adhere to the binding points of it's crystal lattice.

The fourth article is about order to disorder.

The fifth article is close to what oil does when mixed with water.  Sure it goes from disorder to order as the two separate.

The sixth article I can not get to come up on my computer as it gives me an error about cookies.

Are you saying the Earth has been in existence for infinity?

Not necessarily will all of the atoms of hydrogen combine with the oxygen atoms to form water... there may be a difference in the number of atoms of each required to form the H2O molecule.

Say we had 2 oxygen atoms and 2 hydrogen atoms and then gave the spark of energy to cause them to combine.  We would get one molecule of H2O and have one atom of Oxygen remaining.

Entropy happens to anything that is not a living thing.   Organisms only experience  entropy after they have stopped living.

----------


## Dr.3D

Here is an interesting article about the subject of this thread.

http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000455.html

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's not necessarily true. The second law of thermodynamics essentially states that all matter will eventually go toward the lowest energy states. If you recall from E diagrams, sometimes that means that the lowest E state is a bond. For instance, an H ion is in a much higher energy state than H2. Carbon needs to form four bonds to be in the lowest E state. 
> 
> So, while the state of being bonded is a temporary low energy state, over vast time, all matter and energy will naturally find its lowest E state and we (possibly) will settle into a state where everything is balanced and separated. Or, we could find that the lowest E state is through bonding and eventually be back at a singularity. Incredibly high potential energy--what sets it off to become kinetic energy? ....
> 
> I probably shouldn't post this because I'm talking on the phone at the same time as I'm writing and it may very well make no sense............but what the hell.


Yes, I understand what you are saying.... it's been a long time since I was in a physics class... or for that matter in a chemistry class.  Better than 40 years have gone by since I really had to use any of that information.    I'm not a veterinarian, even though I went to veterinary school for a few years.   After retiring from a General Motors plant that was closed due to outsourcing, I decided to study the Bible and related writings and finally was rewarded with a Doctorate in Biblical Studies.   I'm sorry if I can't seem to communicate everything just as it should be communicated.   I mean well anyway.

Perhaps I am wandering into the wrong environment and stepping out of my element by going into the subject of Intelligent Design.  I will say however, I am learning a lot about the subject I probably would have never known.

What I was trying to say though, is what we observe in nature is that non living things tend to decay back to their most basic forms.  Living things tend to do just the opposite, until after they stop living.   I was trying to discover how the very complex chain of the DNA molecule could possibly form and at the same time be able to replicate itself all in one process.  This process would have to happen very quickly or the DNA would begin to decay before it ever had the chance to reproduce.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

Here I will break down intelligent design for you. 

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah 
(Toss in some bull$#@!) 
God did it!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I would have to look at the physical evidence.
> 
> 
> First I would have to gain some knowledge on geological rock structures. Figure out what type of rock this is, what are its natural characteristics, natural environmental mechanisms that effect its structure (was it in a river, at the top of a mountain, at the base of a mountain, on a beach), chemical makeup. 
> 
> I would then compare this rock to the knowledge I have on the science of rocks.
> 
> 
> If the rock is consistent with known natural geological mechanisms, It is possible the rock is the result of natural process. 
> ...


How else is scientific curiosity and interest sparked, and tentative hypothesis formulation initiated then?  Where does that capacity come from?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> How else is scientific curiosity and interest sparked, and tentative hypothesis formulation initiated then?  Where does that capacity come from?


That is not relevant to the current debate.  I think that you think you just asked a philosophical question.  You didnt.  You asked a biological question.  

Now, while we are indeed discussing biology, we are not currently discussing the inner working of the human mind.  If you want an answer to your question, I suggest you go to your nearest university and start studying Neurophysiology.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That is not relevant to the current debate. I think that you think you just asked a philosophical question. You didnt. You asked a biological question. 
> 
> Now, while we are indeed discussing biology, we are not currently discussing the inner working of the human mind. If you want an answer to your question, I suggest you go to your nearest university and start studying Neurophysiology.


 I merely replyed to your *bold* science/intuition claim.  You may now retract it if you wish.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I merely replyed to your *bold* science/intuition claim.  You may now retract it if you wish.


Why would I retract it?

Science does not work by intuition.  It works by collection of data; experimentation; observable realities.


Where has Intelligent Design done any research?  Where is the data?  Where is the experimentation?  Where is the evidence?  Where is the observable reality?



If all you have to go on with ID is "Well, it seems logical to me", then you have not formed a scientific theory.



Why do you insist on believing in things with no supporting evidence, and mountains of evidence to the contrary?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data  the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.

----------


## amy31416

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

I think the proponents of Intelligent Design will have a hard time with steps 3 & 4. But please, have a go at it. I'd like to see what you guys come up with.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> what we observe in nature is that non living things tend to decay back to their most basic forms.


Yea, because just the other day I saw a diamond ring decay back into coal.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why would I retract it?
> 
> Science does not work by intuition. It works by collection of data; experimentation; observable realities.
> 
> 
> Where has Intelligent Design done any research? Where is the data? Where is the experimentation? Where is the evidence? Where is the observable reality?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A careful rereading for comprehension of *what I actually wrote* will "maybe" clearly show that I am/was speaking of the starting point of the process of science.

I think that you really owe me answers to the accumulation of my thread questions directed to you, before I will even begin to consider answering your new ones here. 

We'll go from there, OK?

Oh, you may too want to add a response to thread post #16 also. Hmm, I seem to have already asked you that.

----------


## yongrel

> Oh, you may too want to add a response to thread post #16 also. Hmm, I seem to have already asked you that.


Post #16 says nothing of merit to your argument.

"No lover, if he be of good faith, and sincere, will deny he would prefer to see his mistress dead than unfaithful."
-Marquis de Sade 

See, I can post quotations too. It doesn't help my argument. It just makes me feel important.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> A careful rereading for comprehension of *what I actually wrote* will "maybe" clearly show that I am/was speaking of the starting point of the process of science.
> 
> I think that you really owe me answers to the accumulation of my thread questions directed to you, before I will even begin to consider answering your new ones here. 
> 
> We'll go from there, OK?
> 
> Oh, you may too want to add a response to thread post #16 also. Hmm, I seem to have already asked you that.


The starting point of sceince?  Ill take you through the whole process.

   1. Define the question
   2. Gather information and resources (observe)
   3. Form hypothesis
   4. Perform experiment and collect data
   5. Analyze data
   6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
   7. Publish results
   8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Here is how Intelligent Design proposes we do things

   1. Define the question
   2. 
   3. Form hypothesis
   4. 
   5. 
   6. 
   7. Publish results
   8. 



Do you see the problem?



And again with post #16, what is the relevance?  What difference would it make if Darwin believed in a creator?  (He didnt) 

Why are the creationists so hung up on Darwin?  You certainly dont hear evolutionary biologists bring up Darwin every other sentence.  No more than you would hear an aeronautical engineer bring up the Wright brothers every 5 words.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Post #16 says nothing of merit to your argument.
> 
> "No lover, if he be of good faith, and sincere, will deny he would prefer to see his mistress dead than unfaithful."
> -Marquis de Sade 
> 
> See, I can post quotations too. It doesn't help my argument. It just makes me feel important.


Yes, and you do it very nicely.  

Thank you for your opinion.  However, Darwin's views do seem to have *some* significant relevance in this thread context, at hand.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Yes, and you do it very nicely.  
> 
> Thank you for your opinion.  However, Darwin's views do seem to have *some* significant relevance in this thread context, at hand.


NO they dont.  Darwins personal beliefs are completely irrelevant.  The only thing relevant is the scientific data.

----------


## yongrel

> Thank you for your opinion.  However, Darwin's views do seem to have *some* significant relevance in this thread context, at hand.


Not so much. Darwin's personal opinions are about as relevant to scientific discussion as Terry Schiavo's are. Personal opinion is irrelevant if data is absent.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The starting point of sceince? Ill take you through the whole process.
> 
> 1. Define the question
> 2. Gather information and resources (observe)
> 3. Form hypothesis
> 4. Perform experiment and collect data
> 5. Analyze data
> 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
> 7. Publish results
> ...


*Answers!!!*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> *Answers!!!*


Weak

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Im still not seeing any data that backs up the claims of Intelligent Design.

Where is the evidence?

----------


## amy31416

> Im still not seeing any data that backs up the claims of Intelligent Design.
> 
> Where is the evidence?


There is none.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Not so much. Darwin's personal opinions are about as relevant to scientific discussion as Terry Schiavo's are. Personal opinion is irrelevant if data is absent.


And what was Darwin's view on *his theory*, in the absence of adequate definitive, confirming and conclusive data and evidence?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> And what was Darwin's view on *his theory*, in the absence of adequate definitive, confirming and conclusive data and evidence?


Ok, Ill bite.

That quote is talking about the origin of life.  Evolution does not discuss the origin of life, it discusses the diversity of life and its change over time.  



Theories are not philosophical views.  Once a truth has been discovered, it makes no difference if the discoverer stops believing it later on.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> NO they dont. Darwins personal beliefs are completely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the scientific data.


( odds are he's a sophomore. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophomore )

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Im still not seeing any data that backs up the claims of Intelligent Design.
> 
> Where is the evidence?


 Where are you looking for it?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Weak


*F*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> ( odds are he's a sophomore. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophomore )


( odds are he's a paper towel. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paper%20towel )

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Where are you looking for it?


Hard to find something that doesnt exist.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ( odds are he's a paper towel. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paper%20towel )


My best guess is that the evidence of continued refusal and absence of relevant answers to questions asked, scientifically signifies, coming to a battle of wits, unarmed.  

Thereby, confirming the sophomore hypothesis.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Hard to find something that doesnt exist.


 How would you possibly know?

----------


## amy31416

> How would you possibly know?


Once again, backed into a corner. This happens to you a lot, doesn't it?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Once again, backed into a corner. This happens to you a lot, doesn't it?


My what an active fantasy life you must lead.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> How would you possibly know?


ID was in court in Dover for 6 weeks.  In that 6 weeks, the very people who came up with the idea of intelligent design produced no evidence of intelligent design, and in fact conceded that there was no scientifically peer reviewed data to support Intelligent Design.




> A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the
> complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert
> testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the
> scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and
> to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to
> study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor
> Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that
> science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure
> that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the
> ...


Michael Behe is a leading voice in intelligent design, and coined the idea of "irreducible complexity"

----------


## amonasro

> There is none.


There is none, except for the world around you.  Those who believe in intelligent design are content to think that there is a greater power in the universe that we don't understand.

Are we so proud that we can rule out intelligent design as a possibility?

Call me a nut for not following the scientific method, but I like to think there is something bigger than us out there.

...
O Thou transcendent,
Nameless, the fibre and the breath,
Light of the light, shedding forth universes, thou centre of them.

Swiftly I shrivel at the thought of God,
At Nature and its wonders, Time and Space and Death,
But that I, turning, call to thee O soul, thou actual Me,
And lo, thou gently masterest the orbs,
Thou matest Time, smilest content at Death,
And fillest, swellest full the vastnesses of Space. 

...
O soul thou pleasest me, I thee,
Sailing these seas or on the hills, or waking in the night,
Thoughts, silent thoughts, of Time and Space and Death, like waters flowing,
Bear me indeed as through the regions infinite,
Whose air I breathe, whose ripples hear, lave me all over,
Bathe me O God in thee, mounting to thee,
I and my soul to range in range of thee. 

...
Sail forth -- steer for the deep waters only,
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all. 

O my brave soul!
O farther farther sail!
O daring joy, but safe! are they not all the seas of God?
O farther, farther, farther sail! *

-Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ID was in court in Dover for 6 weeks. In that 6 weeks, the very people who came up with the idea of intelligent design produced no evidence of intelligent design, and in fact conceded that there was no scientifically peer reviewed data to support Intelligent Design.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a leading voice in intelligent design, and coined the idea of "irreducible complexity"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry F. Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology - Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A. Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J. Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F. Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U. • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. • Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

After you've conviced these folks. Get back with me. 

Still waiting for the requested answers, BTW.

----------


## Kade

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henry F. Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology - Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A. Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J. Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F. Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U. • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. • Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
> 
> After you've conviced these folks. Get back with me. 
> 
> Still waiting for the requested answers, BTW.


Surely you jest. 




> NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)
> 
> Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!



As a mockery of this list, the number of Scientists with the first name STEVE, who have outright reject ID as science outnumber the entire collection of scientists who signed that spurious document.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp



_
Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"_

----------


## Banana

> The scientific method has four steps
> 
> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 
> 
> 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 
> 
> 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 
> 
> 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
> ...


FWIW, there is no "one true scientific method." Just ask any archaeologist to replicate a historical event. They have to adopt a different approach and a set of criteria to establish or deny whether an event in past has in fact occurred. Same applies to Big Bang theory- we can't replicate it, but we can try and infer from available evidence (e.g. redshifts for example). 

The thing, as I view it, is that those branches of science aren't quite "hard" because we use inference, rather than deductive logic. We can improve a theory's credibility, but never prove it conclusively as we can with testable & repeatable phenomena such as gravity (though the exact mechanism of gravity may be in dispute). 

I also am given to understand that there exist a "Philosophy of Science" and there are debates on whether so and so constitute a necessary step in the scientific research. For example, testability and falsifiability are usually considered important in formulating a theory. On the surface, those seems to settle the question, but philosophers may dispute this such as not all theories can be directly tested (e.g. there is no way to test whether Napoleon was indeed the dictator of France after the revolution), but isn't any less scientific because we have the evidence to support the theory even though we can't test it. Same for falsifiability and other criteria which escapes me for now. 

That said, I do agree that there has to be some kind of consensus on how we want to analyze the theory in a given branch of science, which I imagine most already has a good working model for their own particular needs. 

Now, I'm strictly a layman and has the least authority to comment on anything, especially earth-shaking as the origin of everything, but this is how I look at both theories (and I'll have to be very, very, very general if we are going to be brief and concise):

Evolution theory postulates that we came to exist through a natural selection process. Therefore, we can test this by demonstrating that life can be created from non-life (cf. Miller-Urey experiment), transition from simple amoeba to more complex life forms supported by paleontology & taxonomy and replicated in biochemistry, and finally show the common links between a species and its cousins. Therefore, to falsify the evolution would be to show absence of common links between similar species, inability to cross the species barrier (to be fair, the exact definition of species, and thus definition of macroevolution is still in dispute last time I checked), and absence of transitional species in fossil records (such by logic we should have numerous examples of transitional species). 

A common criticism of Intelligent Design is that it's based on negative evidences (e.g. if evolution is false or cannot be shown to be true, then ID must be true!), and indeed, if it were merely based on negative evidence, it wouldn't be very scientific and commits the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. However, we need to look at the most affirmative form of the Intelligent Design and see if they can depend on evidence separate from lack of evidence for evolution. 

So, basically, intelligent design asserts that we came to be by an intelligent agent,  because we exist in despite of strong preference of non-life over life. We would then test this theory by showing that all things being equal, elements would generally prefer simpler non-life molecules over more complex and energetic biological molecules, that conditions for life cannot be met using natural mechanisms, that the minimum function for any aspect of life (e.g. an eyeball?) requires presence of several distinct components working together. Therefore, it can be falsified by showing that there exists a mechanism for encouraging elements to prefer more complex structure with high information content, that minimum function for any living organs can be met relatively easily with introduction of different component, or mechanisms for producing new components. 

A last note. It is important to remember that science has underwent several upheavals before and major theories once the darling of majority has been cast aside to the fringes. It's easy to picture the early astronomers who believe that the universe revolved as ignorant fools, but this is not that simple. They (whether the religion had a hand in it or not, I do not know) naturally assumed that since sun and stars were moving, and they didn't feel any motion standing on the Earth, everything else had to be moving. Of course, they noticed the problems such as apparent eastward motion of planets and tried to explain this by introducing new model that planets were orbiting in a different way, whether it was around another star, or in a elliptic orbit. Of course, those new models couldn't quite get the timing right so they went into far more complex models with several different orbits, and they were close to perfecting that theory until Copernicus basically said, "Hey! We're moving! It's the Sun that's not moving at all!"

Same thing with ether theory. Prior to Einstein's theory, it was the majority theory, but scientists were fully aware of problems and supplied their solutions to the ether theory until it was Einstein who upset the whole apple cart. 

The point here is that to me as a layman, evolution theory shows the same pattern that other discarded theories went through- We've yet to find the "missing link" between the apes and the humans, and the history is continually revised as paleontologist make new discovery that overthrows the older proposed evolution line (e.g. it was Neadthernal -> Cro-Magan -> **** Sapiens, then later it was **** Erectus -> Neadtheranl/Cro-Magan -> **** Sapiens, then several different variants). Then there's different camps within the evolution theory, such as punctured equilibria vs. gradualism for example. This tells me, as a layman, that the matter is anything but settled and may be likely never settled, and therefore when anyone asserts that evolution is a fact, I take this with *huge* grain of salt. (Mind, we're still talking in context of macroevolution, not microevolution, which is obviously observed today). This isn't something where we've already established a fact and are just tidying up the details, as is the case with gravity, which nobody will disagree with, though we may not agree with the exact mechanism of gravity (which is fine as this is now in bound of quantum theory, AFAICT). 

So for me at least, I do not think the debate is going to be resolved, and to be fair, both camps has more than fair share of dogmatism because of all metaphysic implication either theory will create, and it's in our human nature to be prejudiced against a certain metaphysic model that we don't subscribe to.



*Sees my post*

Holy post, batman!

----------


## amy31416

> There is none, except for the world around you.  Those who believe in intelligent design are content to think that there is a greater power in the universe that we don't understand.
> 
> Are we so proud that we can rule out intelligent design as a possibility?
> 
> Call me a nut for not following the scientific method, but I like to think there is something bigger than us out there.


I have no problem with your opinion on ID, but you can't call it science and try to promote teaching it as thus alongside, or in place of, evolution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Surely you jest. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a mockery of this list, the number of Scientists with the first name STEVE, who have outright reject ID as science outnumber the entire collection of scientists who signed that spurious document.
> 
> http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp
> 
> ...


http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

----------


## Kade

> http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html


What does that have to do with anything? You don't have an answer so you insult me again?

and why are you quoting Objectivists? There are no Christian Objectivists.

----------


## amy31416

Good post Banana, and you're right about several things on evolution--it's hardly a perfect theory, but it has passed a lot of scientific rigor and evolutionary scientists are still looking for evidence. It's not fully fleshed out, so to speak. In my opinion, though, the science of evolution will not have some huge, mind-boggling theory such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Life is too messy for that.

The one thing that you are slightly off on is with entropy and that nature _always_ favors a state of physical disorder (i.e. not life). It depends on environmental conditions and the energy in a system. Take carbon for instance, if you've had some basic chemistry, you know that carbon that has not made four bonds with other elements is highly unstable and reactive unless temperatures are very, very high. The lowest energy state is to bond with four other elements, whether that be hydrogen, other carbons or whatever has a spare electron to contribute. 

In organic chemistry, we did a lot of work with energy diagrams, the goal is to take some simple molecules, add energy to the system in the form of heat (usually) and the product of the bonded molecules is lower energy than your reactive substrates, thus it is usually a one-way reaction. If the bonding produces a higher energy substance (such as the nitration of toluene) you end up with stuff that can go BANG! 

If I got some of the details wrong, forgive me please, it's been over 10 years since organic.  But the basic info is right about molecules bonding together often being lower E than unbonded.

----------


## DrYongrel

This thread needs a Doctor, STAT!

In my expert opinion, Intelligent Design is Creationism thinly veiled behind deliberately vague language in an effort to walk Christianity into the science classroom.

Intelligent Design is not science, as it does not even attempt to adhere to the scientific method. The scientific method is not some arbitrary idea that can be disregarded when convenient; it is the litmus test for intellectual inquiry to be classified as "science." Without the scientific method, we have only sitting around the cave fire and guessing.

ID is a perfectly acceptable, if incorrect, belief. However, it is just a belief. There is no evidence that supports ID. ID proponents claim there is, but it takes merely a glance at there so-called "evidence" to realize that they have put a new cover on the Bible.

Until ID can demonstrate that it is actually a science and not just a fresh coat of paint on a 2,000 year old book, it will remain in Sunday School exclusively.

And probably Fox News too.

This thread is over. And that's just what the Doctor ordered.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Chemistry and physics can be tested.
Macro evolution requires that it be believed ( AKA taken on faith ).

----------


## DrYongrel

> Chemistry and physics can be tested.
> Macro evolution requires that it be believed ( AKA taken on faith ).


Not so much.

Now do what the Doctor said.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Not so much.
> 
> Now do what the Doctor said.


How about if I get a second opinion?  I'll take Dr. Ron.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Chemistry and physics can be tested.
> Macro evolution requires that it be believed ( AKA taken on faith ).


explain your reasoning

----------


## Truth Warrior

> explain your reasoning


Answer my questions!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Answer my questions!


What question?  You made a statement.  Now back it up.

What makes macro evolution require faith?  Why is it not testable?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henry F. Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia  Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology - Grad. School: Yale U.  Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member  Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.  Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.  Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.  Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois  Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College  Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.  Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK  Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville  David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico  James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida  Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan  Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.  Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder  Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College  William A. Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:  George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida  Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.  James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah  Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington  Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories  Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen  Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis  Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member  Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho  Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho  David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.  Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.  Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia  Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M  Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)  Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School  Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories  Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences  William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens  Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia  Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.  Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College  Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin  Brian J. Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.  Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College  Donald F. Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College  William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.  Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia  Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine  Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.  Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.  Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.  Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor  John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico  Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin  Russell W. Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia  Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.  David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author  Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland  John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.  James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm  John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory  Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa  Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.  Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City  Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington  Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute  Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.  Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.  Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior  James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.  Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm  Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:  Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.  Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School  William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City  Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico  Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.  Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago  Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology  Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College  Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.  David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.  Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)  Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute  Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington  Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.  Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan  Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College  Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley  Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina  Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.  James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center  Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha  Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.  David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.  Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.  Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley:  James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.  Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U.  Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College  Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U.  Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute  James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U.  Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
> 
> After you've conviced these folks. Get back with me. 
> 
> Still waiting for the requested answers, BTW.




And where, may I ask, is their peer reviewed research?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Ok, Ill bite.
> 
> That quote is talking about the origin of life. Evolution does not discuss the origin of life, it discusses the diversity of life and its change over time. 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are not philosophical views. Once a truth has been discovered, it makes no difference if the discoverer stops believing it later on.


Ooops sorry, missed one. 

"Origin of Species" is about well, origin of species.  The Darwin evolution theory bible, to coin a phrase.  Post #16 is THE concluding summary statement of the whole book. 6th edition.  I will assume it's the same in editions 1 - 5, pending evidentiary contrary data.  

Why am I getting the very strong impression here, that you haven't even bothered to read it?   Tsk, tsk.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What question? You made a statement. Now back it up.
> 
> What makes macro evolution require faith? Why is it not testable?


Questions!!! Have you slept since then?  Answer the questions, sophomore!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Ooops sorry, missed one. 
> 
> "Origin of Species" is about well, origin of species.  The Darwin evolution theory bible, to coin a phrase.  Post #16 is THE concluding summary statement of the whole book. 6th edition.  I will assume it's the same in editions 1 - 5, pending evidentiary contrary data.  
> 
> Why am I getting the very strong impression here, that you haven't even bothered to read it?   Tsk, tsk.



Again, why are you so hung up on Darwin?  He really doesnt matter at all.  


Go to college and major in Aerospace Engineering.  I guarantee it, you will not hear one mention of the Wright Brothers outside of a History of Flight class.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> And where, may I ask, is their peer reviewed research?


 No, you may not ask. Answer the questions!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> No, you may not ask. Answer the questions!


What questions?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Again, why are you so hung up on Darwin? He really doesnt matter at all.
> *< ROFLMAO >* 
> 
> 
> Go to college and major in Aerospace Engineering. I guarantee it, you will not hear one mention of the Wright Brothers outside of a History of Flight class.
> *Trade school? Job training?  I assumed that you were getting an education.  My bad.  Explains a whole lot.*


BTW, answer the questions.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> "Origin of *Species*" is about well, origin of *species*.  (  Tsk, tsk.


origin of species

not origin of life

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What questions?


 All of the ones you still continue to ignore, for whatever bizarre reasons.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> BTW, answer the questions.


1.  I have been out of school for a long time

2.  Aerospace Engineering is not something you learn at "trade school".  people go to MIT to study that.

3.  I do not study Aeropsace Engineering.  I was using it as an example.

4.  Says the guy who got his doctorate in "Bible Mythology"

Doctorate in in the Bible is about as awesome as getting a degree in French Poetry of the 14th century.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Answer the question.  Where is the peer reviewed scientific exploration into Intelligent Design?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> origin of species
> 
> not origin of life


Abiogenesis is about life origins, a whole other can of worms.  

Macro evolution is about species, hence the title of Darwin's book concerning same.  I sure hope you're taking notes on all of this. 

Oh yeah, almost forgot, answer the questions.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Answer the question. Where is the peer reviewed scientific exploration into Intelligent Design?


Your turn!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Abiogenesis is about life origins, a whole other can of worms.  
> 
> Macro evolution is about species, hence the title of Darwin's book concerning same.  I sure hope you're taking notes on all of this. 
> 
> Oh yeah, almost forgot, answer the questions.


Answer the questions.

Where is the scientific peer reviewed research into Intelligent Design?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Where is the scientific peer reviewed research into Intelligent Design?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Where is the scientific peer reviewed research of Intelligent Design?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 1. I have been out of school for a long time
> 
> 2. Aerospace Engineering is not something you learn at "trade school". people go to MIT to study that.
> 
> 3. I do not study Aeropsace Engineering. I was using it as an example.
> 
> 4. Says the guy who got his doctorate in "Bible Mythology"
> 
> Doctorate in in the Bible is about as awesome as getting a degree in French Poetry of the 14th century.


And your definitive supporting scientific evidence supporting that SWAG hypothesis. Is what exactly?

Answer the questions!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

How does one scientifically test Intelligent Design?  How does one scientifically test the existence of an Intelligent Designer?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> And your definitive supporting scientific evidence supporting that SWAG hypothesis. Is what exactly?
> 
> Answer the questions!



Open up a scientific journal.

Im sure there has got to be a library/college/university/community college within driving distance of your house.

Go there, and ask the library receptionist to point you in the direction of scientific journals on the subject of biological evolution.

You should now be standing in front of a giant case of scientific peer reviewed research into Evolution.



Look, I know you have read the Bible and not much more.  But you have got to expand your knowledge.

Put down the mythology, and go read learn something that has basis in fact.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> How does one scientifically test Intelligent Design? How does one scientifically test the existence of an Intelligent Designer?


 Perhaps the same way that macro evolution is tested.  That's one of the main ID complaints, or so I've read.

Hint for the apparently navigationally challenged:  The questions to be answered start on thread page 4.

----------


## amy31416

> How does one scientifically test Intelligent Design?  How does one scientifically test the existence of an Intelligent Designer?


One doesn't. This site is about the most reasonable and non-CSC (Center for "science" and culture--a Discovery Institute program)  that I could find on so-called peer-reviewed ID research. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

See the responses, read for yourself. It's hardly scientific. And how is it that I'm at least coming up with something, while the person defending ID is not? Hell, I could defend ID better than him and I think it's a bunch of hogwash.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> One doesn't. This site is about the most reasonable and non-CSC (Center for "science" and culture--a Discovery Institute program) that I could find on so-called peer-reviewed ID research. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
> 
> See the responses, read for yourself. It's hardly scientific. And how is it that I'm at least coming up with something, while the person defending ID is not? Hell, I could defend ID better than him and I think it's a bunch of hogwash.


I'm not defending ID, merely among several attacking the macro evolution fairytale.  

Did the gay Buddhists wrap up early today?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Here I will break down intelligent design for you. 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Blah
> Blah Blah 
> (Toss in some bull$#@!) 
> God did it!


And then there is how science says life began....

Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah
(Toss in some bull$#@!)
Lightening hit a mud puddle!
A complete living organism was suddenly living in the mud puddle.
--------------------------------------
Where is the scientific proof?
Where is the reproducible data?
Has anybody been able to produce life in a lab by zapping a mud puddle with lightening?
Where is the peer reviewed data?

Science knows no more about how life began than they do about how the universe was started.  It is all a guess and a theory.
For all they know, all of the galaxies are just clusters of atoms in a giants table.

----------


## Banana

> Has anybody been able to produce life in a lab by zapping a mud puddle with lightening?


Miller-Urey experiment in 1957 did something like that. It was heralded as a proof that life can be created from nonlife, but even Miller himself concluded later on that it only opened more questions than answers, and showed how much more complicated it was. For example, the conditions present in the experiment was not consistent with what was known about the early Earth. Then there was that pesky problem of the same lightning giving the life killing it as well (the experiment used a trap of some kind to save the amino acids, IIRC).




> For all they know, all of the galaxies are just clusters of atoms in a giants table.


Funnily enough, it's okay to speculate about several universes behind a black hole but not an intelligent designer?

*shrugs*

Like I said, this debate isn't going to be resolved- people are simply too prejudiced.

----------


## sophocles07

> What in the world makes people automatically connect God with Intelligent Design?
> 
> The designer could have been an alien for all we know.
> 
> People need to stop and think before they make an association between things.


Well, I know who stole my cloak of naivity now.




> Is this not evidence of intelligent design?
> 
> It was after all, designed was it not?
> Was there any intelligence involved in the design of this monument?
> 
> If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then it is in fact the product of intelligent design.


So we’re talking about human craftsmanship now?  Is there not an END POINT at which a deity-designer must from outside the natural order DESIGN all of this?  That’s Intelligent Design; carving rocks by artists is not what they want to teach.


ALSO: can anyone provide us with, as Romney’s sideburns asked, a curriculum/syllabus for a course in ID?  I’d really like to know what the hell the class would consist of.




> There is none, except for the world around you. Those who believe in intelligent design are content to think that there is a greater power in the universe that we don't understand.
> 
> Are we so proud that we can rule out intelligent design as a possibility?
> 
> Call me a nut for not following the scientific method, but I like to think there is something bigger than us out there.
> 
> ...
> O Thou transcendent,
> Nameless, the fibre and the breath,
> ...


This is poetry.  Teach it as poetry or as philosophy.  Not as science.  How would you teach this in a science class?




> Doctorate in in the Bible is about as awesome as getting a degree in French Poetry of the 14th century.


I don’t know what this means.  If you were attempting an insult, you should use different comparison—because France of the 14th century produced many fine poets.




> And then there is how science says life began....
> 
> Blah blah blah blah
> Blah blah
> (Toss in some bull$#@!)
> Lightening hit a mud puddle!
> A complete living organism was suddenly living in the mud puddle.


Jesus man, you are stupid.

----------


## amy31416

> Did the gay Buddhists wrap up early today?


No, I'm still in the meeting. We're trying to decide the worst possible way to spend 4 million behind RP's back. Shhhhh.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Open up a scientific journal.
> 
> Im sure there has got to be a library/college/university/community college within driving distance of your house.
> 
> Go there, and ask the library receptionist to point you in the direction of scientific journals on the subject of biological evolution.
> 
> You should now be standing in front of a giant case of scientific peer reviewed research into Evolution.
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, I've read a whole lot of things, including Darwin's, "Origin of Species", and "The Descent of Man", etc.  Have you?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Jesus man, you are stupid.


Coming from you, I'll take that as a complement.

----------


## sophocles07

> Coming from you, I'll take that as a complement.


Wacca Wacca

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy?


An amoeba has no higher thought processes.  So an amoeba lacks the ability to understand a galaxy.  However, I would have to verify that by scientific data.





> Like Anthropogenic Global Warming?


Again, I need to verify this by looking at the research, but as far as I know, Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.




> What about thread post #16?


Irrelevant 




> Much simpler than a pocket watch. Now about those natural selection processes and random chance mutations creating RNA, not even to mention DNA?


RNA and DNA formed through natural chemical reactions that lead to the building blocks of DNA.  We are not yet aware of the details of this.  We dont know yet.




> How else is scientific curiosity and interest sparked, and tentative hypothesis formulation initiated then? Where does that capacity come from?


You are asking a question about why the human mind works the way it works.  This is studied in the field of Neuroscience.  I have very limited knowledge of this scientific field.  If you are looking for an answer, I suggest you open up some peer reviewed scientific journals and start reading.




> And what was Darwin's view on his theory, in the absence of adequate definitive, confirming and conclusive data and evidence?


Darwin's personal beliefs are irrelevant.  The contents of the book "Origin of Species" are irrelevant.  The only relevant data is what has been through the scientific process and entered into the science community through peer review.




> Where are you looking for it?


Intelligent Design spent 6 weeks in court.  In that time, it was verified that no such scientific peer reviewed research on Intelligent Design existed anywhere in any reputable science journal.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Oh, I've read a whole lot of things, including Darwin's, "Origin of Species", and "The Descent of Man", etc.  Have you?


The "Origin of Species"  is irrelevant.  

The fact that you think it is, really shows that you have no clue what constitutes science.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No, I'm still in the meeting. We're trying to decide the worst possible way to spend 4 million behind RP's back. Shhhhh.


Your conspiracy is safe with me.  Say no more.  I wish to preserve my  position of plausible deniability.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The "Origin of Species" is irrelevant. 
> 
> The fact that you think it is, really shows that you have no clue what constitutes science.


< ROFLMAO > again! 

Crank me up a living cell from scratch.  Just using chemistry and physics.  That's really what the controversy all comes down to now, isn't it? <- BTW, new question.

----------


## sophocles07

Can Anyone Give An Outline Of A Syllabus For A Course In Intelligent Design?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> < ROFLMAO > again! 
> 
> Crank me up a living cell from scratch.  Just using chemistry and physics.  That's really what the controversy all comes down to now, isn't it? <- BTW, new question.


We dont know how yet

----------


## yongrel



----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Why is it that Science is not afraid to admit we dont know something?


What is religion so afraid of?  Why are they so fearfully of not knowing something?  Why are the afraid of the pursuit of knowledge?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> An amoeba has no higher thought processes. So an amoeba lacks the ability to understand a galaxy. However, I would have to verify that by scientific data.
> 
> Again, I need to verify this by looking at the research, but as far as I know, Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.
> 
> Irrelevant 
> 
> RNA and DNA formed through natural chemical reactions that lead to the building blocks of DNA. We are not yet aware of the details of this. We dont know yet.
> 
> You are asking a question about why the human mind works the way it works. This is studied in the field of Neuroscience. I have very limited knowledge of this scientific field. If you are looking for an answer, I suggest you open up some peer reviewed scientific journals and start reading.
> ...


Yep, right the first time. 

*F*

----------


## sophocles07

> What is religion so afraid of? Why are they so fearfully of not knowing something? Why are the afraid of the pursuit of knowledge?


Ego projections.

Same with monogamy.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> We dont know how yet


How embarrassing?  Dumb matter and energy figured it out somehow billions of years ago, didn't it? <- BTW, new question.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

How?


Science:  "We dont know yet, but we are working on it."

Intelligent Design:  "IT WAS MAGIC!"


how embarrassing




And yes, billions of years ago.

You still working on that ID school curriculum?  You planning on walking us through an ID 101 class any time soon?

----------


## sophocles07

> You still working on that ID school curriculum? You planning on walking us through an ID 101 class any time soon?


Seriously.  Why the $#@! won't any ID-supporters give us some plan here?  I don't see anything online either.

----------


## amy31416

> Seriously.  Why the $#@! won't any ID-supporters give us some plan here?  I don't see anything online either.


I can't wait to see the lab manual myself.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Seriously.  Why the $#@! won't any ID-supporters give us some plan here?  I don't see anything online either.


Other than finding "holes" in real science, they havn't really added anything to the discussion.

Intelligent Design is a danger to America's scientific standards.  I, for one, am not looking forward to the intellectual dark ages the ID proponents ware trying to usher in.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I can't wait to see the lab manual myself.


I have actually been working on it.  In fact, I have expanded it past Biology and into other scientific fields.  Here is are some of the lessons in comparison to their "theory/myth/random ass guess" counterparts

----------


## Truth Warrior

> How?
> *Beats me.  I was very young at the time and not present.*
> 
> Science: "We dont know yet, but we are working on it."
> *And yet macro evolutionists almost universally claim it's all settled, cut and dried.  Sure seems like MAGIC to me.*
> 
> Intelligent Design: "IT WAS MAGIC!"
> *The ID folks can speak for themselves.*
> 
> ...

----------


## Truth Warrior

Does science itself validate the Scientific Method?

----------


## sophocles07

> oes science itself validate the Scientific Method?


Good question rock that can type.

----------


## amy31416

> Does science itself validate the Scientific Method?


No. Results over time does.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No. Results over time does.


 Not all science is truth.  Not all truth is science.  Think about it some.

----------


## amy31416

> Not all science is truth.  Not all truth is science.  Think about it some.


Right. There's bad science out there, take cold fusion as an example. The scientific method aspect of reproducibility proved it bunk.

I never said that science is the answer for everything. For instance, you can't use the scientific method for most social ills, metaphysics, philosophy etc. For those purposes, you have logic, cause and effect, things like that. 

Logic does not support ID either.

----------


## sophocles07

> Not all science is truth. Not all truth is science. Think about it some.


That's like saying "A process for discovering truth is not truth.  Not all truth is a process for discovering truth.''

C'mon rock, intellection is not always a horrible thing.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> higher standards of acceptable evidence


like the Bible?


You do know thats all made up, dont you?


Why are you afraid of reality?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> like the Bible?
> *Nope!*
> 
> You do know thats all made up, dont you?
> *Who told you that?*
> 
> Why are you afraid of reality?
> *Because lots of folks just like you, vote. *


Is Mitt Romney's brain anywhere on the forum?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Right. There's bad science out there, take cold fusion as an example. The scientific method aspect of reproducibility proved it bunk.
> 
> I never said that science is the answer for everything. For instance, you can't use the scientific method for most social ills, metaphysics, philosophy etc. For those purposes, you have logic, cause and effect, things like that. 
> 
> Logic does not support ID either.


 Does logic validate logic? 

Think about it some more, pretty please.

----------


## Truth Warrior

......

----------


## Banana

> Does logic validate logic?


Principle of Non-Contradiction?

----------


## amy31416

> Does logic validate logic? 
> 
> Think about it some more, pretty please.


Logic is a tool simply to investigate and study thoughts, statements and arguments, to give them structure and possibly some semblance of validity or doubt. 

A hammer can not validate another hammer.

What does this have to do with Intelligent Design, when it is a hypothesis that does not survive the rigors of logic or the scientific method? I think you're looking for a debate on epistemolgy, perhaps? 

You certainly haven't provided any semblance of evidence that ID is legitimate logically or scientifically. I don't even know what you're arguing anymore, aside from your sheer love of being contrary despite insurmountable evidence.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

What is this guy even talking about anymore?  Are we still talking about Intelligent Design?

This guy is starting to sound like that TimeCube guy.

----------


## amy31416

This is the second time that I've noticed he argues ad infinitum, until he's backed into a corner then picks a different topic to argue about. 

Soon, he will ask what the meaning of "is" is.

----------


## Theocrat

For those of you desiring some answers and evidence for intelligent design (even though it's so obvious a child can tell), I've posted a video here entitled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," which chronicles some of the research and sciences which show intelligent design is true. I highly recommend that you watch it in its entirety and take notes. It is in no way exhaustive, but it does a great job of showing how and why intelligent design makes sense in the natural sciences. This video is shown in seven parts on YouTube, so it may take a while to finish it. It is worth it, nonetheless, for those who wish to be objective about this controversy-that-should-never-be. Enjoy!

"Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Part 1)"

----------


## amy31416

> For those of you desiring some answers and evidence for intelligent design (even though it's so obvious a child can tell), I've posted a video here entitled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," which chronicles some of the research and sciences which show intelligent design is true. I highly recommend that you watch it in its entirety and take notes. It is in no way exhaustive, but it does a great job of showing how and why intelligent design makes sense in the natural sciences. This video is shown in seven parts on YouTube, so it may take a while to finish it. It is worth it, nonetheless, for those who wish to be objective about this controversy-that-should-never-be. Enjoy!
> 
> "Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Part 1)"


Thanks Theo, this thread needed some comic relief.

----------


## DrYongrel

> Thanks Theo, this thread needed some comic relief.


Theo's links are stress relievers if nothing else. Laughter is the best medicine.

----------


## Theocrat

> Thanks Theo, this thread needed some comic relief.





> Theo's links are stress relievers if nothing else. Laughter is the best medicine.


Have you even watched the video yet to see the evidence presented? I think, deep down inside, you don't want to see the evidence. You're pathetic.

----------


## DrYongrel

> Have you even watched the video yet to see the evidence presented? I think, deep down inside, you don't want to see the evidence.


Theo, I've been far more open-minded about your links than is typical of my nature.

After watching about 5 videos of a guy claiming that it is impossible to say that no one has ever met a dinosaur since no one has asked Adam & Eve, I've gotten kinda tired of being told to watch your "evidence."

Patience and understanding are not my strong suits, so I'm gonna have to fall back on my tried and true irritability.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Why do the creationists try to push philosophy into science?  Every time a scientific question comes up, the first place they run is to the philosophers.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, I've been far more open-minded about your links than is typical of my nature.
> 
> After watching about 5 videos of a guy claiming that it is impossible to say that no one has ever met a dinosaur since no one has asked Adam & Eve, I've gotten kinda tired of being told to watch your "evidence."
> 
> Patience and understanding are not my strong suits, so I'm gonna have to fall back on my tried and true irritability.


In other words, you don't want to deal with the possibility that there's serious evidence out there which proves intelligent design and goes against your superstition of Darwinian evolution. You do have blind faith.

----------


## amy31416

Yeah, I've actually watched some of them myself. Honestly, I can't take Theo seriously anymore and have come to the point where I think you must be a parody of those who are religious. It's just so silly after a while.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yeah, I've actually watched some of them myself. Honestly, I can't take Theo seriously anymore and have come to the point where I think you must be a parody of those who are religious. It's just so silly after a while.


What did you think of the videos you watched?

----------


## sophocles07

> Does logic validate logic? 
> 
> Think about it some more, pretty please.


O rock of ages!




> In other words, you don't want to deal with the possibility that there's serious evidence out there which proves intelligent design and goes against your superstition of Darwinian evolution. You do have blind faith.


“Serious evidence”.  To who?  Carlos Mencia?  You are a joke.

----------


## DrYongrel

> In other words, you don't want to deal with the possibility that there's serious evidence out there which proves intelligent design and goes against your superstition of Darwinian evolution. You do have blind faith.


You have the astonishing ability to read "2+2" as "2-2." Bravo.

I have watched just about every video you have posted (that I have seen) in favor of ID/Creationism, and I have not been impressed.

There is no science, no research, no logic. The height of the arguments I have seen is that "Noah could have fit every kind of animal on the ark because a kind of animal is different than a species. Zebras and horses are the same kind of animal, so Noah would not have to bring both."

I have watched more informative commercials for sugared cereal.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

I notice ID pushers dont seem to want to use science, but rather they try to use philosophy and intuition.  

Its like trying to complete the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition without using any math.

----------


## amy31416

> What did you think of the videos you watched?


I thought "Wow, the people who believe this must have never taken a science class."

----------


## Theocrat

> You have the astonishing ability to read "2+2" as "2-2." Bravo.
> 
> I have watched just about every video you have posted (that I have seen) in favor of ID/Creationism, and I have not been impressed.
> 
> There is no science, no research, no logic. The height of the arguments I have seen is that "Noah could have fit every kind of animal on the ark because a kind of animal is different than a species. Zebras and horses are the same kind of animal, so Noah would not have to bring both."
> 
> I have watched more informative commercials for sugared cereal.


You just disagree with the evidence, as I would disagree with the evidence presented for Darwinian evolution. If that's the case, then I have no more to say to you about this subject.

----------


## Theocrat

> I thought "Wow, the people who believe this must have never taken a science class."


Hmmm, that's funny because all of the presenters on the video have Doctor's degrees in various fields of the natural sciences. Somebody is just prejudiced...

----------


## AutoDas

The Bible is not evidence. Lol

----------


## Theocrat

> I notice ID pushers dont seem to want to use science, but rather they try to use philosophy and intuition.  
> 
> Its like trying to complete the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition without using any math.


What are you talking about? Creationists/ID proponents use the very same methods of science, discovery, and evidence that antitheistic scientists use. It's just a matter of interpretation of the facts based on one's philosophical presuppositional worldview. That's the difference. Every scientist brings his own assumptions to the table when he performs scientific analysis. There is no neutrality in "doing science."

----------


## Theocrat

> The Bible is not evidence. Lol


Who mentioned anything about the Bible?

----------


## sophocles07

Beach-birds wander in sea tides; gay music; steps; beach-house; gay dude; dramatic blue; weird animal graphics; turbulent music; 80s drums; elephants tusking one another; law professor at Berkeley; butterfly; complexity of life; simply chance and necessity; something else; birds flying over crashing waves; more birds on the beach; Behe/irreducible complexity; bird in the sun on the beach; Darwin/etc; reptiles like a mufugger; finches; Southern Methodist University, 1992 (Behe speaking); molecules and guy w/glasses; hieroglyphics/i.e., what the $#@! are you talking about; etc.; part 7 of 7, 3:08, the butterfly from part one; rationality, beauty, comprehensibility; birds over waves; calmed waves; a formidable challenge; buttcheeks galore; growing number of scientists; etc.

WOW.  Im $#@!ING IMPRESSED.  How about linking me to some scholarly articles on the subject, and not emotional drivel posted on a public video site.  Im talking Scientific, first-class journals.




> You just disagree with the evidence, as I would disagree with the evidence presented for Darwinian evolution. If that's the case, then I have no more to say to you about this subject.


Stop talking like you know anything about the evidence presented for Darwinian evolution, its ridiculousyou act like youre a $#@!ing expert on the issue, when youre pimping youtube videos about enormously complex issues (to which the videos give no answer).

----------


## Theocrat

> Beach-birds wander in sea tides; gay music; steps; beach-house; gay dude; dramatic blue; weird animal graphics; turbulent music; 80s drums; elephants tusking one another; law professor at Berkeley; butterfly; complexity of life; simply chance and necessity; something else; birds flying over crashing waves; more birds on the beach; Behe/irreducible complexity; bird in the sun on the beach; Darwin/etc; reptiles like a mufugger; finches; Southern Methodist University, 1992 (Behe speaking); molecules and guy w/glasses; hieroglyphics/i.e., what the $#@! are you talking about; etc.; part 7 of 7, 3:08, the butterfly from part one; rationality, beauty, comprehensibility; birds over waves; calmed waves; a formidable challenge; buttcheeks galore; growing number of scientists; etc.
> 
> WOW.  Im $#@!ING IMPRESSED.  How about linking me to some scholarly articles on the subject, and not emotional drivel posted on a public video site.  Im talking Scientific, first-class journals.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop talking like you know anything about the evidence presented for Darwinian evolution, its ridiculousyou act like youre a $#@!ing expert on the issue, when youre pimping youtube videos about enormously complex issues (to which the videos give no answer).


Opponents of Intelligent Design continue their highly scientific labor of trying to square the circle. Martin Cothran at the Discovery Institute has pointed out, with elegant understatement, that opponents of ID cannot have it both ways. They want to reject ID for two reasons, presumably with both of them equally important. First, because the claims made for ID are not falsifiable in principle, the approach cannot be considered science. Second, the central claims of ID have been found to be false. Heh.

----------


## DrYongrel

> You just disagree with the evidence, as I would disagree with the evidence presented for Darwinian evolution. If that's the case, then I have no more to say to you about this subject.


_What evidence?!

You posted a link to a lecture by Kent Hovind, which was ~9 parts. I had some free time, and was genuinely interested in the arguments presented. I went in with a relatively open mind. What was I greeted with? Insanity._

"The evolutionists have just really hyperactive imagination, I think they need Ritalin or something.  But they are able to imagine all sorts of things, you know, the Earth has slowly cooled down.  You do have to wonder why there would be an ice age if we are still cooling down, then global warming. "

"Sheep really aren't too bright and they absolutely require somebody to watch over them.  They have a very low survival rate in the wild - they must be tended as you mentioned.  It's a serious problem [for evolution] and you are right onto something there. "

"There have been human skeletons found in so called Cambrian rock."

"Sometimes .... people say you are not qualified to talk about a certain subject and then they will use the ad hominem argument "You can not discuss this because you have not been trained".  Well, Columbus had no training and yet he proved the world was round."

"I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the  [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time.  It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other. "

"Charles Darwin said women bred the hair off of the men - because why aren't men as hairy as apes? - Darwin said women prefer less hairy men and so they were able to get more mating opportunities - Darwin said in The Descent of Man - what an idiot [sic] idea - then why don't the women have beards, Darwin?"

"I don't think the fossils are sorted in those layers they claim.  All types of things are found in all types of layers."
*
"Why do men have nipples?" [...] Plus, I think if it was not designed this way we would probably have an incredibly higher rate of, you know, child pornography and child abuse and stuff like that. "*

"There is about four or five [feathered dinosaurs]  that have been found.  They're all fake.  They're coming from China.  These Chinese guys who make 40 cents a year.  [...]  They're faking them.  They spend years forging these things."

"There is zero proof of black holes.  Now, if someone wants to believe in them that's fine.  There is some evidence that can be interpreted that way, and maybe they do exist, I'm not saying they don't.  I'm just saying there is no proof of them.  So if somebody says there are black holes, the reason they are saying that, and they probably don't even know it, they are trying to rescue the Big Bang Theory because the Big Bang Theory would say if the matter expanded or blew out from the Big Bang it should be evenly distributed.  There are billions of miles of nothing, then clumps of matter called galaxies.  The real purpose behind the black hole idea is to rescue the Big Bang - to explain why there is the nothings between the somethings. "

"Every farmer on planet Earth counts on evolution not happening.  They count on it.  It doesn't happen.  People can believe whatever they want but whenever a farmer crossbreeds a cow he expects to get a cow not a kitten."
*
"Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies?  Why don't they make another human?"*

"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space.  It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world. "

*" There is definitely a conspiracy, but I don't think that it is a human conspiracy.  I don't believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together, and decide to teach evolution in all the schools.  I believe that it is at a much higher level.  I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy.  The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil [sic].  He is their leader and they don't even know it. "*

"The Smithsonian Institute  [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement right now as you are reading this.  Many of them were taken while the people were still alive.  They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it. "
*
"If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals.  Think about that. "*

""The Earth is billions of years old.  The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."  That is what they teach in order to be a good communist.  Did you know that Russian teachers come to America to study education because the American educational system is considered the best in the world for teaching students these three principals.  This prepares them to be good communists and to doubt the word of God. "



*Theocrat, this is what you post links to, and this is why I don't take you seriously.*

----------


## Theocrat

> _What evidence?!
> 
> You posted a link to a lecture by Kent Hovind, which was ~9 parts. I had some free time, and was genuinely interested in the arguments presented. I went in with a relatively open mind. What was I greeted with? Insanity._
> 
> "The evolutionists have just really hyperactive imagination, I think they need Ritalin or something.  But they are able to imagine all sorts of things, you know, the Earth has slowly cooled down.  You do have to wonder why there would be an ice age if we are still cooling down, then global warming. "
> 
> "Sheep really aren't too bright and they absolutely require somebody to watch over them.  They have a very low survival rate in the wild - they must be tended as you mentioned.  It's a serious problem [for evolution] and you are right onto something there. "
> 
> "There have been human skeletons found in so called Cambrian rock."
> ...


That's why I said we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

----------


## sophocles07

> That's why I said we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


Super-god, you're ridiculous.

----------


## sophocles07

> You posted a link to a lecture by Kent Hovind, which was ~9 parts. I had some free time, and was genuinely interested in the arguments presented. I went in with a relatively open mind. What was I greeted with? Insanity.


Well, at least he's in prison now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Ho...n_life_in_2007

He gets out in 2015 though.

----------


## amy31416

Good post Yongrel. There seems to be a tradition of Lamarckian evolution being argued by those who believe in ID, rather than modern theories of evolution.

And none of them can explain C-14 dating of bones and various fossils.

----------


## Theocrat

> Super-god, you're ridiculous.


What do you think about this?

----------


## amy31416

> What do you think about this?


How does it explain serial killers? Was that part of the "design?"

If I was an all-powerful being designing humans, we'd be a hell of a lot prettier and smarter. And none of us would have Down's Syndrome, autism, cancer etc.--but I suppose that all those serial killers, rapists, retarded or god forbid, hermaphodites, are all just put here to "test" us.

----------


## DrYongrel

> How does it explain serial killers? Was that part of the "design?"
> 
> If I was an all-powerful being designing humans, we'd be a hell of a lot prettier and smarter. And none of us would have Down's Syndrome, autism, cancer etc.--but I suppose that all those serial killers, rapists, retarded or god forbid, hermaphodites, are all just put here to "test" us.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

----------


## sophocles07

> What do you think about this?


I think it's weak sophistry.

----------


## sophocles07

Emanating from

http://www.arn.org/

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Who designed the eyeball again?  And why did they do such a bad job of it?

----------


## amy31416

> Who designed the eyeball again?  And why did they do such a bad job of it?


As a myopic SOB, I can officially say that you've hurt my feelings. All four of my eyes are looking down on you.

----------


## amy31416

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI




Celine Dion. Possibly the worst natural disaster of the modern ages.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> As a myopic SOB, I can officially say that you've hurt my feelings. All four of my eyes are looking down on you.


Im $#@!ing blind over here.

----------


## DrYongrel

> Im $#@!ing blind over here.


I'll see your 4 eyes and raise you 6.

----------


## amy31416

> I'll see your 4 eyes and raise you 6.


As the owner of lenses that cost over $400 each in order to be even publicly respectable, I'll see your 6 and raise you 8. I put money away in a non-tax fund for over half a year to get these bad-ass lenses. 

Now I just have to start saving and wait until I'm 40 for lasik. Oh, and I'll have to build up some courage to allow someone access to my retinas.

----------


## Dr.3D

> As the owner of lenses that cost over $400 each in order to be even publicly respectable, I'll see your 6 and raise you 8. I put money away in a non-tax fund for over half a year to get these bad-ass lenses. 
> 
> Now I just have to start saving and wait until I'm 40 for lasik. Oh, and I'll have to build up some courage to allow someone access to my retinas.


LOL, I believe you meant corneas rather than retinas.

----------


## amy31416

> LOL, I believe you meant corneas rather than retinas.


Heh, I thought I might be wrong on that. Either way....YIKES!

----------


## Truth Warrior

Hey, this is a pretty cool video.

*Cellular Visions: The Inner Life of a Cell
*http://www.studiodaily.com/main/tech...ects/6850.html

You may, of course, draw your own conclusions, concerning the cell's origins, etc.

My view: Ain't it just absolutely amazing what "dead" chemistry and physics can randomly do and cook up, by chance? AKA MAGIC!  What are the odds?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Hey, this is a pretty cool video.
> 
> *Cellular Visions: The Inner Life of a Cell
> *http://www.studiodaily.com/main/tech...ects/6850.html
> 
> You may, of course, draw your own conclusions, concerning the cell's origins, etc.
> 
> My view: Ain't it just absolutely amazing what "dead" chemistry and physics can randomly do and cook up, by chance? AKA MAGIC!  What are the odds?



Chance?  As someone who thoroughly studied Statistics in college, I can safely say that probability is not magic.

What difference does your own conclusion make?  You have no education in biology.

For example;  What is your view on quantum field theory?  What does your intuition tell you?

----------


## Theocrat

Can any of you explain to me how Mount Rushmore evolved from the rocks? I just don't see any intelligent design in it, so obviously it must have evolved. I just can't figure out how. I suppose if we can't figure it out today due to lack of evidence, then I'm sure some scientist in the future will prove that Mount Rushmore evolved. Hopefully.

----------


## Kade

> Can any of you explain to me how Mount Rushmore evolved from the rocks? I just don't see any intelligent design in it, so obviously it must have evolved. I just can't figure out how. I suppose if we can't figure it out today due to lack of evidence, then I'm sure some scientist in the future will prove that Mount Rushmore evolved. Hopefully.


I sometimes wonder what it is like, to be this hapless, this ignorant. Is it really blissful?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Chance? As someone who thoroughly studied Statistics in college, I can safely say that probability is not magic.
> *Missed the entire point completely ....... of course.  Ya really gotta work hard at being quite that obtuse.*
> What difference does your own conclusion make? You have no education in biology.
> *False!  And much more than you obviously! "Brainwash" schooling is what I lack and escaped.*
> For example; What is your view on quantum field theory? What does your intuition tell you?
> *It's an interesting "theory" too.  Start a new thread!*


Mitt needs a haircut!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

When with the IDers realize that pseudo-philosophy is not science?  All they can present is pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

Where is the evidence to back up your claims?  Where is the data?  Where is the experimentation?  Where is the proof?

----------


## Truth Warrior

‘Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.’ - Richard P. Feynman

----------


## Theocrat

> I sometimes wonder what it is like, to be this hapless, this ignorant. Is it really blissful?


What's the matter? You can't answer the question? Hmmm, I wonder why...

----------


## amy31416

> When with the IDers realize that pseudo-philosophy is not science?  All they can present is pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
> 
> Where is the evidence to back up your claims?  Where is the data?  Where is the experimentation?  Where is the proof?


Excerpts from the lab manual:

Safety Guidelines:

Unlike other laboratory courses you've taken, this course will not require safety glasses, gloves, aprons or any other material equipment. As you should already know, praying will keep you safe. There will be no hazardous chemicals, pesky bunsen burners, delicate glassware or any other harmful materials. However, it is recommended that you pray for at least five minutes upon entering the lab, it is also helpful to be wearing a cross or other outward symbol. 

Experiment one:

Part 1:
Bringing forth life from non-life. This experiment requires all who are involved in said experiment to  focus and channel all their belief in God, the omnipotent, to come forth and animate various substances. If the experiment does not work, there is at least one disbeliever amongst you. 

Part 2. 
If part 1 did not work, it is the duty of the group to fish out the heretic. This can be done in several ways:

a) Place a cross against each person's skin--does it leave a mark?
b) Flotation. If the person does not float, they are obviously a disbeliever.
c) Garlic: are there any individuals who seem particularly sensitive to garlic? If so, they are likely a disbeliever.

Part 3.

What to do with the disbeliever. . .to be continued....

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What's the matter? You can't answer the question? Hmmm, I wonder why...


 Perhaps becauase he's just a typical run of the mill, predictable atheist socialist/fascist. It's part of their modis operandi. 

Does that give you any clues? Have you had any previous run ins with any of those types before?

----------


## Theocrat

> When with the IDers realize that pseudo-philosophy is not science?  All they can present is pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
> 
> Where is the evidence to back up your claims?  Where is the data?  Where is the experimentation?  Where is the proof?


Intelligent Design is based on simple observation of obvious complexity in living organisms within the universe. When one looks at a skyscraper, one immediately knows that it was designed. That person doesn't need to perform a scientific experiment to come to that conclusion; it's axiomatic. When one decides to figure out *how* it was designed, then that person uses scientific analysis to find out how. But in doing that analysis, the person never questions that the building was designed. It's the same with Intelligent Design upon biological creatures.

I present yet another proof of intelligent design by posting a video. It's entitled,

"Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Where is the data?

Where is the experimentation?

Where are the tests?

Where is the research?


Do you have anything to offer other than pseudo-philosophy and quotations?

----------


## Theocrat

> Excerpts from the lab manual:
> 
> Safety Guidelines:
> 
> Unlike other laboratory courses you've taken, this course will not require safety glasses, gloves, aprons or any other material equipment. As you should already know, praying will keep you safe. There will be no hazardous chemicals, pesky bunsen burners, delicate glassware or any other harmful materials. However, it is recommended that you pray for at least five minutes upon entering the lab, it is also helpful to be wearing a cross or other outward symbol. 
> 
> Experiment one:
> 
> Part 1:
> ...


Did this evolve?



If so, what is your *scientific proof* for it?

----------


## Theocrat

> Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
> 
> Where is the data?
> 
> Where is the experimentation?
> 
> Where are the tests?
> 
> Where is the research?
> ...


Excuse me, but are you that ignorant and lazy that you won't watch the video presenting the evidence for intelligent design? Do you ask those same questions when trying to prove the existence of love, justice, logic, historical figures, authors of books, etc.?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

nvm

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Excuse me, but are you that ignorant and lazy that you won't watch the video presenting the evidence for intelligent design? Do you ask those same questions when trying to prove the existence of love, justice, logic, historical figures, authors of books, etc.?


Sorry, that "evidence" has already been debunked by real scientists.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Science is not a set of philosophical beliefs

----------


## Theocrat

> Sorry, that "evidence" has already been debunked by real scientists.


Be more specific by giving me some examples.




> Science is not a set of philosophical beliefs


You couldn't be more wrong. It's just the philosophical beliefs of any scientist which govern how they view the evidence and interpret the results of an experiment. By the way, there are many different kinds of "science." There's political science, social science, computer science, life science, physical science, geographical science, etc., and all of the people who are involved in these sciences assume philosophical viewpoints in order to perform their discipline. Without _a priori_ philosophical views, a person wouldn't know where to begin in his studies or understanding of a subject. Your statement, once again, assumes that a person can be neutral in his thoughts and beliefs (not assume anything), and that's just naive thinking, if I may be so blunt to say so.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Intelligent Design is based on simple observation of obvious complexity in living organisms within the universe. When one looks at a skyscraper, one immediately knows that it was designed. That person doesn't need to perform a scientific experiment to come to that conclusion; it's axiomatic. When one decides to figure out *how* it was designed, then that person uses scientific analysis to find out how. But in doing that analysis, the person never questions that the building was designed. It's the same with Intelligent Design upon biological creatures.
> 
> I present yet another proof of intelligent design by posting a video. It's entitled,
> 
> "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"


BRILLIANT!  You dont have to "study" things, you can just look at them and KNOW what its all about by simple intuition.


What does your intuition tell about the theory of lift?  How do airplanes stay in the air without feathers?

How do steel boats stay afloat?  Just be looking at them, I know they are made of metal.  And metal sinks.  There is NO physical explanation to why a steel boat stays afloat.  They are made of steel, steel sinks, therefore steel boats must be kept afloat by some unnatural force.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
> 
> Where is the data?
> 
> Where is the experimentation?
> 
> Where are the tests?
> 
> Where is the research?
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman


I dont think you understand what I am asking.


Where

Is

The

Evidence

?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I dont think you understand what I am asking.
> 
> 
> Where
> 
> Is
> 
> The
> 
> ...


I don't think that you really understand, I really don't give a $#@!, about what you want.   Who died and made you thread God?

----------


## DrYongrel

This thread is suffering, and needs help. We can't let this thread suffer any longer. It's cruel.

We need to usher it into a better place: the crematorium.

----------


## wotwut

> This thread is suffering, and needs help. We can't let this thread suffer any longer. It's cruel.
> 
> We need to usher it into a better place: the crematorium.


... that almost made me cry it was so fantastic 0_0

----------


## Dr.3D

> BRILLIANT!  You dont have to "study" things, you can just look at them and KNOW what its all about by simple intuition.


So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex?  In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.  

In many bird species it is easy to identify if it is a male or female by just looking at how brightly the feathers are colored.

Imagine having to sex each and every chicken hatched at a hatchery by doing more than looking at it and checking the cloaca with your finger.   I doubt they would enjoy having to do a DNA check on every one of them to determine it's sex.

There seems to be more than just intuition involved here.

----------


## Kade

> So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex?  In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.  
> 
> In many bird species it is easy to identify if it is a male or female by just looking at how brightly the feathers are colored.
> 
> Imagine having to sex each and every chicken hatched at a hatchery by doing more than looking at it and checking the cloaca with your finger.   I doubt they would enjoy having to do a DNA check on every one of them to determine it's sex.
> 
> There seems to be more than just intuition involved here.


Your flawed thinking is in that you rely on those observations because of what we have previously established.

What's the gender of this seahorse Professor?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Your flawed thinking is in that you rely on those observations because of what we have previously established.
> 
> What's the gender of this seahorse Professor?


If you can't just look at a bull, a cow and a steer and tell what sex they are, then you are in serious trouble.

I didn't say it was easy to determine the sex of all species.

Edit: The sex of a seahorse is easy to detect: male seahorses have a pouch below the chest area.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex?  In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.  
> 
> In many bird species it is easy to identify if it is a male or female by just looking at how brightly the feathers are colored.
> 
> Imagine having to sex each and every chicken hatched at a hatchery by doing more than looking at it and checking the cloaca with your finger.   I doubt they would enjoy having to do a DNA check on every one of them to determine it's sex.
> 
> There seems to be more than just intuition involved here.




Lets try something.  Answer the following math problems.  How many can you solve just by looking at them and instantly knowing the answer?


1.)  1+1  = ?

2.)  2X8 = ?

3.)  (17X43)/12 = ?

4.)  f (x)=4x^3 ; f '' (x) = ?

5.)  A triangulation T of a polygon P is a finite collection of triangles whose union is P, and such that the intersection of any two triangles is either empty, or a shared vertex, or a shared side. Moreover, each side is a side of exactly one triangle in T . Say that T is admissible if every internal vertex is shared by 6 or more triangles. For example, [figure omitted.] Prove that there is an integerMn, depending only on n, such that any admissible triangulation of a polygon P with n sides has at most Mn triangles.



You see, you are assuming that just because you can look at the first problem and know the answer without thinking, the 5th problem must be just as simple.

----------


## Dr.3D

Or perhaps another simple equation.

7^X + 7X = 16842

X=?

What does answering these questions prove?
Some things are obvious, others are not.

----------


## Kade

> Edit: The sex of a seahorse is easy to detect: male seahorses have a pouch below the chest area.


Well now...how do you know that?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Some things are obvious


The origin of a wristwatch 




> others are not.


The origin of DNA


[/thread]

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Well now...how do you know that?


I didnt find that information in "Pandas and People"

----------


## Kade

> I didnt find that information in "Pandas and People"


Of course not. Seahorses also have the the special distinction of being enormously inefficient. 

The males are more aggressive AND fulfill the greatest amount of resource loss in their role of as the "mother", or so we thought from simple observation....

It took a massive effort to realize why this was the case...

Science, chemistry and numerous publications and research discovered that the female does indeed invest more in production of the ovipositor.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._61291647/pg_1

----------


## Kade

> So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex?  In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.  
> 
> In many bird species it is easy to identify if it is a male or female by just looking at how brightly the feathers are colored.
> 
> Imagine having to sex each and every chicken hatched at a hatchery by doing more than looking at it and checking the cloaca with your finger.   I doubt they would enjoy having to do a DNA check on every one of them to determine it's sex.
> 
> There seems to be more than just intuition involved here.


So now, let's go back to this statement.

You have proven that you have take advantage of the previous science before you... 

"We" don't KNOW anything without the prior knowledge and work of others...

It has been the collaborative effort of mankind, with individual geniuses along the way that has gotten us this far... 

The disconcerting fact for you in all this should be in the discussion of the sexes...

Science has all but proven that the "female" gender was first, and that males have evolved from parasitic relationships.

----------


## amy31416

> Science has all but proven that the "female" gender was first, and that males have evolved from parasitic relationships.


Tell me about it....


(Just kidding folks, mostly )

----------


## DrYongrel

> Science has all but proven that the "female" gender was first, and that males have evolved from parasitic relationships.


Hence male nipples.

----------


## sophocles07

> Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
> 
> Where is the data?
> 
> Where is the experimentation?
> 
> Where are the tests?
> 
> Where is the research?
> ...


It seems to me that there is none; it’s basically looking at something and saying “$#@! that thing looks $#@!IN C O M P L E X!  It must have been made by GOD!”  There’s no way to validate the claim; there’s no way to “prove” it wasn’t to satisfy the ID people. The premise contains itself.

It’s like saying: “I believe the Bible is the word of God.  Why?  The Bible says it is the word of God.”  You can’t argue with these people.

You can, though, toilet paper their house:





> Did this evolve?


Whaaa ? ....




> BRILLIANT! You dont have to "study" things, you can just look at them and KNOW what its all about by simple intuition.
> 
> 
> What does your intuition tell about the theory of lift? How do airplanes stay in the air without feathers?
> 
> How do steel boats stay afloat? Just be looking at them, I know they are made of metal. And metal sinks. There is NO physical explanation to why a steel boat stays afloat. They are made of steel, steel sinks, therefore steel boats must be kept afloat by some unnatural force.


Theocrat’s working on the basis of a revelatory science.  He’s essentially doing a medicine man act here; intuitive, untested assumptions taken as “fact.”




> So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex? In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.


This is a well-tested assumption.  No one ever just “knew this”; it is now assumed knowledge because it is common, empirical knowledge. On the other hand, to assume that the testicles and the penis were designed by Jehovah through observation is not possible.  Which is what you are all claiming.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Darwinism - The forbidden subject
*by Richard Milton

Copyright 2005 by Richard Milton 
http://www.alternativescience.com/
Reprinted with permission. 

It isn't scientific investigation of Darwinism that's forbidden -- it's public debate of the findings of such research. Most educated, rational people will find it almost impossible to believe that the debate of Darwinism through mainstream news papers and the principal TV channels is forbidden. I still find it hard to believe myself.

The article below was first commissioned and later censored by the Times Higher Education Supplement. (The circumstances under which it came to be censored, following the intervention of Dr Richard Dawkins, are described in the pages on Scientific Censorship).

The readers of the Times Higher Education Supplement (a large proportion of the University lecturers of Britain) have thus been prevented from learning of its contents. Now you have the facts before you and can make up your own mind.

*Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider*

It was the dazzling gains made by science and technology in the nineteenth century through the application of rational analysis that led people to think of applying reason to other fields.

Following the brilliant success of reason and method in physics and chemistry -- especially in medicine -- it was natural for science to seek to apply the same analytical tool to the most intractable and complex problems: human society and economic affairs; human psychology; and even the origin and development of life itself. The result was the great mechanistic philosophies of the last century: Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism.

The simplicities and certainties of these systems mirrored the intellectually well-ordered life of Victorian society with its authoritarian values and institutionalised prejudices. Now, a century later, all three systems have run their course, have been measured by history, and have been ultimately found to be inadequate tools of explanation.

Unlike Marx and Freud, Darwin himself remains esteemed both as a highly original thinker and as a careful researcher (his study of fossil barnacles remains a text book example for palaeontologists). But the theory that bears his name was transformed in the early years of this century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of neo-Darwinism: the theory that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication -- a matter of chemistry and statistics; or, in the words of professor Jacques Monod, director of the Pasteur Institute, a matter only of "chance and necessity". 1

And while the evidence for evolution itself remains persuasive -- especially the homologies that are found in comparative anatomy and molecular biology of many different species -- much of the empirical evidence that was formerly believed to support the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection has melted away like snow on a spring morning, through better observation and more careful analysis.

Marxist, Freudian and neo-Darwinist systems of thought ultimately failed for the same reason; that they sought to use mechanistic reductionism to explain and predict systems that we now know are complexity-related, and cannot be explained as the sum of their parts.

In the case of neo-Darwinism, it was not the mysteries of the mind or of the economy that were explained. It was the origin of the first single-celled organism in the primeval oceans, and its development into the plant and animal kingdoms of today by a strictly blind process of chance genetic mutation working with natural selection.

In the first five decades of this century -- the heyday of the theory -- zoologists, palaeontologists and comparative anatomists assembled the impressive exhibits that generations of school children have seen in Natural History Museums the world over: the evolution of the horse family; the fossils that illustrate the transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal; and the discovery of astonishing extinct species such as "Archaeopteryx", apparently half-reptile, half-bird.

Over successive decades, these exhibits have been first disputed, then downgraded, and finally shunted off to obscure museum basements, as further research has shown them to be flawed or misconceived.

Anyone educated in a western country in the last forty years will recall being shown a chart of the evolution of the horse from "Eohippus", a small dog-like creature in the Eocene period 50 million years ago, to "Mesohippus", a sheep-sized animal of 30 million years ago, eventually to "Dinohippus", the size of a Shetland pony.

This chart was drawn in 1950 by Harvard's professor of palaeontology George Simpson, to accompany his standard text book, Horses, which encapsulated all the research done by the American Museum of Natural History in the previous half century.

Simpson plainly believed that his evidence was incontrovertible because he wrote, 'The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.' 2

Yet shortly after this affirmation, Simpson admits in passing that the chart he has drawn contains major gaps that he has not included: a gap before "Eohippus" and its unknown ancestors, for example, and another gap after "Eohippus" and before its supposed descendant "Mesohippus". 3 What is it, scientifically, that connects these isolated species on the famous chart if it is not fossil remains? And how could such unconnected examples demonstrate either genetic mutation or natural selection?

Even though, today, the bones themselves have been relegated to the basement, the famous chart with its unproven continuity still appears in museum displays and handbooks, text books, encyclopaedias and lectures.

The remarkable "Archaeopteryx" also seems at first glance to bear out the neo-Darwinian concept of birds having evolved from small reptiles (the candidate most favoured by neo-Darwinists is a small agile dinosaur called a Coelosaur, and this is the explanation offered by most text books and museums.) Actually, such a descent is impossible because coelosaurs, in common with most other dinosaurs, did not posses collar bones while "Archaeopteryx", like all birds, has a modified collar bone to support its pectoral muscles.4 Again, how can an isolated fossil, however remarkable, provide evidence of beneficial mutation or natural selection?

Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5

Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 100,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.

Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.

So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory.

An even more damaging blow to the theory was the discovery that the very centrepiece of neo-Darwinism, Darwin's original conception of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is fatally flawed.

The problem is: how can biologists (or anyone else) tell what characteristics constitute the animal or plant's 'fitness' to survive? How can you tell which are the fit animals and plants?

The answer is that the only way to define the fit is by means of a post-hoc rationalisation -- the fit must be "those who survived". While the only way to characterise uniquely those who survive is as "the fit". The central proposition of the Darwinian argument turns out to be an empty tautology.

C.H. Waddington, professor of biology at Edinburgh University wrote; "Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognised relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave most offspring. Once the statement is made, its truth is 
apparent." 6

George Simpson, professor of paleontology at Harvard, sought to restore content to the idea of natural selection by saying; "If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a larger proportion of children than blondes or brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed people have more children, evolution will be towards left-handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural selection favours fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which maybe confusing to others. To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding." 7

Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics?

Not only are neo-Darwinist ideas falsified by empirical research, but other puzzling and extraordinary findings have come to light in recent decades, suggesting that evolution is not blind but rather is in some unknown way _directed_. The experiments of Cairns at Harvard and Hall at Rochester University suggest that microorganisms can mutate in a way that is beneficial.8

Experiments with tobacco plants and flax demonstrate genetic change through the effects of fertilisers alone.9 Experiments with sea squirts and salamanders as long ago as the 1920s appeared to demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics.10 Moreover, as Sir Fred Hoyle has pointed out, Fossil micro-organisms have been found in meteorites, indicating that life is universal -- not a lucky break in the primeval soup. This view is shared by Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the function of DNA.11

In the light of discoveries of this kind, the received wisdom of neo-Darwinism is no longer received so uncritically. A new generation of biologists is subjecting the theory to the cold light of empirical investigation and finding it inadequate; scientists like Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Brian Goodwin, professor of biology at the Open University and Dr Peter Saunders, professor of mathematics at King's College London.

Not surprisingly, the work of this new generation is heresy to the old. When Rupert Sheldrake's book A New Science of Life with its revolutionary theory of morphic resonance was published in 1981, the editor of "Nature" magazine, John Maddox, ran an editorial calling for the book to be burned -- a sure sign that Sheldrake is onto something important, many will think. 12, 13

The current mood in biology was summed up recently by Sheldrake as, 'Rather like working in Russia under Brehznev. Many biologists have one set of beliefs at work, their official beliefs, and another set, their real beliefs, which they can speak openly about only among friends. They may treat living things as mechanical in the laboratory but when they go home they don't treat their families as inanimate machines.'

It is a strange aspect of science in the twentieth century that while physics has had to submit to the indignity of a principle of uncertainty and physicists have become accustomed to such strange entities as matter-waves and virtual particles, many of their colleagues down the corridor in biology seem not to have noticed the revolution of quantum electrodynamics. As far as many biologists are concerned, matter is made of billiard balls which collide with Newtonian certainty, and they carry on building molecular models out of coloured ping-pong balls.

One of the twentieth century's most distinguished scientists and Nobel laureates, physicist Max Planck, observed that; 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'

It may be another decade or more before such a new generation grows up and restores intellectual rigour to the study of evolutionary biology.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/rmilton_darwin1.htm

----------


## sophocles07

Above article contributes nothing.  You stink.

----------


## Theocrat

> It seems to me that there is none; its basically looking at something and saying $#@! that thing looks $#@!IN C O M P L E X!  It must have been made by GOD!  Theres no way to validate the claim; theres no way to prove it wasnt to satisfy the ID people. The premise contains itself.


You refuse to see the evidence for intelligent design because you continually suppress the truth in *unrighteousness* (Romans 1:18).




> Its like saying: I believe the Bible is the word of God.  Why?  The Bible says it is the word of God.  You cant argue with these people.


Here's another one of your infamous strawman arguments. God reveals His word to us, and He also provides evidence that His word is true when we *obey it* (John 14:21).




> You can, though, toilet paper their house:


Oh, my goodness! I didn't know that toilet paper could evolve from trees! 




> Theocrats working on the basis of a revelatory science.  Hes essentially doing a medicine man act here; intuitive, untested assumptions taken as fact.


I can't believe you just used "revelatory" and "science" together. By the way, my assumptions are tested, tried and true. What about yours, you evolved chimp?




> This is a well-tested assumption.  No one ever just knew this; it is now assumed knowledge because it is common, empirical knowledge.


A "well-tested assumption?" If it were well-tested, it would not need to be assumed. Just because knowledge is common doesn't make it right or scientific. It has to meet a standard.




> On the other hand, to assume that the testicles and the penis were designed by Jehovah through observation is not possible.  Which is what you are all claiming.


I know what you mean, sophocles07. It's just like Mount Rushmore.



If we assumed that it was designed through observation, that's just not a possible answer. Anyone who looks at Mt. Rushmore unequivocally knows it had to be a product of evolution. I mean, just look at it! There is *no way* it could've had a designer. To suggest this is mental suicide and religious bigotry. Scientists have not yet found the evidence that Mt. Rushmore evolved, but their theories make sense enough, nonetheless.

One religious bigot, *Gutzon Borglum*, back in the early 20th Century even had the audacity to claim he helped sculpt it with 400 other religious kooks. I tell you. Some people need to get their heads checked...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Above article contributes nothing. You stink.


poor baby, Awwww.  Eat $#@!, and die!

----------


## sophocles07

> You refuse to see the evidence for intelligent design because you continually suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).


Ah.

Now I understand.




> Here's another one of your infamous strawman arguments. God reveals His word to us, and He also provides evidence that His word is true when we obey it (John 14:21).


Ah.

Now I understand.

$#@! you’re good.




> I can't believe you just used "revelatory" and "science" together. By the way, my assumptions are tested, tried and true. What about yours, you evolved chimp?


I use it because it’s a contradiction.  Science from scientia, meaning “knowledge” in Latin.  Knowledge from revelation; knowledge by intuition, or God (or gods).  You really should read up on empiricism’s rise in the midst of philosophies based in revelation.

I think your mind-boggling super-hatred of monkies and chimpanzees is more pronounced than what you always accuse me of hating.




> A "well-tested assumption?" If it were well-tested, it would not need to be assumed. Just because knowledge is common doesn't make it right or scientific. It has to meet a standard.


Assumed in the sense of being so familiar with a piece of knowledge that it is no longer necessary to test it.  Gravity is not assumed from the beginning; it is now so well proven that it is no longer needed for testing; it is assumed we have gravity.




> If we assumed that it was designed through observation, that's just not a possible answer. Anyone who looks at Mt. Rushmore unequivocally knows it had to be a product of evolution. I mean, just look at it! There is no way it could've had a designer. To suggest this is mental suicide and religious bigotry. Scientists have not yet found the evidence that Mt. Rushmore evolved, but their theories make sense enough, nonetheless.


I don’t know what the $#@! you’re talking about.




> poor baby, Awwww. Eat $#@!, and die!


I bet you look like this:

----------


## Dr.3D

LOL, isn't this fun?

----------


## sophocles07

> LOL, isn't this fun?


And I bet you look like this:

----------


## DrYongrel

C'mon Sophocles...

you're not exactly raising the level of this debate. I know you're just responding to the "eat $#@! and die" thing, but let's not go down this road.

I've done it myself, and it ends badly.

----------


## Theocrat

> LOL, isn't this fun?


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

----------


## sophocles07

> C'mon Sophocles...
> 
> you're not exactly raising the level of this debate. I know you're just responding to the "eat $#@! and die" thing, but let's not go down this road.
> 
> I've done it myself, and it ends badly.


I mean, what are we really doing here?  I'd rather be in a thread with actual mental patients than these people, who are almost as crazy, but who probably maintain jobs (I guess) somehow.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I mean, what are we really doing here? I'd rather be in a thread with actual mental patients than these people, who are almost as crazy, but who probably maintain jobs (I guess) somehow.


Your departure from the thread would instantly and automatically raise the cumulative thread group IQ by several orders of magnitude.

----------


## Dr.3D

I've been trying to understand what upsets these people to the point of calling others names.
They even go so far as to talk about putting toilet paper on someones home.

Could it be they are upset at the possibility they paid a lot of money and were told a lot of information as if it were the complete truth?   Perhaps it is all of the credit hours they spent studying something that may someday be proven to be myth.  

There has to be some reason behind all of the hostility.

This reminds me of a story I read about an astronomer who told everybody the Earth revolves around the Sun.   People got so upset with him, they wanted to kill him.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I've been trying to understand what upsets these people to the point of calling others names.
> They even go so far as to talk about putting toilet paper on someones home.
> 
> Could it be they are upset at the possibility they paid a lot of money and were told a lot of information as if it were the complete truth?   Perhaps it is all of the credit hours they spent studying something that may someday be proven to be myth.  
> 
> There has to be some reason behind all of the hostility.


The United States is the worlds center of scientific advancement.  I would like to keep that up, but you religious nuts want to sabotage us.  If you want to live in a world where science is suppressed in favor of religious superstition and myth, move to Afghanistan, or 12th century England.




> This reminds me of a story I read about an astronomer who told everybody the Earth revolves around the Sun.   *People got so upset with him, they wanted to kill him.*


Yea, it was the Christians

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

4th century Christian theologist Lactantius ridiculed the "Round Earth Theory".  He often mocked the idea of people on the other side of the world walking with their "feet higher than their head".




> But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another;
> 
> - Lactantius



Lactantius, the 4th century's version of a creationist

----------


## Theocrat

> I've been trying to understand what upsets these people to the point of calling others names.
> They even go so far as to talk about putting toilet paper on someones home.
> 
> Could it be they are upset at the possibility they paid a lot of money and were told a lot of information as if it were the complete truth?   Perhaps it is all of the credit hours they spent studying something that may someday be proven to be myth.  
> 
> There has to be some reason behind all of the hostility.
> 
> This reminds me of a story I read about an astronomer who told everybody the Earth revolves around the Sun.   People got so upset with him, they wanted to kill him.


Darwinian evolutionists don't want to know the truth because, philosophically, they hate God. They would rather believe a lie than accept the obvious truth that our universe is designed by God. Even if you give them evidence for intelligent design, they will quickly dismiss it because they don't want there to be a God, nor anything that would suggest there's a God from nature. That's they're loss. God exists whether they believe it or not, and His creation ever shows that He exists so that they are without excuse.

None of the naturalistic skeptics on this thread have yet dealt with any of the evidences I've presented for intelligent design, and I don't think they can. That's why they would rather engage in personal attacks and ridicule of the opposition because they can do nothing else. Intelligent design is so evident in nature, being understood by other things which are made like computers, buildings, and machines, that it simply astonishes me when others don't see it.

Conclusively, I would say they're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and have reduced their thinking to foolishness because if they believe we humans have evolved with all of our systems, genetic information, and biological structures intact, then they might as well believe that a spaceship just evolved, too, despite all of its systems and structures intricately built together.

----------


## amy31416

Hey Theo, it's Friday night. Why don't you kick back with a chalice-full of the blood of Christ, a few biscuits and relax.

----------


## sophocles07

> Your departure from the thread would instantly and automatically raise the cumulative thread group IQ by several orders of magnitude.


Can you read koine greek?




> I've been trying to understand what upsets these people to the point of calling others names.
> They even go so far as to talk about putting toilet paper on someones home.


You got no sensa huuumor, boi.




> Darwinian evolutionists don't want to know the truth because, philosophically, they hate God.


Which one?




> They would rather believe a lie than accept the obvious truth that our universe is designed by God.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


R I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ight

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Hey Theo, it's Friday night. Why don't you kick back with a chalice-full of the blood of Christ, a few biscuits and relax.


Pwned. I've always thought the whole ritual cannibalism thing was kinda creepy. My Southern Baptist minister was completely taken aback when I made the connection between cannibalism and the ritual at a very young age. He tried to laugh it off as "out of the mouth of babes" but he was also visibly impacted.

----------


## amy31416

> Pwned. I've always thought the whole ritual cannibalism thing was kinda creepy. My Southern Baptist minister was completely taken aback when I made the connection between cannibalism and the ritual at a very young age. He tried to laugh it off as "out of the mouth of babes" but he was also visibly impacted.


As far as Christian stuff goes, the body/blood of Christ always creeped me out, along with an insistence on open caskets. Since I was never Catholic/Christian--I never had to do it. A good thing.

yikes.

----------


## Dr.3D

> As far as Christian stuff goes, the body/blood of Christ always creeped me out, along with an insistence on open caskets. Since I was never Catholic/Christian--I never had to do it. A good thing.
> 
> yikes.


I can try to explain the body/blood for you.

Remember the "story" in Exodus when the Hebrews were protected from the Angel of Death the night of the Passover by the blood of a lamb they placed on the door frames of their homes?   

The blood and the body of the Christ represent the blood and body of the Passover sacrificial lamb that was the final sacrifice offered to God.  It is a parallel in that it will also save those who will accept the gift of the final sacrifice.

As far as the open casket goes, as I understand it, people need to see the body of the deceased so they can understand the person is actually dead and thus have closure in their lives.   Some people will actually refuse to accept their loss if they don't witness the actual body lying in a casket.

----------


## Theocrat

> Hey Theo, it's Friday night. Why don't you kick back with a chalice-full of the blood of Christ, a few biscuits and relax.


First of all, I'm not a Roman Catholic; therefore, I don't believe in transubstantiation. Second of all, what does your ill-made and ignorant remark have to do with the foolishness of your superstitious belief in Darwinian evolution over against the obvious and scientific truth of intelligent design?

----------


## amy31416

> I can try to explain the body/blood for you.
> 
> Remember the "story" in Exodus when the Hebrews were protected from the Angel of Death the night of the Passover by the blood of a lamb they placed on the door frames of their homes?   
> 
> The blood and the body of the Christ represent the blood and body of the Passover sacrificial lamb that was the final sacrifice offered to God.  It is a parallel in that it will also save those who will accept the gift of the final sacrifice.
> 
> As far as the open casket goes, as I understand it, people need to see the body of the deceased so they can understand the person is actually dead and thus have closure in their lives.   Some people will actually refuse to accept their loss if they don't witness the actual body lying in a casket.


Yep. Hence the mezuzah (the doorframe thing.) 

My only education in Christianity is Catholic--and believe me, it is not taught as anything that represents anything, you are taught to believe that it is _actually_ the body and blood of Christ, it's not a metaphor, it's not representative, you are supposed to believe that the magic that the priest performs makes wine the _actual blood of Christ._ 

On one side of my family, mostly Jews, a few religious, most not--they would never have an open casket. On the other side, Orthodox Catholicism. I had an aunt at my dad's funeral who was taking pictures for christ's sake.  Creepy.

----------


## amy31416

> First of all, I'm not a Roman Catholic; therefore, I don't believe in transubstantiation. Second of all, what does your ill-made and ignorant remark have to do with the foolishness of your superstitious belief in Darwinian evolution over against the obvious and scientific truth of intelligent design?


Just seeing if you're capable of actually relaxing and enjoying life. You answered my question. I thought maybe you could actually be an interesting and fun person if you would just chill a bit.

Guess not.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Second of all, what does your ill-made and ignorant remark have to do with the foolishness of your superstitious belief in Darwinian evolution over against the obvious and scientific truth of intelligent design?


 In a rational society, that statement would get you a cool white jacket.

Believe what you want to believe, that's your thing, as long as it's identified as such... but when you confuse belief with fact, it's time for the padded walls and the neat jacket.

After all, panspermia theorists are considered qualified for white jackets, and they have as much proof of their "theory" as you do.

----------


## Theocrat

> Just seeing if you're capable of actually relaxing and enjoying life. You answered my question. I thought maybe you could actually be an interesting and fun person if you would just chill a bit.
> 
> Guess not.


Oh. I know how to chill. See?

----------


## DrYongrel

> Oh. I know how to chill. See?


Danger: Rickroll

(Boy am I glad I blocked that URL)

----------


## sophocles07

> Oh. I know how to chill. See?


Nah:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...%20pound&hl=en

----------


## Theocrat

> In a rational society, that statement would get you a cool white jacket.
> 
> Believe what you want to believe, that's your thing, as long as it's identified as such... but when you confuse belief with fact, it's time for the padded walls and the neat jacket.
> 
> After all, panspermia theorists are considered qualified for white jackets, and they have as much proof of their "theory" as you do.


America is slowly coming to a point where they might put me in white jacket for saying that. That's because the religion of "Atheism" is taking over our country, and they sure can't let us "religious bigots" speak truth to the masses anymore. Stalin would be proud.

----------


## sophocles07

> America is slowly coming to a point where they might put me in white jacket for saying that. That's because the religion of "Atheism" is taking over our country, and they sure can't let us "religious bigots" speak truth to the masses anymore. Stalin would be proud.


Uh huh uhuhhuh

----------


## Theocrat

> Danger: Rickroll
> 
> (Boy am I glad I blocked that URL)


You've ruined my fun for everyone.

----------


## amy31416

> Oh. I know how to chill. See?


Well okay then, you have me convinced that you can chill. I mean, what better evidence of a person enjoying life than a good, old-fashioned rickroll (which I didn't fall for, much to your chagrin.)

C'mon drop the proselytizing, what're you really made of? Do you have a sense of humor? Do you play wiffle ball? How about badminton? Live a little, man. You depress the $#@! out of me.

Or are you like Reverend Lovejoy?

----------


## sophocles07

> You've ruined my fun for everyone.


Translated:

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yep. Hence the mezuzah (the doorframe thing.) 
> 
> My only education in Christianity is Catholic--and believe me, it is not taught as anything that represents anything, you are taught to believe that it is _actually_ the body and blood of Christ, it's not a metaphor, it's not representative, you are supposed to believe that the magic that the priest performs makes wine the _actual blood of Christ._ 
> 
> On one side of my family, mostly Jews, a few religious, most not--they would never have an open casket. On the other side, Orthodox Catholicism. I had an aunt at my dad's funeral who was taking pictures for christ's sake.  Creepy.


Actually, the mezuzah does not have anything to do with the blood of the lamb but rather to this bit of scripture.




> Deuteronomy 6:5-9   5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.  6 Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart.  7 Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise.  8 Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem(1 )on your forehead,  9 and *write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates*. _NRS_


  Emphasis mine.

The part you read there about binding them on your hand and fixing them as an emblem on your forehead is in reference to the Tefillin. 

Here is a web site about these items.
http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm

Yeah, there is another religion that claims to be Christian too... it is called Santeria.  It is a mixture of Voodoo and Christianity.  They also believe in magic.

----------


## Theocrat

> Well okay then, you have me convinced that you can chill. I mean, what better evidence of a person enjoying life than a good, old-fashioned rickroll (which I didn't fall for, much to your chagrin.)
> 
> C'mon drop the proselytizing, what're you really made of? Do you have a sense of humor? Do you play wiffle ball? How about badminton? Live a little, man. You depress the $#@! out of me.
> 
> Or are you like Reverend Lovejoy?


I try to have a sense of humor. Wiffle ball is okay, although I haven't played it since I was 10. Badminton is not as intense as tennis is. If I depress you, then allow me to cheer you up with this video.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> the foolishness of your superstitious belief in Darwinian evolution over against the obvious and scientific truth of intelligent design



Jesus Christ, where do you people come up with this stuff?

----------


## Kludge

> Jesus Christ, where do you people come up with this stuff?




You're still... - But I thought you were... - ??????????

Weren't you banned?

Edit : o.0 Oh... Guess you've been hanging out in the "intelligent" threads. Damn, haven't seen you in a looooong while.

----------


## Theocrat

> Jesus Christ, where do you people come up with this stuff?


Did the designs on these butteflies' wings *evolve*?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

I bet if you pull the exif data from that image it would read something like this. "Adobe Photoshop CS3".

----------


## Theocrat

> I bet if you pull the exif data from that image it would read something like this. "Adobe Photoshop CS3".


You're unbelievable. Just can't except the evidence for intelligent design, can you?

----------


## Kludge

> You're unbelievable. Just can't except the evidence for intelligent design, can you?


I thought he just did except evidence...

----------


## sophocles07

> Did the designs on these butteflies' wings evolve?


It seems like you have a predisposed disgust with the idea of transformation; including apes, color changes, design changes, etc.  What's the problem?  This is a very strange disorder.

----------


## Theocrat

> It seems like you have a predisposed disgust with the idea of transformation; including apes, color changes, design changes, etc.  What's the problem?  This is a very strange disorder.


No, I don't have a problem with changes in species of organisms (adaptations). It's just that those changes are limited in what's called *"microevolution,"* and I affirm that. However, what we *never* observe in organisms is changes *through* the kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species, which would be *"macroevolution"* or *"Darwinian evolution."* The former is scientific, while the latter is superstitious.

----------


## sophocles07

> No, I don't have a problem with changes in species of organisms (adaptations). It's just that those changes are limited in what's called "microevolution," and I affirm that. However, what we never observe in organisms is changes through the kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species, which would be "macroevolution" or "Darwinian evolution." The former is scientific, while the latter is superstitious.


Nah, you hate beetles.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> You're still... - But I thought you were... - ??????????
> 
> Weren't you banned?
> 
> Edit : o.0 Oh... Guess you've been hanging out in the "intelligent" threads. Damn, haven't seen you in a looooong while.


Your about the 3rd person who has said this.

Why does everyone seem to think I was banned?  I just havnt posted in over a month.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> No, I don't have a problem with changes in species of organisms (adaptations). It's just that those changes are limited in what's called *"microevolution,"* and I affirm that. However, what we *never* observe in organisms is changes *through* the kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species, which would be *"macroevolution"* or *"Darwinian evolution."* The former is scientific, while the latter is superstitious.


There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution other than time.

Its like saying its possible to walk 10 feet (micro), but its impossible for man to have migrated from Africa to the rest of the world (macro).  Its the exact same process in either case, the only difference being how long it took.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I thought he just did except evidence...

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> You're unbelievable. Just can't except the evidence for intelligent design, can you?


Even if it were true it's evidence of nothing. 

See: pareidolia

The term *pareidolia* (pronounced /pæraɪˈdoʊliə/), referenced in 1994 by Steven Goldstein,[1] describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek _para-_  beside, with or alongside  and _eidolon_  image (the diminutive of _eidos_  image, form, shape). Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.

----------


## Kludge

> Your about the 3rd person who has said this.
> 
> Why does everyone seem to think I was banned?  I just havnt posted in over a month.


I could've sworn you fell victim to the 2nd Crusade against Psy-Ops Trolls led by Pope Randy IV, shortly after the 4th Truthers' War.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Even if it were true it's evidence of nothing. 
> 
> See: pareidolia
> 
> The term *pareidolia* (pronounced /pæraɪˈdoʊliə/), referenced in 1994 by Steven Goldstein,[1] describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek _para-_  beside, with or alongside  and _eidolon_  image (the diminutive of _eidos_  image, form, shape). Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.


System of a Down. . .

 in the moon

----------


## driller80545

What's the difference between being born and dying?

----------


## abruzz0

God created the heavens and the earth. End of discussion. Move along now.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution
* by Bill Sardi

 Critics of Darwin's theory of evolution point to flaws in the fossil record (no new species, no missing links) as evidence that the theory is false. But in the 1960s scientists discovered genetic material called DNA and were quick to suggest that the rate of change in DNA is evidence that confirms Darwin's theory of evolution. 

 While it is convenient for evolutionary biologists to assume that various DNA proteins evolve at a fixed rate, a recent study blows a hole in this theory. The September 25 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, geneticist Francisco Rodriguez-Trelles and colleagues at the University of California, Irvine, indicate the idea of a molecular clock may be hopelessly flawed. "It may be ripe for the pawnshop" say Menno Schilthuizen, writing in Science Now. 

 Calculating the different mutation rates for three well-known genes for 78 species, researchers found widely different mutation rates even for closely related species. "Molecular clocks are much more erratic than previously thought and practically useless to keep accurate evolutionary time," says Schilthuizen. The authors of the research conclude that the neutral theory of molecular evolution (predictable or constant rates of change) is flawed and that changes in the rate of variation are left to the vagaries of natural selection (randomness). With no evidence to confirm the neutral theory of molecular evolution, scientists say this amounts to a "denial of there being a molecular clock." 

 Phosphate - - - - Guanine Cytosine Adenine Thymine - - - - Sugar
 A DNA Nucleotide Sequence
 Positions of the middle four proteins differs 

 DNA is made up of many subunits or strings of sequenced proteins strung between a sugar and a phosphate molecule (called a nucleotide). Think of a wash line in the back yard. There are two poles (the sugar and phosphate molecules) with four proteins (amino acids – guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine) hanging on the wash line. There are many of these "wash lines" in one gene and over time some of the proteins hanging on the wash line change their positions. One protein may be substituted for another, which is called a mutation. Different species of life have some of the same genes and therefore the rate of change (number of protein substitutions) can be used to calibrate a DNA clock. Comparative studies of different proteins in various groups of organisms tend to show that the average number of amino-acid substitutions per site per year is typically around 10-9. Calculating backwards, scientists have attempted to use the DNA clock to determine when, let's say, chimpanzees and man diverged from the same genetic tree. There are a lot of assumptions here (even that there is a genetic tree at all) but the scientists believe humans and chimps split off from a common ancestor about 5.5 million years ago.

 But the DNA clock is not so reliable. Paleontologists calculate the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of a fossil record that is rich in almost every species of life, occurred about 540 million years ago. But DNA clock estimations come up with a date of 1 billion years ago for the Cambrian explosion. So there is an unexplainable 500-million year gap. Which provides the most accurate dating, the fossils or the genes? 

 The so-called neutral theory of evolution holds that DNA mutations (protein substitutions) accumulate at an approximately constant rate as long as the DNA retains its original functions. The differences between the sequences of the same DNA segment (or protein) in two species of life would then be proportional to the time the species diverged from a common ancestor. The undeniable problem is, different DNA protein sequences (or even different parts of the same gene) "evolve" or change at markedly different rates. For example, mutation rates in primates are slower than in rodents. This also assumes that all mutations move progressively rather than in reverse. 

 If what these researchers say is true, that the theory of a molecular clock is hopelessly flawed, scientists have some real reorganization on their hands. There are no less than 30 textbooks written on molecular evolution in the past decade and numerous PhDs awarded in this area of investigation. To date, no convincing evidence for a phylogeny tree has ever been produced. The evolutionary trees shown in biology textbooks are simply theory, not science. Genetics does not confirm its existence either, though it took scientists more than three decades to determine this. Few scientists are expected to abandon the theory of neutral molecular evolution anytime soon. 

 Sources: 

 Francisco Rodriguez-Trelles, Rosa Tarrio, Francisco J. Ayala, Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA, Volume 98, pages 11405-10, September 25, 2001 
 Schilthuizen, M, Molecular Clock Not Exactly Swiss, Science Now, Sept. 28, 2001. 
 Dictionary of Biology, Oxford University Press, Market House Books, 2000. 
 National Human Genome Research Institute 
 October 2, 2001

 Bill Sardi is a journalist residing in Diamond Bar, California. His new book is Big God vs. Big Science (Here & Now Books, 107 pages, illustrated, $7.00) at www.hereandnowbooks.com.

 Copyright © 2001 by the Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Metaphysics of Evolution*
by Fred Reed


I was about fifteen when I began to think about evolution. I was then just discovering the sciences systematically, and took them as what they offered themselves to be, a realm of reason and dispassionate regard for truth. There was a hard-edged clarity to them that I liked. You got real answers. Since evolution depended on such sciences as chemistry, I regarded it as also being a science. 

The question of the origin of life interested me. The evolutionary explanations that I encountered in textbooks of biology ran to, "In primeval seas, evaporation concentrated dissolved compounds in a pore in a rock, a skim formed a membrane, and life began its immense journey." I saw no reason to doubt this. If it hadn't been true, scientists would not have said that it was. 

Remember, I was fifteen.

In those days I read Scientific American and New Scientist, the latter then still being thoughtfully written in good English. I noticed that not infrequently they offered differing speculation as to the origin of life. The belief in the instrumentality of chemical accident was constant, but the nature of the primeval soup changed to fit varying attempts at explanation. 

For a while, life was thought to have come about on clay in shallow water in seas of a particular composition, later in tidal pools with another chemical solution, then in the open ocean in another solution. This continues. Recently, geothermal vents have been offered as the home of the first life. Today (Feb 24, 2005) on the BBC website, I learn that life evolved below the oceanic floor. ("There is evidence that life evolved in the deep sediments," co-author John Parkes, of Cardiff University, UK, told the BBC News website. Link at bottom.)

The frequent shifting of ground bothered me. If we knew how life began, why did we have so many prospective mechanisms, none of which really worked? Evolution began to look like a theory in search of a soup. Forty-five years later, it still does.


Questions Arise

I was probably in college when I found myself asking what seemed to me straightforward questions about the chemical origin of life. In particular:

(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.

The answer was, and is, "no." We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn't nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.

(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn't, and hasn't. (Note 1)

(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn't, and don't.

(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn't, and can't. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.) (Note 2)

Well, I thought, sophomore chemistry major that I then was: If we don't know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can't reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can't show it to be statistically probable – why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?

My point was not that evolutionists were necessarily wrong. I simply didn't see the evidence. While they couldn't demonstrate that life had begun by chemical accident, I couldn't show that it hadn't. An inability to prove that something is statistically possible is not the same as proving that it is not possible. Not being able to reproduce an event in the laboratory does not establish that it didn't happen in nature. Etc.

I just didn't know how life came about. I still don't. Neither do evolutionists.


What Distinguishes Evolution from Other Science

Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility. 

As an example, it seems plausible to evolutionists that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean (I think) that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them. 

Consequently, discussion often turns to vague and murky assertion. Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can't see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn't have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But...is any of this established?


Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not to tie to observable reality. Invariably the Marxist (or evolutionist) assumes that a detailed knowledge of economic conditions under the reign of Nicholas II or whatever substitutes for being able to answer simple questions, such as why Marxism has never worked: the Fallacy of Irrelevant Knowledge. And of course almost anything can be made believable by considering only favorable evidence and interpreting hard. 

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does – except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions – overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism. 

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use) – of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.

The Lair of the Beast

I have been on several lists on the Internet that deal with matters such as evolution, have written on the subject, and have discussed evolution with various of its adherents. These men (almost all of them are) have frequently been very bright indeed, often Ivy League professors, some of them with names you would recognize. They are not amateurs of evolution or high-school principals in Kansas eager to prove their modernity. I asked them the questions in the foregoing (about whether we really know what the primeval seas consisted of, etc.) I knew the answers; I wanted to see how serious proponents of evolutionary biology would respond to awkward questions.

It was like giving a bobcat a prostate exam. I got everything but answers. They told me I was a crank, implied over and over that I was a Creationist, said that I was an enemy of science (someone who asks for evidence is an enemy of science). They said that I was trying to pull down modern biology (if you ask questions about an aspect of biology, you want to pull down biology). They told me I didn't know anything (that's why I was asking questions), and that I was a mere journalist (the validity of a question depends on its source rather than its content). 

But they didn't answer the questions. They ducked and dodged and evaded. After thirty years in journalism, I know ducking and dodging when I see it. It was like cross-examining hostile witnesses. I tried to force the issue, pointing out that the available answers were "Yes," "No," "I don't know," or "The question is not legitimate," followed by any desired discussion. Still no straight answer. They would neither tell me of what the early oceans consisted, nor admit that they didn't know.

This is the behavior not of scientists, but of advocates, of True Believers. I used to think that science was about asking questions, not about defending things you didn't really know. Religion, I thought, was the other way around. I guess I was wrong.


Practical Questions

A few things worry those who are not doctrinaire evolutionists. (Incidentally, it is worth noting that by no means all involved in the life sciences are doctrinaire. A friend of mine, a (Jewish, atheist) biochemist, says "It doesn't make sense." He may be wrong, but a Creationist he isn't.)

To work, a theory presumably must (a) be internally consistent and (b) map onto reality. You have to have both. Classical mechanics for example is (so far as I know) internally consistent, but is not at all points congruent with reality. Evolution has a great deal of elaborate, Protean, and often fuzzy theory. How closely does it correspond to what we actually see? Do the sweeping principles fit the grubby details? 

For example, how did a giraffe get a long neck? One reads as a matter of vague philosophical principle that a proto-giraffe by chance happened to be taller than its herdmates, could eat more altitudinous leaves than its confreres, was therefore better fed, consequently rutted with abandon, and produced more child giraffes of height. This felicitous adaptation therefore spread and we ended up...well, up – with taller giraffes. It sounds reasonable. In evolution that is enough.

But what are the practical details? Do we have an unambiguous record of giraffes with longer and longer necks? (Maybe we do. I'm just asking.) Presumably modern giraffes have more vertebrae then did proto-giraffes. (The alternative is the same number of vertebrae, but longer ones. I have known giraffes. They were flexible rather than hinged.) This, note, requires a structural change as distinct from an increase in size. 

Evolution is said to proceed by the accretion of successful point mutations. Does a random point mutation cause the appearance of an extra vertebra? If so, which mutation? (It would have to be a pretty vigorous point mutation.) How can you tell, given that we have no DNA from proto-giraffes? If not one, then how many random point mutations? Which ones? What virtue did these have that they were conserved until all were present? Did this happen once per additional vertebra – the multiply repeated chance appearance of identical mutations? Or did they appear all at once? If so, the heart must have changed simultaneously to get blood way up there.

[After I posted this a reader wrote to say that giraffes do have longer instead of more vertebra. Same questions hold.]

There may be perfectly good, clear, demonstrable answers to a few of these questions. I'm not a paleontological giraffologist. But if evolutionists want people to accept evolution, they need to provide answers – clear, concrete, non-metaphysical answers without gaping logical lacunae. They do not. When passionate believers do not provide answers that would substantiate their assertions, a reasonable presumption is that they do not have them.

The matter of the giraffe is a simple example of a question that inevitably occurs to the independently thoughtful: How do you get evolutionarily from A to B? Can you get from A to B by the mechanisms assumed? Without practical details, evolution looks like an assertion that the better survives the worse; throw in ionizing radiation and such to provide things to do the surviving, and we're off to the races. But...can we get there from here? Do we actually know the intermediate steps and the associated genetic mechanics? If we don't know what the steps were, can we at least show unambiguously a series of steps that would work?

Lots of evolutionary changes just don't look manageable by random mutation. Some orchestrated jump seems necessary. How does an animal evolve color vision, given that doing so would require elaborate changes in eye chemistry, useless without simultaneous elaborate changes in the brain to interpret the incoming impulses, which changes would themselves be useless without the retinal changes? 

Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis. How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? Pupating looks like something you do well or not at all: If you don't turn into something practical at the end, you don't get another chance.

Think about this. The ancestor of a modern caterpillar necessarily was something that could reproduce already. To get to be a butterfly-producing sort of organism, it would have to evolve silk-extruding organs, since they are what you make a cocoon with. OK, maybe it did this to tie leaves together, or maybe the beast resembled a tent-caterpillar. (Again, plausibility over evidence.) Then some mutation caused it to wrap itself experimentally in silk. (What mutation? Are we serious?) It then died, wrapped, because it had no machinery to cause it to undergo the fantastically complex transformation into a butterfly. Death is usually a discouragement to reproduction. 

Tell me how the beast can gradually acquire, by accident, the capacity gradually to undergo all the formidably elaborate changes from worm to butterfly, so that each intermediate form is a practical organism that survives. If evolutionists cannot answer such questions, the theory fails. 

Here the evolutionist will say, "Fred, caterpillars are soft, squashy things and don't leave good fossils, so it's unreasonable to expect us to find proof." I see the problem. But it is unreasonable to expect me to accept something on the grounds that it can't be proved. Yes, it is possible that an explanation exists and that we just haven't found it. But you can say that of anything whatever. Is it good science to assume that evidence will be forthcoming because we sure would like it to be? I'll gladly give you evidence Wednesday for a theory today? 

Note that I am not asking evolutionists to give detailed mechanics for the evolution of everything that lives. If they gave convincing evidence for a few of the hard cases – proof of principle, so to speak – I would be inclined to believe that equally good evidence existed for the others. But they haven't.

< .
.
.

....... The text that you have entered is too long (35663 characters). Please shorten it to 30000 characters long.
*DONE!*
.
.
. >

In Conclusion

To evolutionists I say, "I am perfectly willing to believe what you can actually establish. Reproducibly create life in a test tube, and I will accept that it can be done. Do it under conditions that reasonably may have existed long ago, and I will accept as likely the proposition that such conditions existed and gave rise to life. I bear no animus against the theory, and champion no competing creed. But don't expect me to accept fluid speculation, sloppy logic, and secular theology."

I once told my daughters, "Whatever you most ardently believe, remember that there is another side. Try, however hard it may be, to put yourself in the shoes of those whose views you most dislike. Force yourself to make a reasoned argument for their position. Do that, think long and hard, and conclude as you will. You can do no better, and you may be surprised."


Notes

(1) An example, for anyone interested, of the sort of unlogic to which I was exposed by evolutionists: Some simple viruses are strings of nucleotides in a particular order. In 2002 Eckhard Wimmer, at the University of New York at Stony Brook, downloaded the sequence for polio from the Internet, bought the necessary nucleotides from a biological supply house, strung them together, and got a functioning virus that caused polio in mice. It was a slick piece of work.

When I ask evolutionists whether the chance creation of life has been demonstrated in the laboratory, I get email offering Wimmer's work as evidence that it has been done. But (even stipulating that viruses are alive) what Wimmer did was to put OTS nucleotides together according to a known pattern in a well-equipped laboratory. This is intelligent design, or at least intelligent plagiarism. It is not chance anything. At least some of the men who offered Wimmer's work as what it wasn't are far too intelligent not to see the illogic – except when they are defending the faith.

(2) Many Evolutionists respond to skepticism about life's starting by chance by appealing to the vastness of time. "Fred, there were billions and billions of gallons of ocean, for billions of years, or billions of generations of spiders or bugs or little funny things with too many legs, so the odds are in all that time...." Give something long enough and it has to happen, they say. Maybe. But probabilities don't always work the way they look like they ought. 

Someone is said to have said that a monkey banging at random on a typewriter would eventually type all the books in the British Museum. (Some of the books suggest that this may have happened, but never mind.) Well, yes. The monkey would. But it could be a wait. The size of the wait is worth pondering.

Let's consider the chance that the chimp would type a particular book. To make the arithmetic easy, let's take a bestseller with 200,000 words. By a common newspaper estimate of five letters per word on average, that's a million letters. What's the chance the monkey will get the book in a given string of a million characters?

For simplicity, assume a keyboard of 100 keys. The monkey has a 1/100 chance of getting the first letter, times 1/100 of getting the second letter, and so on. His chance of getting the book is therefore one in 1 in 100 exp 1,000,000, or 1 in 10 exp 2,000,000. (I don't offhand know log 3 but, thirty being greater than ten, a 30-character keyboard would give well in excess of 10 exp 1,000,000.) 

Now, let's be fair to the Bandar Log. Instead of one monkey, let's use 10 exp 100 monkeys. Given that the number of subatomic particles in the universe is supposed to be 10 exp 87 (or something), that seems to be a fair dose of monkeys. (I picture a cowering electron surrounded by 10 exp 13 monkeys.) Let's say they type 10 exp 10 characters per second per each, for 10 exp 100 seconds which, considering that the age of the universe (I read somewhere) is 10 exp 18 seconds, seems more than fair.

Do the arithmetic. For practical purposes, those monkeys have no more chance of getting the book than the single monkey had, which, for practical purposes, was none.

Now, I don't suggest that the foregoing calculation has any direct application to the chance formation of life. (I will get seriously stupid email from people who ignore the foregoing sentence.) But neither do I know that the chance appearance of a cell does not involve paralyzing improbabilities. Without unambiguous numbers arising from unarguable assumptions, invoking time as a substitute for knowledge can be hazardous.

Life Evolves In Deep Sediments
Privileged Genes
Punctuated Equilibrium
Evolutionary Psychology
Craig Venter Questions Genetic Determinism

March 9, 2005

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.

Copyright © 2005 Fred Reed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

Did the Fossil Skull Found in Africa Deserve Worldwide Headlines? Yes, But For Different Reasons Than Those Widely Reported. This Skull Undermines the Popular Theory of Darwinian Evolution

*Fossil Finds in Africa:
More Monkey Business*

by Bill Sardi

There is a lot of envious competition in the field of paleontology these days. There have been so many recent breakthrough fossil finds that it boggles the mind. Tim Friend, reporter for USA Today, called this the "discovery of yet another human ancestor."

Teams of bone diggers have been pulling out old fossils from their collections and conjuring up how to gain notoriety. They have now dug up yet another incredulous fossil, a skull from Chad in central Africa, that is causing quite a stir in scientific circles. In fact, it has been designated a whole new pre-human species, Sahelanthropos tchadensis.

Did This Fossil Warrant The Headlines?
There is so much uncertainty and speculation that surrounds this fossil that it is difficult to draw any conclusions, yet the news headlines herald this discovery as "one of the most sensational fossil finds in living memory," says Time Magazine. "This is one of the most important fossil discoveries in the past 100 years," according to Daniel Lieberman, biological anthropologist from Harvard University.

Fossil Fills Time Gap, So They Say
What would cause researchers to come to this conclusion? According to researchers, it is remarkably old, about 6 to 7 million years, so they say, and that makes it fill a 5 million year gap in time that has remained empty till now. The oldest ape fossils are dated back 7 to 8 million years and the oldest hominids (mammals that walk upright on two feet) are about 2 million years. 

"It most certainly dates from very near that crucial moment in prehistory when hominids began to tread an evolutionary path that diverged from that of chimps, our closest living relatives," says Time Magazine. The fact the skull has ape and human characteristics makes it a missing link, an evolutionary mixed-breed. One researcher calls this fossil "the closest thing we have to a common ancestor." Lead paleontologist Michel Brunet says: "Sahelanthropus is the oldest and most primitive known member of the hominid clade, close to the divergence of hominids and chimpanzees."

There is a great deal of criticism aimed at Brunet and his colleagues for calling their fossil a new hominid species. The skull and brain are no bigger than a chimp's. "Features like a short face with a massive brow ridge, a mouth and jaw that protrude less than in most apes, and relatively small canine teeth make it clear that this creature was not a chimpanzee," says Time Magazine. In fact, "A lot more modern looking than anyone would have expected at so early an evolutionary stage," says Time. Some researchers believe this new fossil has more modern features than Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) which is dated between 3.6 and 2.9 million years. 

Just A Female Gorilla?
But Sahelanthropus may in fact be nothing more than a chimp. "If the new skull is from a female rather than a male, the canines are 'less striking' and more in line with those of living and extinct apes," says Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia. Citing a similar fossil skull that was discovered in the 1960s and mistakenly accepted for two decades as that of a hominid before everyone agreed it was that of a gorilla, Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris says the recently found skull from Chad is nothing more than that of a female gorilla. "I don't think we can say it's a human relative, or even whether it's male or female," says Chris Stringer of the Human Origins Group at the Natural History Museum in London.

No Conclusive Proof It Walked Upright
Furthermore, the researchers only have a skull with few other bones from its relatives. The research team has only found two lower-jaw fragments and three isolated teeth they believe are from the same species. So they don't have much to work with to prove its sex and whether it walked upright. Ann Gibbons of Science Now says "This debate could be settled if Brunet finds skeletal bones that show that Sahelanthropus was bipedal – and hence a hominid." Time Magazine hesitatingly says Sahelanthropos "may have walked upright." Without proof of being bipedal, how does this fossil rate such headlines?

Specious Dating Methods Used
Science writers for the news media don't explain the assumptions many of these discoveries are based upon. A glaring problem is that of dating ancient fossils. If you buy into the evolutionary uniformitarian dating scheme (the fossil record ranges from the most simple forms of life in the deepest earth layers to the most complex life in the youngest surface rock beds), then you will have no trouble accepting what these researchers have to say. For decades now paleontologists have continually used circular reasoning to date fossils, an error repeated with the Sahelanthropus find. According to Michel Brunet and colleagues who found the ape-like/human-like skull in the sands of Chad, this fossil is 6 to 7 million years of age. It was dated by comparing the age of 42 species of surrounding animal and plant fossils (elephants, crocodiles, lizards) that have been dated in other geographical locations in this same ancient time period. The researchers repeatedly use the rock layers to date the fossils and index fossils to date the rocks.

Paleontologists usually attempt to corroborate their fossil ages with radiometric dating, calculations of decay rates of radioactive materials such as argon and potassium, which they attempted in this case. But again, these estimates are based upon assumptions of constant rates of decay. The flaws of radiocarbon dating are rarely pointed out to the lay reader. Unfortunately, Sahelanthropos was found in desert sand, not in between layers of volcanic ash which can be used to perform radiometric dating. So the researchers relied upon radiometric dating of similar animals found in other locations. Imagine a prosecutor in a court of law, before a jury, presenting extraneous evidence that was found far away from the scene of a crime. The case would be thrown out of court. Science reporters are slow to criticize anthropologists knowing their livelihood depends upon blockbuster news stories like Sahelanthropos.

Evolutionary Tree Flawed
The more remarkable back-door admission that has been squeezed out of evolutionists with the discovery of Sahelanthropos is that the current ape-to-man evolutionary tree displayed in biology textbooks is grossly in error. Time Magazine says "It could entirely demolish the idea of a tree, but rather that of a bush...with many species fighting for survival." "A hominid of this age should certainly not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age," says Bernard Wood of George Washington University.

"We've got it all wrong. There is no way you can shoehorn this discovery into any scenario that exists today," says Ian Tattersal, curator of anthropology American Museum Natural History, New York. But don't bet on any of those drawings of evolutionary trees pictured in textbooks being withdrawn anytime soon. Biology books have passed on evolutionary myths for decades, including pictures of mistaken missing links like Piltdown man (a fraud), Nebraska man (fossil consisted only of a tooth), and the Neanderthals (now considered a fully modern human who fabricated clothing, musical instruments and star maps and even mourned their dead).

Says Chris Stringer of the Human Origins Group at the Natural History Museum in London: "This discovery makes us realize how limited a view we have of human evolution. Questions in the world of paleontology are always complex and because evidence is usually incomplete, and there is little agreement about what key features characterize a distinct human ancestor." With statements like that, again one wonders why a picture of this fossil skull has been aired by every major news outlet on the planet. 

Missing Link Finally Found?
While Sahelanthropos may be found to be a monkey, its combination ape and human characteristics pose it as a possible evolutionary intermediate, a fact that has Darwinian evolutionists salivating. "Even if it is a big monkey, it's even more interesting as a missing link," says Yves Coppens of the College of France. Yet the time frame in which a common ape-like ancestor evolved into **** sapiens is being shortened. The current evolutionary scheme believes this occurred 5 to 7 million years ago. Sahelanthropos is dated close to that period. The oldest ape fossils from Asia are about 7 to 8 million years old.

Rapid Or Slow Evolution?
Evolutionary change, facilitated by genetic mutations, is supposed to take millions of years. Now evolutionists have to explain faster changes than the previously estimated rate of Darwinian evolution. Overlooking the fact that genetic mutations only give rise to negative traits and defects, neo-Darwinists speculate that "punctuated equilibrium" may have taken place, a rapid jump or genetic alteration that produces a new species spontaneously. Punctuated equilibrium has never been observed.

Similar To Modern Humans?
In its story on Sahelanthropos, National Geographic indicates humans share 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees, but a recently completed human genome map startlingly discovered a very small human genome pool, not enough genes to explain the wide differences in characteristics between humans and lower forms of life.

Not Many Bones
It has been said that the total number of fossil bones used to substantiate evolutionary theories can be placed in a small box. Now the entire evolutionary scheme is about to be re-drawn based upon one skull. It hardly seems like enough evidence to alter ideas of man's origins.

Says Michel Brunet, the discoverer of Sahelanthropos, "It will never be possible to know precisely where or when the first hominid species originated."

Sources:
"A New Hominid From The Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa," Nature, Volume 418, pages 145-51, 2002. 
"Chad Dunes Yield First Member of Human Family," Science Now, July 10, 2002. 
"Father Of Us All," Time.com, Volume 160, No. 4, July 22, 2002 
"Fossil Find Confounds Human Family Tree," USA Today, July 11, 2002. 
"Seven Million-year-old Skull 'Just A Female Gorilla'," SMH.com.au 
"Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking Of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002 

July 20, 2002

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a health journalist who dabbles from time to time into current events. He is the author of the book The Iron Time Bomb. His website is www.askbillsardi.com.

Copyright © 2002 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California. Not for commercial reproduction without permission of the author.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi15.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep*
by Fred Reed


Oh help. The religious orthodoxy that impedes discussion of biological evolution continues with its accustomed dreadful tenacity. I’m going to hide in Tierra del Fuego.

One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He won’t be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.

By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected.

Among the articles of faith: Life evolved from the primeval soup (sheer conjecture; the existence of the soup is inferred from the theory); evolution occurred, as distinct from change; accounting for all characteristics of life (mere assertion); natural selection being the driving force (unestablished). Many of these points are logically separable. Since evolution serves the purposes of a religion, namely to explain human origin and destiny, they are invariably bundled.

A few questions:

It is asserted, though not demonstrated, that point mutations caused by, say, cosmic rays sometimes give an animal a slight advantage over others of its species, and that these advantages accumulate over countless generations and lead to major changes. Demonstrable fact, or plausible conjecture? I note that metaphysical plausibility often substitutes for evidence in matters evolutionary. The approach ignores hard questions, such as whether tiny advantages, if engendered at all, rise above the noise level, or what that level might be. 

At any rate, the idea is that slight selective pressure (operational definition, please? Units?) over enough time produces major changes. The idea is appealingly plausible. But, for example:

(1) A fair number of people are deathly allergic to bee stings, going into anaphylactic shock and dying. In any but a protected urban setting, children are virtually certain to be stung many times before reaching puberty. Assured death before reproduction would seem a robust variety of selective pressure.

Yet the allergic haven’t been eliminated from the population. Why is it that miniscule, unobserved mutations over vast stretches of time can produce major changes, while an extraordinarily powerful, observable selective pressure doesn’t? The same reasoning applies to a long list of genetic diseases that kill children before they reach adulthood. (Yes, I too can imagine plausible explanations. Plausibility isn’t evidence.)

(2) Homosexuality in males works strongly against reproduction. Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?

(3) Pain serves to warn an animal that it is being injured, or to make it favor, say, a wounded leg so that it can heal. Fair enough. But then why did we evolve the nerves that produce the agony of kidney stones – about which an animal can do absolutely nothing?

(4) There are at least two ways in which a species might change over time. One is the (postulated) accumulation over very long periods of mutations. Maybe.

The other is the concentration of existing traits by selective breeding, which is nothing but deliberate natural selection. The latter is demonstrable, and can happen within a few generations. If a breed of dog has weak hips, for example, the defect can be rectified by interbreeding those with better hips until good hips become the norm. About this there is no doubt. If natural selection occurs as advertised, this is where we would expect to see it.

Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay. Presumably (a tricky word) in a pre-civilized world, strong and intelligent people with superbly acute (for humans) senses would be more likely to survive and spread their genes, leading to a race of supermen. Is this what we observe?

Here we come to an interesting question: Do the superior pass along their genes more reliably than the inferior? In primitive tribal societies do we observe that the brighter have more children than the not so bright?

Do the most fit men breed with the most fit women, or with the most sexually attractive? As a matter of daily experience, a man will go every time for the sleek, pretty, and coquettish over the big, strong, bright, and ugly. I mention this to evolutionists and they make intellectual pretzels trying to prove that the attractive and the fit are one and the same. Well, they aren’t.

(5) If intelligence promotes survival, why did it appear so late? If it doesn’t promote survival, why did it appear at all? 

(6) People have a wretched sense of smell and mediocre hearing. Why? The pat explanation is that people evolved in open territory, where sight is more important than the other senses. People walked erect, keeping their eyes well above the ground so that they could see farther. As noses became smaller, there was less room for the olfactory apparatus.

Is much of this not palpable nonsense? Horses have eyes at about the same altitude as people, yet have acute senses of smell. Anywhere but in perfectly open territory, a sense of smell is obviously important in detecting predators, as it is at night, when many things hunt. Excessively small nasal apparatus? Cats and rats have little room for olfactory equipment yet have acute senses of smell. Do sensitive ears take up more space than sorry ones?

(7) Without weapons, humans would appear to be easy prey for almost anything. A persistent forty-pound dog would be a challenge for a single man. A pack of hyenas would have no trouble killing him. Any big cat would need about ten seconds.

The author failing to detect a large predator because of poor senses. (Laos, 2003)

People are weak. I once had a semi-domesticated monkey of perhaps thirty pounds jump on me in Bali because it wanted a banana I was eating. I was a husky 180 and lifted weights. I tried to push the thing off of me, and instantly realized I couldn’t. The little beast was ferociously strong. I gave it the banana. 

A man cannot outrun a toy poodle, cannot climb well (and anyway there aren’t trees in open territory), cannot swim naturally, has teeth useless as weapons, no claws, and poor musculature. (Why the latter? Strength isn’t of value in survival?) He can neither smell nor hear an approaching big cat (say) and, unless armed, couldn’t do anything about it anyway. Hiding isn’t a choice: People are noisy, their children uncontrollably so. When unwashed, humans reek. Our young are extraordinarily helpless for long years. 

Were we already packing heat when we swung down from the trees?

(8) So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won’t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But…but….

The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value. That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence. 

This is science? 

March 3, 2004

Fred Reed [send him mail] is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.
Copyright © 2004 Fred Reed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

An "Evolution [ transformism ] is a fairytale for adults. -- Jean Rostand" bump.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

What a load of garbage. One guy thinks DNA is made of proteins, yet the other thinks that bee allergies have a dominate genetic cause. ROFL 

I here by nominate Fred Reed and Bill Sardi as 2008's most scientific illiterate creationists of the year.

----------


## Theocrat

> There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution other than time.
> 
> Its like saying its possible to walk 10 feet (micro), but its impossible for man to have migrated from Africa to the rest of the world (macro).  Its the exact same process in either case, the only difference being how long it took.


Your analogy is a poor one because it doesn't relate to the horizontal and vertical patterns of change which distinguish microevolution from macroevolution. We're not discussing *time* or *duration* of change but *direction* and *origin* of change. A better analogy would be saying it's possible to walk 10 feet on land (micro), but it's impossible to walk 10 feet on air or water (macro).

All we've ever observed in science is dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, elephants producing elephants, and so on. There might be variations within the different kinds, but they are still dogs, cats, elephants, etc. That is microevolution, and it's scientific. We've never observed a monkey becoming a human, a crocodile becoming an ostrich, a whale becoming a rhinoceros, or anything like that. That's macroevolution, and it's a *fairy tale*, not science.

----------


## Theocrat

> *Even if it were true it's evidence of nothing.* 
> 
> See: pareidolia
> 
> The term *pareidolia* (pronounced /pæraɪˈdoʊliə/), referenced in 1994 by Steven Goldstein,[1] describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek _para-_  beside, with or alongside  and _eidolon_  image (the diminutive of _eidos_  image, form, shape). Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.


 (Emphasis mine)

You didn't accept the evidence, after all. Darwin's tits just taste too good, don't they?

----------


## DrAmy31415

> (Emphasis mine)
> 
> You didn't accept the evidence, after all. Darwin's tits just taste too good, don't they?


Such language from a theologian? I am offended.  

You seem to also be woefully ignorant of male anatomy. While males have "breasts" (thank you), it would be painfully problematic to nurse at a male mammals teats. Keep in mind also, that males of this species tend to be more aggressive than females and you might just get socked in the jaw.

For shame,

DrAmy

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What a load of garbage. One guy thinks DNA is made of proteins, yet the other thinks that bee allergies have a dominate genetic cause. ROFL 
> 
> I here by nominate Fred Reed and Bill Sardi as 2008's most scientific illiterate creationists of the year.


It's good to see that you too have very strong reading for comprehension skills and scientific objectivity principles. ROFL indeed.  

Where did you find the "creationists" hiding in there, if you please?

----------


## driller80545

Will finally knowing the answer to how life was created change my life in any way? Do I need to know this? Are birth and death really any different? Silly question? Choose your illusion, any illusion will do.

----------


## Theocrat

> What a load of garbage. One guy thinks DNA is made of proteins, yet the other thinks that bee allergies have a dominate genetic cause. ROFL 
> 
> I here by nominate Fred Reed and Bill Sardi as 2008's most scientific illiterate creationists of the year.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> It's good to see that you too have very strong reading for comprehension skills and scientific objectivity principles. ROFL indeed.


It's clear you have no clue as to the errors in your posting. I won't waste my time going point by point, but if you bothered to read over the first part the man claims DNA is made up of proteins. He also calls nucleobases amino acids. He also uses amino acids interchangeably with the word protein. If you can't see those as folies than you don't even have the basic understand behind the science that man is using to prove a "point". He does not understand it, nor do you. So I suggest you pick up a science book and learn something for a change that way you won't post mindless garbage next time.

Here compare for yourself. 

What bill said:

"DNA is made up of many subunits or strings of sequenced proteins strung between a sugar and a phosphate molecule (called a nucleotide). Think of a wash line in the back yard. There are two poles (the sugar and phosphate molecules) with four proteins (amino acids – guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine) hanging on the wash line. There are many of these "wash lines" in one gene and over time some of the proteins hanging on the wash line change their positions. One protein may be substituted for another, which is called a mutation. Different species of life have some of the same genes and therefore the rate of change (number of protein substitutions) can be used to calibrate a DNA clock. Comparative studies of different proteins in various groups of organisms tend to show that the average number of amino-acid substitutions per site per year is typically around 10-9."

Wikipedia: 

"Chemically, DNA is a long polymer of simple units called nucleotides, with a backbone made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA, in a process called transcription."

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It's clear you have no clue as to the errors in your posting. I won't waste my time going point by point, but if you bothered to read over the first part the man claims DNA is made up of proteins. He also calls nucleobases amino acids. He also uses amino acids interchangeably with the word protein. If you can't see those as folies than you don't even have the basic understand behind the science that man is using to prove a "point". He does not understand it, nor do you. So I suggest you pick up a science book and learn something for a change that way you won't post mindless garbage next time.
> 
> Here compare for yourself. 
> 
> What bill said:
> 
> "DNA is made up of many subunits or strings of sequenced proteins strung between a sugar and a phosphate molecule (called a nucleotide). Think of a wash line in the back yard. There are two poles (the sugar and phosphate molecules) with four proteins (amino acids – guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine) hanging on the wash line. There are many of these "wash lines" in one gene and over time some of the proteins hanging on the wash line change their positions. One protein may be substituted for another, which is called a mutation. Different species of life have some of the same genes and therefore the rate of change (number of protein substitutions) can be used to calibrate a DNA clock. Comparative studies of different proteins in various groups of organisms tend to show that the average number of amino-acid substitutions per site per year is typically around 10-9."
> 
> Wikipedia: 
> ...


*DNA-RNA-Protein*
Introduction
DNA carries the genetic information of a cell and consists of thousands of genes. Each gene serves as a recipe on how to build a protein molecule. Proteins perform important tasks for the cell functions or serve as building blocks. The flow of information from the genes determines the protein composition and thereby the functions of the cell.
The DNA is situated in the nucleus, organized into chromosomes. Every cell must contain the genetic information and the DNA is therefore duplicated before a cell divides (replication). When proteins are needed, the corresponding genes are transcribed into RNA (transcription). The RNA is first processed so that non-coding parts are removed (processing) and is then transported out of the nucleus (transport). Outside the nucleus, the proteins are built based upon the code in the RNA (translation).
http://nobelprize.org/educational_ga...dna/index.html

Now about that false, bogus totally erroneous and irrelevant "creationist" charge?  *ROFL*

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> *DNA-RNA-Protein
> *Introduction
> DNA carries the genetic information of a cell and consists of thousands of genes. Each gene serves as a recipe on how to build a protein molecule. Proteins perform important tasks for the cell functions or serve as building blocks. The flow of information from the genes determines the protein composition and thereby the functions of the cell.
> The DNA is situated in the nucleus, organized into chromosomes. Every cell must contain the genetic information and the DNA is therefore duplicated before a cell divides (replication). When proteins are needed, the corresponding genes are transcribed into RNA (transcription). The RNA is first processed so that non-coding parts are removed (processing) and is then transported out of the nucleus (transport). Outside the nucleus, the proteins are built based upon the code in the RNA (translation).
> http://nobelprize.org/educational_ga...dna/index.html


You just proved my point. 

DNA holds the code for proteins. It's not made up of proteins. Bill said the bases that make up DNA are proteins.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Will finally knowing the answer to how life was created change my life in any way? Do I need to know this? Are birth and death really any different? Silly question? Choose your illusion, any illusion will do.


Yes.  The scientific knowledge gained by such endeavors will advance science and technology.

The real question is, why are you people so afraid of the advancement of human knowledge and technology?

If it were up to the theologists, we would still be throwing rocks at each other in caves.

----------


## Theocrat

> It's clear you have no clue as to the errors in your posting. I won't waste my time going point by point, but if you bothered to read over the first part the man claims DNA is made up of proteins. He also calls nucleobases amino acids. He also uses amino acids interchangeably with the word protein. If you can't see those as folies than you don't even have the basic understand behind the science that man is using to prove a "point". He does not understand it, nor do you. So I suggest you pick up a science book and learn something for a change that way you won't post mindless garbage next time.
> 
> Here compare for yourself. 
> 
> What bill said:
> 
> "DNA is made up of many subunits or strings of sequenced proteins strung between a sugar and a phosphate molecule (called a nucleotide). Think of a wash line in the back yard. There are two poles (the sugar and phosphate molecules) with four proteins (amino acids  guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine) hanging on the wash line. There are many of these "wash lines" in one gene and over time some of the proteins hanging on the wash line change their positions. One protein may be substituted for another, which is called a mutation. Different species of life have some of the same genes and therefore the rate of change (number of protein substitutions) can be used to calibrate a DNA clock. Comparative studies of different proteins in various groups of organisms tend to show that the average number of amino-acid substitutions per site per year is typically around 10-9."
> 
> Wikipedia: 
> ...


So how did DNA evolve? After you explain that, I want you to tell me how this evolved. *I dare you.*

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> So how did DNA evolve? After you explain that, I want you to tell me how this evolved. *I dare you.*


Nice try. Just because I can't explain that is not proof of a god. Nor is any absence of evidence. That would be an argument from ignorance.

----------


## Truth Warrior

From thread page # 33:

"Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does – except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions – overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism. 

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use) – of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes.  The scientific knowledge gained by such endeavors will advance science and technology.
> 
> The real question is, why are you people so afraid of the advancement of human knowledge and technology?
> 
> If it were up to the theologists, we would still be throwing rocks at each other in caves.


*SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS*

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)ELECTRONICS  - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)STRATIGRAPHY - NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> *SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
> BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS*ANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)ELECTRONICS  - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)STRATIGRAPHY - NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)


Yeah? And? So? 

Newton also believed in Alchemy. So by your logic Alchemy must also be true. The number of people who had faith in something alone does not translate into truth.

----------


## Theocrat

> Nice try. Just because I can't explain that is not proof of a god. Nor is any absence of evidence. That would be an argument from ignorance.


Then you believe in the evolution of DNA on *blind faith*.

----------


## driller80545

www.whatthebleep.com
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> From thread page # 33:
> 
> "Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does  except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions  overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism. 
> 
> I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)  of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.
> 
> This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science."


If creationists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Then you believe in the evolution of DNA on *blind faith*.


When you said evolve I took it in the sense that you meant in how it arose. There is not enough conclusive information on that part of the subject to posit a conclusive theory on the origin of DNA, but that is separate from evolution.  Evolution at the gene level is a scientific fact.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> If creationists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem.


If evolutionists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem .... either.

Most of the creationists, I've talked to about the subject, tend to be be very accepting of both natural selection and genetic mutation. It's the new species part that really hangs them up and pisses them off.

BTW, I'm not a creationist nor an ID defender either. We just happen to agree that "transformism" AKA macro evolution is dogmatic, bogus "science" ( so called ) and BS.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> If evolutionists didn't try to force their teachings as packaged science into the class room then there wouldn't be a problem .... either.
> 
> Most of the creationists, I've talked to about the subject, tend to be be very accepting of both natural selection and genetic mutation. It's the new species part that really hangs them up and pisses them off.
> 
> BTW, I'm not a creationist nor an ID defender either. We just happen to agree that "transformism" AKA macro evolution is dogmatic, bogus "science" ( so called ) and BS.


Speciation by diffinition is macroevolution.  New species have all ready been done in the lab. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

----------


## Theocrat

> Yeah? And? So? 
> 
> Newton also believed in Alchemy. So by your logic Alchemy must also be true. The number of people who had faith in something alone does not translate into truth.


Those examples were given to silence your remark that creationists do not wish to advance science and technology. In fact, if it weren't for creationists in history, science wouldn't be where it is today.

Darwinian evolution has contributed *nothing* to science, technology, or society for that matter. It's a useless hypothesis, and a superstitious one, at that. It's not why we have computers (intelligently designed). It's not why we've advanced in architecture (intelligently design). It's not why we have political constitutions (intelligently designed). It's not why we have hospitals and orphanages (intelligently designed). Darwinian evolution is a disease in science. It's a myth, a fairy tale for grownups who simply hate God and refuse to see the obvious evidence of God's existence by His own creation.

Evolutionists are trying to steal everything from the creationists who worked so hard in history past, by the grace of God, to develop and establish the scientific disciplines we enjoy today. Evolutionists cannot account for the uniformity of nature which makes induction possible in scientific experimentation and analysis. In short, Darwinian evolution is a *God-damned joke*, and those who continue to prop up the stinking, filthy, and rotting corpse of macroevolution are the necrophiliac puppeteers who are truly hindering the advancement of science and technology in the scientific community, not the creationists.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Speciation by diffinition is macroevolution. New species have all ready been done in the lab. 
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution 

Thanks!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Those examples were given to silence your remark that creationists do not wish to advance science and technology. In fact, if it weren't for creationists in history, science wouldn't be where it is today.
> 
> Darwinian evolution has contributed *nothing* to science, technology, or society for that matter. It's a useless hypothesis, and a superstitious one, at that. It's not why we have computers (intelligently designed). It's not why we've advanced in architecture (intelligently design). It's not why we have political constitutions (intelligently designed). It's not why we have hospitals and orphanages (intelligently designed). Darwinian evolution is a disease in science. It's a myth, a fairy tale for grownups who simply hate God and refuse to see the obvious evidence of God's existence by His own creation.
> 
> Evolutionists are trying to steal everything from the creationists who worked so hard in history past, by the grace of God, to develop and establish the scientific disciplines we enjoy today. Evolutionists cannot account for the uniformity of nature which makes induction possible in scientific experimentation and analysis. In short, Darwinian evolution is a *God-damned joke*, and those who continue to prop up the stinking, filthy, and rotting corpse of macroevolution are the necrophiliac puppeteers who are hindering the advancement of science and technology in the scientific community, not the creationists.


Funny that you didn't mention medicine. You know a field that would involve biology? So you used examples outside of biology as "proof" that evolution is not useful. What next proof that astronomy is not useful because it can't be used to build a computer? 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/medicine_01

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution 
> 
> Thanks!


major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at _the level of the species_ and higher taxa.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at _the level of the species_ and higher taxa.


Keep on readin', "over geologic time", **** sapiens haven't even been around for geologic time nor have his labs.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Keep on readin', "over geologic time", **** sapiens haven't even been around for geologic time nor have his labs.


Yeah words have many meanings depending on the context. Wow!

----------


## Theocrat

> Funny that you didn't mention medicine. You know a field that would involve biology? So you used examples outside of biology as "proof" that evolution is not useful. What next proof that astronomy is not useful because it can't be used to build a computer? 
> 
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/medicine_01


When macroevolutionists work in medicine, they act as microevolutionists. Still, I would say that Darwinian evolution has done nothing to advance medicine. By the way, Darwinian evolution does not only deal with biology, either. Its theory has been expanded to other scientific disciplines as well.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> When macroevolutionists work in medicine, they act as microevolutionists. Still, I would say that Darwinian evolution has done nothing to advance medicine. By the way, Darwinian evolution does not only deal with biology, either. Its theory has been expanded to other scientific disciplines as well.


It's not Darwinian evolution. You know that theories evolve when there is new information to conform to right? We have the modern theory of evolution.

P.S I am going take me and my 98% chimp like genes and split.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It's not Darwinian evolution. You know that theories evolve when there is new information to conform to right? We have the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> P.S I am going take me and my 98% chimp like genes and split.


I would too, If I were you, I'm just getting warmed up again.

----------


## driller80545

> I would too, If I were you, I'm just getting warmed up again.


Got your illusion down pat.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Got your illusion down pat.


Yep, I like it a whole lot more than most of the other mainstream, more dogmatic and bogus "sheeple" ones.

----------


## Truth Warrior

"Brainwashing" children that "theories" are "gospel" is a catastrophic crime against humanity.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

> "Brainwashing" children that "theories" are "gospel" is a catastrophic crime against humanity.


***IRONY ALERT***

----------


## Kludge

> ***IRONY ALERT***


That would've been a great place for the live version of your avatar

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ***IRONY ALERT***


How so?

----------


## Theocrat

> ***IRONY ALERT***

----------


## amy31416

> "Brainwashing" children that "theories" are "gospel" is a catastrophic crime against humanity.


I'm not getting back into this insane argument, except to repeat what "theory" actually means. It has been bastardized and watered down to mean "any yahoo's explanation of natural phenomena." 

Before something is accepted as a theory in the scientific world, it goes through rigorous testing by many, many other scientists in all different places in the world, it must be repeatable.

When you're talking about a scientific theory, use the scientific definition of the word, not a layman's lazy definition of highly doubtful. Read up on how the word is used in different fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

It irritates me to no end when people can't understand how words are used differently in different contexts. When Darwin first introduced evolution, it was a *hypothesis*, it was only after testing, predicting, and reshaping the hypothesis that it eventually became a *theory.*

/rant. Carry on.

----------


## Theocrat

> I'm not getting back into this insane argument, except to repeat what "theory" actually means. It has been bastardized and watered down to mean "any yahoo's explanation of natural phenomena." 
> 
> Before something is accepted as a theory in the scientific world, it goes through rigorous testing by many, many other scientists in all different places in the world, it must be repeatable.
> 
> When you're talking about a scientific theory, use the scientific definition of the word, not a layman's lazy definition of highly doubtful. Read up on how the word is used in different fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
> 
> It irritates me to no end when people can't understand how words are used differently in different contexts. When Darwin first introduced evolution, it was a *hypothesis*, it was only after testing, predicting, and reshaping the hypothesis that it eventually became a *theory.*
> 
> /rant. Carry on.


No, a theory is a *hypothesis*. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific *law*, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.

----------


## DrAmy31415

..............

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm not getting back into this insane argument, except to repeat what "theory" actually means. It has been bastardized and watered down to mean "any yahoo's explanation of natural phenomena." 
> 
> Before something is accepted as a theory in the scientific world, it goes through rigorous testing by many, many other scientists in all different places in the world, it must be repeatable.
> 
> When you're talking about a scientific theory, use the scientific definition of the word, not a layman's lazy definition of highly doubtful. Read up on how the word is used in different fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
> 
> It irritates me to no end when people can't understand how words are used differently in different contexts. When Darwin first introduced evolution, it was a *hypothesis*, it was only after testing, predicting, and reshaping the hypothesis that it eventually became a *theory.*
> 
> /rant. Carry on.


Staying out of it, on your part, is probably a wise decision.

----------


## amy31416

> Staying out of it, on your part, is probably a wise decision.


Only because I'm simply astounded at the misinformation and it's grating. If you guys can't even take the time to look up some basic definitions for words that you're bandying about, it's pointless. So, finally, if you nor Theocrat can understand a few basics and think you've "won" an argument because of it, feel free. 




> No, a theory is a *hypothesis*. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific *law*, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.


Absolutely 100% incorrect. Law>>Theory>>>>hypothesis>>>>>>>>>>>>>crazy person's whimsical notions. A hypothesis is a _potential_ untested theory, a partially right theory or complete crap. ID can barely qualify as a hypothesis, and certainly never a theory.

Evolution is tested and has evolved from Darwin's original theory and will continue to evolve with more testing, observations and evidence.

I have several gen chem and physics books, if you'd like I can explain it like they do verbatim for 101 classes. 

Meanwhile, here's some links:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

Here's an excerpt since you brought up gravity and this thread has to do with evolution:




> For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center.  Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
> 
> There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne.  (see also:  Darwin's Precursors and Influences)

----------


## Truth Warrior



----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I would too, If I were you, I'm just getting warmed up again.


Funny considering that you have not made one coherant point. Please do explain this for me. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Funny considering that you have not made one coherant point. Please do explain this for me. 
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk


Perhaps your coherence filter merely needs an major overhaul. 

Sorry, I don't do videos, I'm a reader.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> No, a theory is a *hypothesis*. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific *law*, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.


No, they don't become laws. 

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

You still have no clue as to what a theory is.

----------


## Truth Warrior

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Perhaps your coherence filter merely needs an major overhaul. 
> 
> Sorry, I don't do videos, I'm a reader.


Try this on for size. Same thing. Please explain to me if there is no such thing as macro evolution than why is Human chromosome number 2 the result of the fusion of primate chromosome pairs. 

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory


No

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word *theory* is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

----------


## DrAmy31415

> No, they don't become laws. 
> 
> http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
> 
> You still have no clue as to what a theory is.


+1. That is astonishingly apparent.

Yours in amazement,

DrAmy

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Try this on for size. Same thing. Please explain to me if there is no such thing as macro evolution than why is Human chromosome number 2 the result of the fusion of primate chromosome pairs. 
> 
> http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm


Do we really need to go back and cover the vast differences between "inductive" science and "deductive" science?

BTW, I have no problems with conjectures ....................... as conjectures.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No
> 
> In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
> 
> In common usage, the word *theory* is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.


I'll go with the dictionary here.  It doesn't have an axe to grind.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I'll go with the dictionary here.  It doesn't have an axe to grind.


Wikipedia does? 

How about those chromosomes?

P.S 911 was an outside job.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Wikipedia does?   
> *My understanding is that just about any yahoo can post just about anything there that they want to.  I've seen plenty of ground axes there.  Haven't you?*
> How about those chromosomes?
> *Interesting conjecture and hypothesis.  If true, how did it happen?* 
> P.S 911 was an outside job.
> *Ask me again AFTER the thorough unbiased independent investigation report results are released.*


My coherence filter indicates that you are better at asking questions than you are at answering them.  

Why is that?  

Isn't the burden of proof on the affirmative case in science as well as in debate?

----------


## sophocles07

> I'll go with the dictionary here. It doesn't have an axe to grind.


Arguing about such a 3rd grade subject (what a ‘theory’ is in a scientific context) makes you look good.

----------


## DrAmy31415

Well kids, my old general chemistry textbook does not have an axe to grind, nor is it in any way promoting evolution, creationism or anything other than the basics of the central science (that would be chemistry for those who don't know.)

_General Chemistry, 5th Edition_, Ebbings, published by Houghton Mifflin. Copywrite 1996. This is a book used to teach high school chemistry.

*Law*: a concise statement or mathematical equation about a fundamental relationship or regularity of nature. An example is the law of conservation of mass, which says that mass, or quantity of matter, remains constant during any physical change.

*Hypothesis*: a tentative explanation of some regularity of nature. Having seen that bacteria cease to divide when an electric current from platinum electrodes passed through the culture, Rosenberg was eventually able to propose the hypothesis that certain platinum compounds were responsible.

*Theory*: a tested explanation of basic natural phenomena. An example is the molecular theory of gases--the theory that all gases are composed of very small particles calle molecules. This theory has withstood many tests and has been fruitful in suggesting many experiments.

Hopefully that helps, but I doubt it will.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Arguing about such a 3rd grade subject (what a theory is in a scientific context) makes you look good.


 First ad hominem loses. 

Bye!

----------


## sophocles07

> First ad hominem loses. 
> 
> Bye!


You stink butt

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> My coherence filter indicates that you are better at asking questions than you are at answering them.  
> 
> Why is that?  
> 
> Isn't the burden of proof on the affirmative case in science as well as in debate?


I already more than fulfilled my end of the bargain. There is plenty of evidence already provided showing that human chromosome number 2 is the result of the fusion of two simian chromosome pairs. You said before that macro evolution is not science without backing up the claim. I just backed up the claim that it is indeed science. I can't be blamed for your choice of ignoring the evidence or reality for that matter.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well kids, my old general chemistry textbook does not have an axe to grind, nor is it in any way promoting evolution, creationism or anything other than the basics of the central science (that would be chemistry for those who don't know.)
> 
> _General Chemistry, 5th Edition_, Ebbings, published by Houghton Mifflin. Copywrite 1996. This is a book used to teach high school chemistry.
> 
> *Law*: a concise statement or mathematical equation about a fundamental relationship or regularity of nature. An example is the law of conservation of mass, which says that mass, or quantity of matter, remains constant during any physical change.
> 
> *Hypothesis*: a tentative explanation of some regularity of nature. Having seen that bacteria cease to divide when an electric current from platinum electrodes passed through the culture, Rosenberg was eventually able to propose the hypothesis that certain platinum compounds were responsible.
> 
> *Theory*: a tested explanation of basic natural phenomena. An example is the molecular theory of gases--the theory that all gases are composed of very small particles calle molecules. This theory has withstood many tests and has been fruitful in suggesting many experiments.
> ...


Does it mention "inductive" vs. "deductive" science.  

Perhaps not since it's chemistry.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You stink butt


 Bye, bye!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> First ad hominem loses. 
> 
> Bye!


Not an ad hominem. 

It would have been an ad hominem if he said something like, "You argue like a 3rd grader; therefor, you are wrong". 

The core of the ad hominem fallacy. 

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

----------


## sophocles07

> Not an ad hominem. 
> 
> It would have been an ad hominem if he said something like, "You argue like a 3rd grader; therefor, you are wrong". 
> 
> The core of the ad hominem fallacy. 
> 
> Person A makes claim X
> There is something objectionable about Person A
> Therefore claim X is false
> ...


Take 'at boy!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I already more than fulfilled my end of the bargain. There is plenty of evidence already provided showing that human chromosome number 2 is the result of the fusion of two simian chromosome pairs. You said before that macro evolution is not science without backing up the claim. I just backed up the claim that it is indeed science. I can't be blamed for your choice of ignoring the evidence or reality for that matter.


Starting the question count over: 

Question 1:  How did you come to that erroneous conclusion?  

Question 2:  Did we have a bargain? 

Question 3:  In science, does evidence, constitute proof?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Not an ad hominem. 
> 
> It would have been an ad hominem if he said something like, "You argue like a 3rd grader; therefor, you are wrong". 
> 
> The core of the ad hominem fallacy. 
> 
> Person A makes claim X
> There is something objectionable about Person A
> Therefore claim X is false
> ...


Does the second one today qualify?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> No, a theory is a *hypothesis*. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific *law*, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.


W. T. F. ?

Your done.  I cant take this anymore.  How can you engage in this debate if you dont even understand the fundamental language being used?

Go take some type of introductory science class, then come back and play with the big boys.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Does the second one today qualify?


No that might be an objective observation. As to how much you stink that could technically be quantified.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> W. T. F. ?
> 
> Your done. I cant take this anymore. How can you engage in this debate if you dont even understand the fundamental language being used?
> 
> Go take some type of introductory science class, then come back and play with the big boys.


I believe you're addressed and covered on thread page #33 also.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Starting the question count over: 
> 
> Question 1:  How did you come to that erroneous conclusion?  
> 
> Question 2:  Did we have a bargain? 
> 
> Question 3:  In science, does evidence, constitute proof?


1. See two pages or so ago
2. Maybe I had a lot to drink last night so I can't remember. 
3. No, but it's better than no evidence. I.E god did it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No that might be an objective observation. As to how much you stink that could technically be quantified.


  Well since we're on a web forum, I think it's meant as a statement.  But we digress. 

Any answers for my questions?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> In science, does evidence, constitute proof?


No.  Evidence only suggests something is likely true.

However, without evidence, there is no rational reason to believe something to be true.  (God)

----------


## DrAmy31415

> Does it mention "inductive" vs. "deductive" science.  
> 
> Perhaps not since it's chemistry.


Not a high school chemistry book, of course not. It's all inductive. Here's a little something I found for you, it appears to be approximately high school level:




> Is Science Entirely Inductive?
> 
> On the previous page, you learned that although mathematics is deductive in nature - that is, logical proof is the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of mathematics is not entirely deductive. It is also true that although science is inductive by nature - *observations are the only acceptable evidence of truth* - the _process of science_ can be deductive!
> 
> In particular, physicists make extensive use of mathematics as a powerful theoretical tool. Theoretical physicists often construct theories as "mathematical models" deductively, starting with assumptions about the inner workings of stars or atoms, for instance, and then working out the mathematical consequences of their assumptions. An essential difference between a mathematician and a theoretical physicist is that the physicist uses mathematics as a reasoning tool. *The success of the mathematical model depends on how well its results agree with observations of nature* - *if they do not agree the physicist knows that this means that her assumptions - not the observations - need to be adjusted*.


Perhaps that will clear a few things up for you, but I doubt it.

link: http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Phys...Inductive.html

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Any answers for my questions?


Why do you demand answers from us, but never have any answers of your own?

Where is your evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 1. See two pages or so ago
> *How about a post number? Thanks!*
> 2. Maybe I had a lot to drink last night so I can't remember. 
> *I don't think that we did.*
> 3. No, but it's better than no evidence. I.E god did it.
> *But not proof, agreed?  I haven't proposed or posited a god, have I?*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Yes you have.  You have proposed that nature has been designed.

Design implies a Designer

Where is the evidence of your designer?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No. Evidence only suggests something is likely true.
> *Is that good enough for science?*
> 
> However, without evidence, there is no rational reason to believe something to be true. (God)
> *Your point, please?  "Belief" based on what?*

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> 


1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
2. It's a figure of speech. To which I replied with a joke. 
3. What I said before.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Yes.  You can never arrive at an absolute truth .  There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.

Belief based on what?  Thats exactly the point.  What are you basing your beliefs on?  If there is no evidence to support your beliefs, on what rational basis are you believing in them?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yes.  You can never arrive at an absolute truth .  There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.


Will you ever shave those nasty sideburns?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes you have. You have proposed that nature has been designed.
> *Post number please.*
> Design implies a Designer
> *Is nature a designer?  Are we dealing with ephemeral subjective interpretations of implications now?* 
> Where is the evidence of your designer?
> *What designer?*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

The creationists here are still assuming that things can be proven or disprove by simple intuition, absent of any empirical evidence.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> 


Then what the hell have you been talking about all this time, if not the notion that the universe has been designed by some intelligence?

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat--can you tell me how you would teach "intelligent design" in classrooms?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

I take that back Truth Warrior.  Looking back on this thread, you havnt really been talking about anything at all.  Your posts have contributed nothing of relevance to this discussion.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes. You can never arrive at an absolute truth . There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.
> *I ain't talking "absolute truth" here. Just plain old everyday **** sapiens "science".* 
> Belief based on what?
> *Remember the Feynman quote?* 
> Thats exactly the point.
> *What's the point?* 
> What are you basing your beliefs on?
> *Absence of sufficient "deductive" evidence and proof. Seems pretty rational and reasonable to me.* 
> If there is no evidence to support your beliefs, on what rational basis are you believing in them?
> *How much evidence does a skeptic require?*


  Page #33!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Page #33!


First off, none of that stuff if peer reviewed scientific research.  Reading that and accepting it as science is about as reasonable as reading an Ann Coulter column and accepting it as foreign policy research.  

Second, half of it is so absurdly wrong, I dont know why you would even post it.

----------


## DrAmy31415

> Yes.  You can never arrive at an absolute truth .  There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.


Thanks Mr. Sideburns, the fact that someone else out there knows this and can articulate it makes me want to weep with joy. 

Thankyou, thankyou thankyewverymuch.

----------


## DrAmy31415

> Theocrat--can you tell me how you would teach "intelligent design" in classrooms?


Better yet--in a lab!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I take that back Truth Warrior. Looking back on this thread, you havnt really been talking about anything at all. Your posts have contributed nothing of relevance to this discussion.


Thanks!  Retraction accepted.  Interesting opinion.  One just might assume that a thread on ID, just might have some relevance concerning the theory of evolution.  

Very nice duck and dodge there, BTW.  

Didn't I read about you, not by name of course, on thread page #33? Highly recommended.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Page #33!


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120706.php3

_I guess Ron Paul is wrong.  Says right here in this article that pulling out of Iraq means we lose the war and we are all going to die._


Makes about as much sense as the bull$#@! you posted.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Thanks Mr. Sideburns, the fact that someone else out there knows this and can articulate it makes me want to weep with joy. 
> 
> Thankyou, thankyou thankyewverymuch.


Strange... 

Falsifiability has been covered in this sub forum many times over.

----------


## DrAmy31415

So, if I can get this right, TW wants to be able to purely use the deductive method of logic in order to "buy" the modern theory of evolution, while most science aside from astronomy, particle physics, and astrophysics uses the inductive method.

Sorry homeslice, biology is too messy for pure deductive reasoning here. Mutations and variation can not be easily predicted or logically reasoned out on a message board. An ex of mine did his post-doc work in biophysics, writing code to try to mimic biology--specifically that of proteins. If that's what you're looking for, they're working on it deductively, using the logic of code. It's the only lab I've been in that was all super computers and no "real" equipment. 

Sorry TW, it's gonna take a few years for you to get your "deductive" reasoning when it comes to life, given it's complexity. Just so you know, they have made a lot of headway in being able to use code to effectively mock the lower "life" forms, mutations and all. 

See here:

http://www.roselab.jhu.edu/

I'll give the ex a call some day and ask his opinions on evolution by pure deduction and I'll update you then.

----------


## DrAmy31415

> Strange... 
> 
> Falsifiability has been covered in this sub forum many times over.


Yeah, I said it. I'm sure you have as well, I must have missed it.

----------


## constituent

So you dare ask about intelligent design?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> First off, none of that stuff if peer reviewed scientific research.
> *Perhaps you'll recall a little chat about intelligent laymen and acceptance standards. Inductive scientists peer reviewing other inductive scientists, doesn't tend to carry a whole lot of weight with me on those matters requiring deductive science. To each his own, however ..... I guess.*  
> Reading that and accepting it as science is about as reasonable as reading an Ann Coulter column and accepting it as foreign policy research. 
> *Reading it and accepting it as skepticism of science ( so called ) works much better.*
> Second, half of it is so absurdly wrong, I dont know why you would even post it.
> *True, you don't know! Comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit.* 
> 
> *Unsubstantiated false claims of "absurdly wrong" are unbelievably cheap and easy to to make.* 
> 
> ...

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Why are you still under the impression that science only requires intuition?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120706.php3
> 
> _I guess Ron Paul is wrong. Says right here in this article that pulling out of Iraq means we lose the war and we are all going to die._
> *Huh?   Sequiter?*
> 
> Makes about as much sense as the bull$#@! you posted.
> *Sequiter?*


I fear that you are losing it, here!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why are you still under the impression that science only requires intuition?


 Question validating Post #, please.

----------


## DrAmy31415

*sigh*

I've posted twice about deduction in scientific methodology and it's relevance to evolution and nothing.

I hypothesize that TW simply likes to argue for arguments sake. Any other hypotheses?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Take note, the Intelligent Design thread does not discuss any evidence of intelligent design other than attempts at intuition and logical reasoning.  Also take note of the word "attempts" at intuition and logical reasoning.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So, if I can get this right, TW wants to be able to purely use the deductive method of logic in order to "buy" the modern theory of evolution, while most science aside from astronomy, particle physics, and astrophysics uses the inductive method.
> 
> Sorry homeslice, biology is too messy for pure deductive reasoning here. Mutations and variation can not be easily predicted or logically reasoned out on a message board. An ex of mine did his post-doc work in biophysics, writing code to try to mimic biology--specifically that of proteins. If that's what you're looking for, they're working on it deductively, using the logic of code. It's the only lab I've been in that was all super computers and no "real" equipment. 
> 
> Sorry TW, it's gonna take a few years for you to get your "deductive" reasoning when it comes to life, given it's complexity. Just so you know, they have made a lot of headway in being able to use code to effectively mock the lower "life" forms, mutations and all. 
> 
> See here:
> 
> http://www.roselab.jhu.edu/
> ...


Your somewhere on the road, but not quite there yet. Nice non-involement though.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *sigh*
> 
> I've posted twice about deduction in scientific methodology and it's relevance to evolution and nothing.
> 
> I hypothesize that TW simply likes to argue for arguments sake. Any other hypotheses?


"sigh"  Kinda busy, have you noticed?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Take note, the Intelligent Design thread does not discuss any evidence of intelligent design other than attempts at intuition and logical reasoning. Also take note of the word "attempts" at intuition and logical reasoning.


Couldn't find the post, huh?  Non-existent evidence can be a real bear, can't it?

----------


## sophocles07

> Couldn't find the post, huh? Non-existent evidence can be a real bear, can't it?


OMG you are useless.

----------


## DrAmy31415

> Your somewhere on the road, but not quite there yet. Nice non-involement though.


That's the best you're going to get with current technology and the limitations of supercomputers at this point.

Sorry friend, you can't have entirely deductive evolution until programs like the Rose lab inch forward year after year or they perfect quantum computers. I mean, you do know that evolution took a hell of a long time to get us where we are, right?

Until then, we have inductive for a couple hundred years worth, and a short history of parallel deductive (maybe 15-20 years?)

I have no idea what you mean by non-involvement. The fact that it is too complex to discuss on a message board where, I daresay, very few people would understand computer code used to mock basic building blocks of life is not non-involvement.  But if you really want, I bet the ex would send me some of his old junk code for you to ponder, you'll probably need a more powerful computer to analyze the logic though.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That's the best you're going to get with current technology and the limitations of supercomputers at this point.
> *As a programmer, you REALLY don't want to get me started on computer modeling.* 
> Sorry friend, you can't have entirely deductive evolution until programs like the Rose lab inch forward year after year or they perfect quantum computers. I mean, you do know that evolution took a hell of a long time to get us where we are, right?
> *So how come macro evolution is holy writ and dogma?  Smoke, mirrors, spin and BS, is much more like it.  Thread Page #33!*
> 
> Until then, we have inductive for a couple hundred years worth, and a short history of parallel deductive (maybe 15-20 years?)
> *Speculations and SWAG.  Sorry, not nearly good enough for scientific fact and truth.*
> I have no idea what you mean by non-involvement.
> *You took a shot a few pages back and then bugged out. Right?*
> ...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> OMG you are useless.


Snappy repartee! 

Bye!

----------


## Theocrat

> No.  Evidence only suggests something is likely true.
> 
> However, without evidence, there is no rational reason to believe something to be true.  (God)


God is axiomatic.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat--can you tell me how you would teach "intelligent design" in classrooms?


By showing both sides of the Creation vs. Evolution argument for looking at the evidences found in nature.

----------


## Theocrat

> W. T. F. ?
> 
> Your done.  I cant take this anymore.  How can you engage in this debate if you dont even understand the fundamental language being used?
> 
> Go take some type of introductory science class, then come back and play with the big boys.


A Hypothesis is a theory.

This is what a theory is.

This is the essence of a law.

Macroeveolution is not a law. It's a theory (hypothesis) which is *unproven* and *unprovable*, often confused with microevolution.

Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) is a superstition.

----------


## sophocles07

> God is axiomatic.


*shakes head* 




> By showing both sides of the Creation vs. Evolution argument for looking at the evidences found in nature.


No, I mean what is the Creation side?  How would you teach that?




> A Hypothesis is a theory.
> 
> This is what a theory is.
> 
> This is the essence of a law.
> 
> Macroeveolution is not a law. It's a theory (hypothesis) which is unproven and unprovable, often confused with microevolution.
> 
> Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) is a superstition.


Stop arguing about this basic $#@!.  It makes you look $#@!ing stupid.

----------


## Theocrat

If you believe that these guys evolved,









then you might as well believe that this evolved, too.



*For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things.* (Romans 1:18-23)

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat, you make no sense.  At all.

----------


## Theocrat

> No, I mean what is the Creation side?  How would you teach that?


Using the Bible and evidences from nature that we observe.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, you make no sense.  At all.


Yeah, I know. It's like trying to explain colors to a blind person.

----------


## sophocles07

> Using the Bible and evidences from nature that we observe.


So you're essentially proposing literary interpretation and looking at things and saying "God did it" as an acceptable alternative to science?

----------


## FreeTraveler

> God is axiomatic.


Now you're just making stuff up.




> Axiom: A statement or assertion for which no proof or demonstration is required. Simply put, an axiom is a self-evident truth.

----------


## Theocrat

> So you're essentially proposing literary interpretation and looking at things and saying "God did it" as an acceptable alternative to science?


That's extremely simplistic, sophocles07. No, I would start with the premise that God created the universe, as He's declared in His own word, and then through observation of the creation and experimentation of how it functions, I would show how the universe affirms what God has declared. That is science, not "an alternative to science." Your superstition (macroevolution) is an alternative to science, and it's one that needs to be destroyed.

----------


## sophocles07

> That's extremely simplistic, sophocles07. No, I would start with the premise that God created the universe, as He's declared in His own word, and then through observation of the creation and experimentation of how it functions, I would show how the universe affirms what God has declared. That is science, not "an alternative to science." Your superstition (macroevolution) is an alternative to science, and it's one that needs to be destroyed.


So you start with a literary text, then attempt to find evidences for things in the literary text?  That's science?

----------


## Theocrat

> Now you're just making stuff up.


God is axiomatic because of the impossibility of the contrary. Without God's existence, it's impossible to prove anything objectively, absolutely, or finally because God is the precondition of intelligibility.

----------


## Theocrat

> So you start with a literary text, then attempt to find evidences for things in the literary text?  That's science?


Did you even read my post?

----------


## sophocles07

> Did you even read my post?


Yes.

You're starting with the Bible as axiomatic truth.

You then do "experiments" (I don't know what kind) to "prove" what God says.

That's exactly what I said: starting with a literary text and then trying to find evidences for things in the literary text.

This is not science, it's literary criticism.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> God is the precondition of intelligibility.


There you go making things up again. Where'd you find this gem?

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes.
> 
> You're starting with the Bible as axiomatic truth.
> 
> You then do "experiments" (I don't know what kind) to "prove" what God says.
> 
> That's exactly what I said: starting with a literary text and then trying to find evidences for things in the literary text.
> 
> This is not science, it's literary criticism.


You're still misunderstanding me, sophocles07. I'm saying that when we accept the truth of what the Bible says, at least so far as it's account of creation, and we do our experimentations and explorations in science to examine how God created nature, we find that science is possible with the assumptions of there being a Creator. We don't prove the Bible by "doing science"; rather, we find that the results of our science are inline with what the Bible has already declared about God's universe. In other words, the Bible is not made true by scientific discovery; science advances only when we assume what God has declared about His universe, namely, the uniformity of nature. This is one of the main ways how God governs the natural world, and without that principle or assumption, scientific induction would not be possible in testing hypotheses in science.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> You're still misunderstanding me, sophocles07. I'm saying that when we accept the truth of what the Bible says, at least so far as it's account of creation, and we do our experimentations and explorations in science to examine how God created nature, we find that science is possible with the assumptions of there being a Creator. We don't prove the Bible by "doing science"; rather, we find that the results of our science are inline with what the Bible has already declared about God's universe. In other words, the Bible is not made true by scientific discovery; science advances only when we assume what God has declared about His universe, namely, the uniformity of nature. This is one of the main ways how God governs the natural world, and without that principle or assumption, scientific induction would not be possible in testing hypotheses in science.


Wrong again.  Science is working just fine without the existence of God.  Just as science works fine with there needing to be unicorns, pokemon, hobbits, and other myths.

----------


## sophocles07

> You're still misunderstanding me, sophocles07. I'm saying that when we accept the truth of what the Bible says, at least so far as it's account of creation, and we do our experimentations and explorations in science to examine how God created nature, we find that science is possible with the assumptions of there being a Creator. We don't prove the Bible by "doing science"; rather, we find that the results of our science are inline with what the Bible has already declared about God's universe. In other words, the Bible is not made true by scientific discovery; science advances only when we assume what God has declared about His universe, namely, the uniformity of nature. This is one of the main ways how God governs the natural world, and without that principle or assumption, scientific induction would not be possible in testing hypotheses in science.


Do you think the world is 6,000 years old?

It seems like the addition of God to the classroom has no effect on the practice itself.  You’re pushing a philosophical/mythical viewpoint into a situation that doesn’t need it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Church of Evolution* 
April 1, 2008, 5:24 pm 

Worshiping at the feet of naturalism.

If evolution is defined broadly enough there’s little doubt it occurred, and no one really argues it’s existence.  But with evolution we’re not simply talking about a variety of beetles or the length of beaks on finches. There’s is a great deal more to the Design/Evolution debate than meets the carefully cultivated caricature of the creationist. (How’s that for unintentional alliteration?)

If evolution simply means - “evolution of a sort has been known to occur (i.e. finch beaks, and pepper moths) and that natural selection has an observable effect upon the distribution of characteristics within a population” then there’s nothing to dispute or argue.  We can easily distinguish “macro” and “micro” “evolution”, and they should be distinguished, in fact the word evolution should be reserve specifically for changes of the micro-variety and another words should be coined to described mutations of the macro sort.  Calling them both “evolution” makes it seem like the vast chasm between these ideas is much smaller than it really is.The distinguishing claim of evolution as it’s popularly understood is that not just limited to observable changes occur in within a species but that we can extrapolate from that to a theory of how moths, trees and finches came into existence at all.

The problem then is that we should reasonably expect the evidence to support these assumptions clearly, even overwhelmingly. And it should be clearly demonstrated in experiments and fossil records.

Science cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection. In fact the fossil record is so grossly unhelpful that all the major steps in the process must be assumed to have occurred within it’s gaps.

*Evolution is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extrodinary evidence.*

I have no problem with theory - but I do take issue with dogma disguised as rational science. Thus we have to separate science from philosophical naturalism.

When serious challenges are leveled at the feet of orthodox evolution a wink and a “cough” aren’t enough to dismiss it.

Irreducibly complex organisms, huge holes in the fossil record and a failure to demonstrate random mutation in the creation of complex life are serious and potentially lethal challenges.
The only way they are currently dismissed is through a dogmatic and, dare I say, occasionally rabid adherence to the religion that worships at the feet of naturalism. It’s fine to believe these things but it’s not OK to say they are more than a belief system.

Let me sum up by saying that none of this by itself means that one must assume that life is the result of intelligence. We just have to be open to the idea that maybe the theory is not as open and shut as we’d like people to believe.

There was a time when organized religion was the system of thought that could nudge it’s buddies and laugh at “crazy old Galileo” but I think it’s demonstratable that to a similar degree philosophical naturalism disguised as evolution has taken it’s place and know is nudging and laughing at serious questions that are lodged against it’s beliefs. The challenges aren’t so ridiculous (nor have they been adequately answered) that naturalism can continue to get away with such a flippant dismissal without raising questions of it’s own validity.

http://mootpoints.wordpress.com/2008...-of-evolution/

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Church of Evolution*
Home page | Make a donation | Contact us

Welcome to a place where people believe in evolution.

To have a clearer understanding of our origins requires a little faith.

Understanding the development of human intelligence in evolutionary terms is not difficult. Adaptation of a survival skill is a familiar concept to most of us.

The most important human adaptation is of course language.

We have a language of words, we can internalize these words into thoughts, thoughts allows us to plan ahead, and foresee possible out comes. 
This gives us a huge advantage. 

The adaptation that set us on the road to language was symbolism. Not the symbolism of art, psychology or religion, but the simplest symbolism, of giving a sound a meaning. 
Most animal species use symbolism in the form of warning cries and mating calls, vocalizations with symbolic meaning.

Our species took it a step further, we expanded on our repertoire. 

We do not learn language because we are smart, we learn it as children because there are neurological structures, that we have evolved over millions of years, that are ready to be imprinted as we grow up. It is love and nurturing of families that let us survive, language has only served to strengthen this bond. Unfortunately, these same bonds allow us to be manipulated with language, by anyone placing themselves in authoritative positions.

The words that run through our minds, are symbolic representations of the world, creating a veil between ourselves and reality, that is why it is healthy for us to meditate.

© Copyright 2005 Church of Evolution. All Rights Reserved

http://churchofevolution.org/index.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

Church of Evolution 

HOW TO USE THE EVOLUTION BIBLE:  In Contemporary Civilization it is impossible to be a complete Evolutionary being. However, this Bible should guide your every move. This is what you are.

CHURCH OF EVOLUTION

The Bible of Evolution addresses the problems associated with contemporary religions and government.  If read thoroughly you will conclude that civilization itself is not man. 

 Civilization does not address the needs of evolved man.  The destruction of civilization seems out of the question.  However, adapting civilization to the evolved man is possible, if even in a small way.  Many, many philosophers have seen this great gap between man and civilization.  However, their works are generally concealed from the public media such as educational institutions.

Flight of the Butterfly:  A butterfly is beautiful. But the algorithm that makes the butterfly is more beautiful. The flight of the butterfly is beautiful. But the algorithm that makes the butterfly fly is more beautiful. When people of the earth realize this, then they will know this is God, and they will be beautiful. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible of Evolution written by Jack Bowman mailto:dapoets@bright.net              CONTENTS:

CHAPTER 1 Man with and without sin. "1.  In the beginning was man."

CHAPTER 2 The birth and growth of civilization.  "2. Man was born without sin and will always be born without sin"

CHAPTER 3 Owning Property. "1.  Natural man does not own property"

CHAPTER 4 Judicial systems. Judgment and punishment.  "7.  The only punishment is ostracizing from the group."

CHAPTER 5 The creation of religion and the enslavement of government. "6.  The creation of false enemies led to the death of many innocent fellow men.  This was all so the government could keep its power over the common man."

CHAPTER 6 The Evolutionist Prayer. "1.  Give up, Give up, Give up the worship of the man made gods."

CHAPTER 7 Songs.  "1-1  I know the hunter. The hunter who?  The hunter that's inside of you."

CHAPTER 8 Prophets and Holy men.  "2.  Holy men are those that practice the word of the Church of Evolution."

CHAPTER 9 Men and Women.  "4.  To preserve the genetic code women should not participate in combat."

CHAPTER 10 Birth.  "1.  Man evolved to live 38 years."

CHAPTER 11 Disease and Famine.  "4.  Abstract groups are governments.  These are when natural man lives in sin."

CHAPTER 12 Death. "1.  Death is a positive attribute of an evolving species."

CHAPTER 13 The spirit or soul of man.  "1.  The spirit or soul of man is in all things."

JOIN OUR YAHOO DISCUSSION GROUP http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionbible 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible was written as a piece of Philosophy. However it was made into the form of a Performance Art Piece. In this manner there is an opportunity for much wider distribution. 
Rituals of Evolution 
The following "Rituals" were performed from 1993 to 2007 by the performance art group "Rituals of Religions yet to be"
The ones listed have script and illustrations with some short real media clips.  These can be performed as a Ritual of Evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ritual of Millennium's End" Emphasizes the difference between Civilized Man and Natural Man;  http://www.retropunkx.com/ritual.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Super Code" is the Evolution math formula.  This performance shows that no matter what we do the Math formula will bring the "Super Code" back;  http://members.tripod.com/~jackbowma...ode/index.html 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack's Theorem" shows that we create math.  It shows that it is not the absolute that we are conditioned to believe it is;  http://www.performanceart2.com/theorem/index.html 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Dark Time" shows that we created the calendar.  Early calendars did not have January and February.  This was known as the Dark Time;  http://www.performanceart2.com/dark/darktime.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Retro Punk X" has links to contemporary religion as well as "The Evolution Bible";  http://www.retropunkx.com/
Sermons 
The following sermons emphasize a part of the BIBLE OF EVOLUTION.  The take sermons away from contemporary religions and emphasize the human aspect of existence.  Each are about three minutes long and will soon be put on a Real Media audio/visual file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHER SPECIES;  dispels the myth of contemporary religion that we are something special.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVILS OF CAPITALISM;  This sermon tells how capitalism destroys the primal man as a species. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WORD;  Shows how words are used to suppress the primal man and his natural wants and needs.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES DIVERSITY;  How creative individuals are persecuted in contemporary society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Envirommental Theater
For ten points that define Environmental Theater:  http://www.retropunkx.com/environmental.htm 
As an environmental theater piece “Evolution Bible” is treated as real.  Performers will distribute flyers and discuss the Evolution Bible with friends.  All participants should join the yahoo group for exchange of information and discussion.  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionbible
http://www.capjacks.com/bible/

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Church of Evolution Still Clings to Faith*

by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · No Comments
(2003-05-08) — The International Church of Evolution, well into its second century of existence, clings tenaciously to the faith upon which it was founded. This deep trust by believers in the central tenets of the faith has earned the admiration of other religious leaders worldwide.

The belief system was fortified this week with the announcement that the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences would publish a paper claiming that all 30 species of army ants worldwide have the same DNA. Entomologist Sean Brady concludes that all the ants originated from the same point and they haven’t changed in 100 million years.

CNN’s account of the findings places them solidly within the context of the theory of evolution, even though the ants have failed to evolve over eons, and they have somehow appeared all over the earth, despite their lack of wings. 

A CNN editor said it’s amazing how every story about animal life reinforces the theory of evolution. Asked how this story specifically did that, the editor, a faithful believer himself, echoed the liturgy from the International Church of Evolution: “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith…”

An unnamed Christian preacher who read the story said he found such faith inspiring.

“This thing about the ants, and dozens of other findings in the past several years, ought to shatter the doctrine of the Church of Evolution,” he said. “But instead, it strengthens their commitment to the idea. I don’t want to use a crass analogy, but for Christians it would be like a headline that said ‘Archeologists Discover the Body of Jesus’…as if the resurrection never happened. Now that would rock our church, but these Evolution believers….they’re firm in their faith.”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=632

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Unusual Churches*

Unusual Churches is about believing in a universal force that helps to guide us in our everyday lives. Many people choose to seek it in many different ways. How we choose to find it is up to the individual. Unusual Churches is also about the weird, wacky and funny churches one can find on the internet.

Saturday, March 29, 2008
*The First Church of Evolution.*

The First Church of Evolution recognizes the writings of Charles Darwin as sacred among those who believe they have descended from ape like creatures. The Church believes it is their responsibility to fabricate transitional fossils or make fakes like Lucy.

*The First Church of Evolution http://www.fcefaith.org/*

http://unusualchurches.blogspot.com/...evolution.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Church of Darwin*
Phillip E. Johnson 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip E. Johnson is Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and author, most recently, of Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (InterVarsity Press). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

That point was illustrated last week by the media firestorm that followed the Kansas Board of Education's vote to omit macro-evolution from the list of science topics which all students are expected to master. Frantic scientists and educators warned that Kansas students would no longer be able to succeed in college or graduate school, and that the future of science itself was in danger. The New York Times called for a vigorous counteroffensive, and the lawyers prepared their lawsuits. Obviously, the cognitive elites are worried about something a lot more important to themselves than the career prospects of Kansas high school graduates.

Two Definitions

The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence?

All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for those who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Stephen Jay Gould condescendingly offers to allow religious people to express their subjective opinions about morals, provided they don't interfere with the authority of scientists to determine the "facts"—one of the facts being that God is merely a comforting myth.

There are a lot of potential dissenters. Sagan deplored the fact that "only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved from more ancient beings with no divine intervention along the way." To keep the other 91% quiet, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences periodically issue statements about public school teaching which contain vague reassurances that "religion and science are separate realms," or that evolutionary science is consistent with unspecified "religious beliefs."

What these statements mean is that the realms are separate because science discovers facts and religion indulges fantasy. The acceptable religious beliefs they have in mind are of the naturalistic kind that do not include a supernatural creator who might interfere with evolution or try to direct it. A great many of the people who do believe in such a creator have figured this out, and in consequence the reassurances merely insult their intelligence.

So one reason the science educators panic at the first sign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are teaching. An even more compelling reason for keeping the lid on public discussion is that the official neo-Darwinian theory is having serious trouble with the evidence. This is covered over with the vague claim that all scientists agree that "evolution has occurred." Since the Darwinists sometimes define evolution merely as "change," and lump minor variation with the whole creation story as "evolution," a few trivial examples like dog-breeding or fruit fly variation allow them to claim proof for the whole system. The really important claim of the theory—that the Darwinian mechanism does away with the need to presuppose a creator—is protected by a semantic defense-in-depth.

Here's just one example of how real science is replaced by flim-flam. The standard textbook example of natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years. In 1977 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained. A few years later there was a flood, and after that the beak size went back to normal. Nothing new had appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind. Nonetheless, that is the most impressive example of natural selection at work that the Darwinists have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching.

To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 booklet on "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science." This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a "new species of finch" might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely. When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.

If the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But skepticism of that kind might spread and threaten the whole system of naturalistic belief. Why is the fossil record overall so difficult to reconcile with the steady process of gradual transformation predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory? How would the theory fare if we did not assume at the start that nature had to do its own creating, so a naturalistic creation mechanism simply has to exist regardless of the evidence? These are the kinds of questions the Darwinists don't want to encourage students to ask.

Kansas Protest

This doesn't mean that students in Kansas or elsewhere shouldn't be taught about evolution. In context, the Kansas action was a protest against enshrining a particular worldview as a scientific fact and against making "evolution" an exception to the usual American tradition that the people have a right to disagree with the experts. Take evolution away from the worldview promoters and return it to the real scientific investigators, and a chronic social conflict will become an exciting intellectual adventure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal © 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Monday, August 16, 1999

http://www.origins.org/articles/john...hofdarwin.html

----------


## constituent



----------


## constituent



----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why are you still under the impression that science only requires intuition?


Just for conversational purposes, of course. 

FYI .....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition

*Intuition and Science* 
http://www.questia.com/library/book/...ario-bunge.jsp

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Intuition from Instinct* 

This evolution of intuition has its seed in ancestral instincts for survival and adaptation.  For our ancestor's survival, there was no time for thinking or conscious and laborious logic.  Their responses had to be instantaneous.  The sound of movement in the brush caused an immediate reaction.  Those who failed to respond were removed from the gene pool by voracious predators.  Therefore these original instincts, now distilled as intuition, had to be based on a rapid-access fast track system separate from conscious thought, and unencumbered by hesitation and doubt. 

Think about this time, before speech was born some quarter of a million years ago. There was little likelihood for full, alert awareness.  Besides hunting, gathering, and preparing food, they enjoyed satiety and sleep on the one hand, and apprehension on the other.  They must have lived in a sort of twilight, dreamy state.  What we now call myths and figures of speech (like metaphors) were realities.  And instinctual, now called intuitive, reasoning was their only daily intelligence.

After speech was developed, allowing oral and written tradition and eventually the transfer of information, the mind sharpened into the cone of consciousness, and fantasy separated from reality.  And techno-intelligence, stimulated by the evolution of the human eye, the prehensile hand, and the rapid growth of the ten billion-celled new brain (the neocortex), began to bend the environment to suit Man.  Thus logical, speech-promoted intelligence took over at the expense of instinct. 

**** sapiens did this adaptive jumping by compelling the environment to adapt to it, rather than adapting itself to the environment.  The inventive and creative aspect of techno-intelligence had to be built on the experiential basis of those instincts.  Hence, there is a parallel system for the slower-than-survival-oriented emergence of intuition.  This kind of slow-track intuition accounts for human success in science and technology as much as in the arts and, indeed, all human endeavors.

Yet the largest function of intuition necessarily rests with social intelligence rather than techno-intelligence, because humans are far more variable and their actions are far less scientifically predictable than the world of things.  To wit, it took less intelligence to land a man on the moon than it does to resolve the conflict of a married couple. 

Once the conscious, new brain evolved, with its two cerebral hemispheres joined by connective nerve fibers (corpus callosum), the mind had to protect its cone of consciousness—its precious, concentrated thinking—by thinking about a thing at a time.  The mind thus evolved barriers, dams or censors to protect that pinpoint of clear, alert reasoning from invasion by items stored in the brain's memory banks.  These barriers become porous while dreaming, and defective in psychopathics, schizophrenics, and during collapse to senility. 

Beyond the admittedly sketchy explanation above, I suggest two indirect evidences that intuition evolved from instinct.  The first comes from language.  Despite the fact that many people have little respect for the concept of intuition (in these days of over-reasoning), all of us, including myself, still refer to it as instinct: "I have a good instinct for this," or "It was an instinctive reaction."

The second evidence comes from prehistory.  There could hardly have been much conscious thinking before speech evolved some 250,000 years ago.  Yet Pith's (Pithecanthropus erectus) ancestry goes back some 4.5 million years.  He could not possibly have survived his predators or such natural threats as ice ages without intuitive decisions—such as where to make fire, when to store meat, or when to move to the highlands for the summer. 
Even today, in daily life, most humans don't exhibit well-reasoned thoughts, let alone much originality.  What do they rely on?  Customs, traditions and intuition.  Most people today don't think at all.  They're too busy being hungry.  Nor are they well enough informed or trained for logical, deductive reasoning.  Their work and their daily lives are set by habit and their upbringing and culture. 

At best the good things they are doing are dictated in the long run by gut feeling and judgment (intuitive) calls about right and wrong.  They answer the burning questions of "why?" by inductive, hence intuitive, faith.  In the short run of mere survival, only intuition saves them from accidents, foolish risks, disease and emergency decisions in the social crises of marriage, childraising, and personal disputes.

The Secret of Success 

Is intuition the secret of research success?  Ask any Nobel Prize winner (I asked four) or any great inventor: "To what capacity do you owe your success?"  The more self-assured, the more honest the respondent, the more success will attributed to intuition.

Intuition operates with increasing accuracy only after a longish period of experience built on inner-derived constructive observation and married to outer-derived knowledge.  This then becomes the area of expertise in which the skills of intuition operate with more familiarity, certainty, and confidence than in hit-and-miss, trial and error areas.

Burgeoning areas of expertise produce guestimates and coincidence.  Hence the sudden emergence of the Aha! or Eureka!—the feeling of certitude which heralds a valid intuition. 
Ignorance at best produces lucky strikes, not the continual success of well-trained and well-applied intuition. 

Whoever today neglects intuition does so at the peril of failure, especially in the hard-boiled realm of research and development.  The reason is that in every research project, intuition is crucial at the beginning (the hunch), in the middle (the choice of optimal method), and in the end (application).  As for a "thing" (an industrial product) coming into the hands of people, its marketing and selling can hardly be done without the nose, the Midas touch, the gut feeling—intuition.  Ask any successful industrial leader! 

 1-50  51-100  101-150  151-200  201-250  251-300
301-350  351-400  401-450  451-500 501-550  551-600
601-650

 ©2006 Winston J. Brill & Associates. All rights reserved.

http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/...le26_body.html

----------


## Theocrat

> Wrong again.  Science is working just fine without the existence of God.  Just as science works fine with there needing to be unicorns, pokemon, hobbits, and other myths.


When a non-believing scientist performs scientific inquiry and discovery, he is making assumptions about the universe that one would expect a Christian theist to make in order to have successful results in his work. Otherwise, he would have to adopt his own assumptions that the universe is random and changes in non-living matter and living organisms are sporadic, but then that would undermine the uniformity of nature, which makes induction in the scientific method possible. How could he know in "Science Experiment #2" that the results would be the same as in "Science Experiment #1?" He has to assume that nature has not changed (evolved) in the time interval between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, so that he will expect reproducibility of his scientific experiments. He has to continue to do this in "Science Experiment #3," "Science Experiment #4," and so on until he comes to a point where he can justify from the continued reproducibility of his research that he's discovered a law. But in so doing, he's only preceding on the expectation that the future is going to be like the past, which is acting on faith.

In short, an anti-theistic scientist must pretend to be a Christian theist so that he can account for regularity in nature which has to be assumed in order to make sense of all the design and order in the universe. As I've said before, when the non-believing scientist does this, he only shows that in his "heart of hearts" he is a theist, all the while denying the Source of those beliefs, suppressing the truth in the depravity of his own mind.

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat answer my question a page back.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Do you think the world is 6,000 years old?


Just for your edification.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

----------


## Theocrat

> Do you think the world is 6,000 years old?
> 
> It seems like the addition of God to the classroom has no effect on the practice itself.  Youre pushing a philosophical/mythical viewpoint into a situation that doesnt need it.


Yes, I believe the world is 6,000 years old based on the genealogies given from the Bible.

You have to understand that there is a correlation between teaching creationism or evolution and school violence. If all man is is an animal, then it makes sense why so many schools would be like zoos today, with kids wanting to kill each other, teachers being shot and stabbed, etc. I think evolution is a contributing factor to the failure of discipline and order of our public schools. When we took down the Ten Commandments, we then had to put up metal detectors shortly thereafter.

----------


## sophocles07

> Yes, I believe the world is 6,000 years old based on the genealogies given from the Bible.


Alright, well--somebody show this guy to a straightjacket--




> You have to understand that there is a correlation between teaching creationism or evolution and school violence. If all man is is an animal, then it makes sense why so many schools would be like zoos today, with kids wanting to kill each other, teachers being shot and stabbed, etc. I think evolution is a contributing factor to the failure of discipline and order of our public schools. When we took down the Ten Commandments, we then had to put up metal detectors shortly thereafter.


You are a $#@!ing moron.

----------


## Theocrat

> Alright, well--somebody show this guy to a straightjacket--
> 
> 
> 
> You are a $#@!ing moron.


As always, when you can't deal with an argument, you must attack personally. Your irrationality and immaturity truly knows no bounds.

----------


## DrYongrel

> Yes, I believe the world is 6,000 years old based on the genealogies given from the Bible.
> 
> You have to understand that there is a correlation between teaching creationism or evolution and school violence. If all man is is an animal, then it makes sense why so many schools would be like zoos today, with kids wanting to kill each other, teachers being shot and stabbed, etc. I think evolution is a contributing factor to the failure of discipline and order of our public schools. When we took down the Ten Commandments, we then had to put up metal detectors shortly thereafter.


Okay, I've made up my mind.

You are definitely a parody account set up by an antichristian with way too much free time.

----------


## sophocles07

You don't argue.  What you presented isn't an argument.  You insist something.  Then you say we aren't animals (which means in Latin, 'living creature' by the way), and say evolution--because it "points out" we are animals--causes classroom violence.

You aren't arguing.  I'm not sure you're not a ferret with an overdeveloped brain.

----------


## Dr.3D

And why would anybody think the world is older than 6000 years?
Is it because they *assume* carbon dating should be linear?

----------


## Theocrat

> You don't argue.  What you presented isn't an argument.  You insist something.  Then you say we aren't animals (which means in Latin, 'living creature' by the way), and say evolution--because it "points out" we are animals--causes classroom violence.
> 
> You aren't arguing.  I'm not sure you're not a ferret with an overdeveloped brain.


An argument consists of propositions, and that's what I present. Usually, the opponent tries to refute the premises of the argument with facts in order to show the logical or factual inconsistencies of the argument. You, on the other hand, have never done that. All I hear from you is "You're a $#@!ing idiot," or "You suck," or other insults of a sophomoric nature. That's not how you change people's minds, and it's not how you win arguments or debates. If you tried that in a court of law, you'd be fired from your practice instantaneously after losing your case.

The Bible makes a distinction between animals and humans, not Latin. Evolution teaches that we're nothing but animals, and I find that thinking to be delirious and offensive. Of course, if man is an animal, then there goes morality, absolute truth, and logic right out the window, because all you're left with is just animal instincts. If you want to believe that you come from a monkey, then have your banana and go sleep in your cage, but don't sling your $#@! over at those of us who have the common sense and dignity to know that we are much better than mere animals. We were made in God's image, and that is true whether you like it or not, believe it or not, feel it or not.

----------


## amy31416

So, does this also mean that the age of the universe is 6,000 years as well in your world?

----------


## Theocrat

> So, does this also mean that the age of the universe is 6,000 years as well in your world?


It's not a subjective reality, so stop framing the discussion that way. Science has affirmed that the universe is young, and this is exactly what the Bible has stated from the beginning, roughly 6,000 years of human history.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> It's not a subjective reality, so stop framing the discussion that way. Science has affirmed that the universe is young, and this is exactly what the Bible has stated from the beginning, roughly 6,000 years of human history.


No it's billions of years old. Let me guess you will explain that away as the devil is controlling how the scientists come up with their figures.

----------


## amy31416

> It's not a subjective reality, so stop framing the discussion that way. Science has affirmed that the universe is young, and this is exactly what the Bible has stated from the beginning, roughly 6,000 years of human history.


Nuh uh.

(Just trying to stay on the same technical level here.)

----------


## sophocles07

> And why would anybody think the world is older than 6000 years?
> Is it because they assume carbon dating should be linear?


*swats fly away*




> An argument consists of propositions, and that's what I present. Usually, the opponent tries to refute the premises of the argument with facts in order to show the logical or factual inconsistencies of the argument. You, on the other hand, have never done that. All I hear from you is "You're a $#@!ing idiot," or "You suck," or other insults of a sophomoric nature. That's not how you change people's minds, and it's not how you win arguments or debates. If you tried that in a court of law, you'd be fired from your practice instantaneously after losing your case.


You’re a $#@!ing idiot.




> The Bible makes a distinction between animals and humans, not Latin.


The word “animal” is a Latin word.  Humans match up DNA wise almost exactly with chimpanzees.  (I think the human genome said something like 98%.)  Those who wrote the Bible had no idea what DNA was, anything about genetics, did not investigate the subject, etc.  They are not an authority.  Most ancient writers distinguished humans from animals; it’s a false distinction.  




> Evolution teaches that we're nothing but animals, and I find that thinking to be delirious and offensive.


Why?  What’s your problem with animals?  Self-hating --




> Of course, if man is an animal, then there goes morality, absolute truth, and logic right out the window, because all you're left with is just animal instincts.


Yes, if you’re a $#@!ing—as you are—moron.

Everyone else?  We can get along just fine realizing we are animals with a developed sense of morality.




> If you want to believe that you come from a monkey, then have your banana and go sleep in your cage, but don't sling your $#@! over at those of us who have the common sense and dignity to know that we are much better than mere animals.


Monkey?  Who said that?




> We were made in God's image, and that is true whether you like it or not, believe it or not, feel it or not.


So God looks like humans?  Isn’t he one prize pig.




> It's not a subjective reality, so stop framing the discussion that way. Science has affirmed that the universe is young, and this is exactly what the Bible has stated from the beginning, roughly 6,000 years of human history.


What science?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> It's not a subjective reality, so stop framing the discussion that way. Science has affirmed that the universe is young, and this is exactly what the Bible has stated from the beginning, roughly 6,000 years of human history.



The Andromeda Galaxy (IPA: /ænˈdrɒmədə/, also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224; often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts) is a spiral galaxy _approximately 2.5 million light-years away[4]_

A light year is the distance light traverses in a year. The light we are seeing from Andromeda is 2.5 million years old. 

If you say that it's not so. Than I'm afraid your problem is not evolution, but science as a whole. As with most creationists deep down to their core they are anti-science. You reject radio dating (Physics). You reject evolution and genetics (Biology). You reject geology. You reject paleontology. What field of science have you not rejected? 

A quote from Ben Stein to drive the point home. 

*"Stein:* When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed  that was horrifying beyond words, and thats where science  in my opinion, this is just an opinion  thats where science leads you."

----------


## sophocles07

Everyone wait while Theocrat searches for a Falwell page 'discrediting' the idea of the Andromeda galaxy.

Gonna be goooood

----------


## yongrel



----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> 


Thats all that matters.  Any other information is just a novelty.

Jesus Christ, Intelligent Design makes things so much easier.

----------


## Theocrat

> 


Scientifically prove that love exists.

----------


## amy31416

> 


Ya know what's neat? The first source of phosphorus was urine. Alchemists collected urine and evaporated it in order to gain stores of it to use for various weird purposes. Imagine the smell in that lab--yecch.

It glows in the dark and makes purty colors when you burn it too.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

> Scientifically prove that love exists.


1st you have to define what love is. Can you do that?

----------


## Theocrat

> 1st you have to define what love is. Can you do that?


Unconditional devotion and self-sacrificing admiration for another in one's thoughts, speech, and actions. Now, *scientifically* prove it for me, if you can...

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Unconditional devotion and self-sacrificing admiration for another in one's thoughts, speech, and actions. Now, *scientifically* prove it for me, if you can...


First off, you are going to have to accept the fact that the human mind is nothing special.  Its just electrical impulses moving around.

----------


## Dr.3D

> *swats fly away*
> What science?


*buzz buzz*

*This science!*

EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#1
EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#2
EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#3
EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#4

Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_1
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_2
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_3
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_4
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_5
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_6
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_7
Evolution_exposed_-_The_Young_Age_of_the_Earth_Proved_part_8

----------


## sophocles07

The Dr. is no Dr.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> *buzz buzz*
> 
> *This science!*
> 
> EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#1
> EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#2
> EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#3
> EVOLUTION_AND_DAWKINS_SMASHED_TO_PIECES_WITH_PROOF  _OF_GOD_#4
> 
> ...



If I posted videos of Sean Hannity saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom, would that prove Ron Paul wrong on foreign policy?

You dont reach a truth by thinking whatever the hell you want.  You reach a truth by looking at what the evidence supports.

----------


## Dr.3D

> If I posted videos of Sean Hannity saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom, would that prove Ron Paul wrong on foreign policy?
> 
> You dont reach a truth by thinking whatever the hell you want.  You reach a truth by looking at what the evidence supports.


Obviously you didn't watch the videos or you would have seen the scientific evidence.  The man is a geologist with valid data.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The Dr. is no Dr.


You seem to be particularly hung up on my title.  You may call me Mr.3D if it makes you feel more comfortable.   As for your screen name, judging from some of his writings, perhaps Sophocles had an Oedipus complex. (pun intended)

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Obviously you didn't watch the videos or you would have seen the scientific evidence.  The man is a geologist with valid data.


He has no formal training in geology. 

"As the creation/evolution debate continues, there has been an increasing sophistication of certain Creationist arguments and publications. It can be an especially difficult challenge when the Creationist author has professional credentials and has published in mainstream scientific journals. _One such individual is Robert Gentry, who holds a Master's degree in Physics (and an honorary doctorate from the fundamentalist Columbia Union College)._ For over thirteen years he held a research associate's position at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory where he was part of a team which investigated ways to immobilize nuclear waste. Gentry has spent most of his professional life studying the nature of very small discoloration features in mica and other minerals, and concluded that they are proof of a young Earth."

A full overview of why his conclusion is wrong can be found here: 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html




> Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
>  In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

----------


## sophocles07

> You seem to be particularly hung up on my title. You may call me Mr.3D if it makes you feel more comfortable. As for your screen name, judging from some of his writings, perhaps Sophocles had an Oedipus complex. (pun intended)


I'm not exactly sure what you're intending here.

----------


## Theocrat

> If I posted videos of Sean Hannity saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom, would that prove Ron Paul wrong on foreign policy?
> 
> You dont reach a truth by thinking whatever the hell you want.  You reach a truth by looking at what the evidence supports.


I don't understand you. First you are begging us creationists to provide evidence for our scientific claims which prove a Designer, but then you just dismiss the evidence because you have a problem with *the medium in which the evidence is presented?* *DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE VIDEOS THAT DR.3D POSTED?!* Of a truth, I think you're just willingly ignorant. You just don't *want* to see the evidence that proves that the universe in designed by a Creator.

No one is asking you to consider the credentials of the *person* doing the research, per se. Rather, we're expecting you to examine and consider the *evidence* presented for their claims (or hypothesis, if you will). Do you see the difference? The former is subjective, while the latter is objective. Can you be *objective* about this controversy between evolution and intelligent design, Mitt Romneys sideburns, and consider the evidence wherever it may lie, whatever direction it points?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I don't understand you. First you are begging us creationists to provide evidence for our scientific claims which prove a Designer, but then you just dismiss the evidence because you have a problem with *the medium in which the evidence is presented?* *DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE VIDEOS THAT DR.3D POSTED?!* Of a truth, I think you're just willingly ignorant. You just don't *want* to see the evidence that proves that the universe in designed by a Creator.
> 
> No one is asking you to consider the credentials of the *person* doing the research, per se. Rather, we're expecting you to examine and consider the *evidence* presented for their claims (or hypothesis, if you will). Do you see the difference? The former is subjective, while the latter is objective. Can you be *objective* about this controversy between evolution and intelligent design, Mitt Romneys sideburns, and consider the evidence wherever it may lie, whatever direction it points?


No we dismiss it because the man in the video makes a flawed argument. 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

----------


## Theocrat

> No we dismiss it because the man in the video makes a flawed argument. 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html


Have you considered these articles?

"Polonium Radiohalos: Still 'A Very Tiny Mystery'""Radiohalos--Significant and Exciting Research Results""Polonium Radiohalos: The Model For Their Formation Tested and Verified"

By the way, the only reason why that website considered Dr. Gentry's research to be "flawed" is because he doesn't start with *their assumptions* in doing the research. Why should he if he has a better way of explaining polonium radiohalos?

----------


## Truth Warrior

Flaws? Hmm, same reason that I reject the whole macro evolution theory argument.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Flaws? Hmm, same reason that I reject the whole macro evolution theory argument.


Flaws in evolution are a matter of refining and improving.

Flaws in your junk science and bogus articles are a matter of lacking a fundamental understanding of biology.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Flaws in evolution are a matter of refining and improving.
> 
> Flaws in your junk science and bogus articles are a matter of lacking a fundamental understanding of biology.


Patching and back-pedaling is much more like it.

Get a new tune, that one is wearing awfully thin.   Or is your repertoire exhausted?

----------


## yongrel

> Patching and back-pedaling is much more like it.
> 
> Get a new tune, that one is wearing awfully thin.   Or is your repertoire exhausted?


You didn't do well in high school biology, did you?

This thread has become nothing but a strong argument for why schools should ot be public: the government has obviously failed to teach people what is science and what is not.

I will now proceed to  make this thread better.

----------


## sophocles07

Good god the creationists are running wild, scraping for some little thread of "evidence."

Pathetic to watch.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You didn't do well in high school biology, did you?
> 
> This thread has become nothing but a strong argument for why schools should ot be public: the government has obviously failed to teach people what is science and what is not.
> 
> I will now proceed to make this thread better.


Got A's in both private high school biology classes, I and II, BTW.  Way back when government schools were ............... much less bad.  Not that, that's relevant in any way.

----------


## sophocles07

> Got A's in both private high school biology classes, I and II, BTW. Way back when government schools were ............... much less bad. Not that, that's relevant in any way.


That's exactly what I expect a "Truth Warrior" to say.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Have you considered these articles?"Polonium Radiohalos: Still 'A Very Tiny Mystery'""Radiohalos--Significant and Exciting Research Results""Polonium Radiohalos: The Model For Their Formation Tested and Verified"By the way, the only reason why that website considered Dr. Gentry's research to be "flawed" is because he doesn't start with *their assumptions* in doing the research. Why should he if he has a better way of explaining polonium radiohalos?


No, his argument does not hold up to the evidence. You can assume what ever you want about the rate of radioactive decay so your beliefs are not challenged. That does not mean it's true. What is observed? The rate of decay is unchanged. So to suggest that the rate is not static without any observational evidence to back it up is retarded. I would rather take the word of the hundreds of geologists who know what the they are talking about over some physics grad acting as one.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> First off, you are going to have to accept the fact that the human mind is nothing special. Its just electrical impulses moving around.


In your particular individual case, that's a very easy one to accept.  

BTW, if you're right ( unlikely), so are the evolutionist's minds. Why accept anything anyone says about anything?

----------


## sophocles07

> BTW, if you're right ( unlikely), so are the evolutionist's minds. Why accept anything anyone says about anything?


I don't understand what you mean by this.  The obvious answer is that merely because they are electrical impulses does not mean they are meaningless/useless/purposeless/whatever.  This is the presumption of the Jesus freak to a simple statement of fact.  Love as electrical impulses makes it no less real than saying pain involves electrical impulses, or that sadness or anything else is electrical impulses.  Theists are thinking in old-world terms, and very uninventively, about these subjects.  

Ex:

It's an insult, according to a theist, to have 98% same DNA as chimp.

It's an insult, according to a theist, to say emotions are electrical impulses.

It's an insult, according to a theist, to say that the mountain or the lake is naturally created.

What's the deal?  You're thinking in terms of late 1900s science fiction where everything "natural" or "functional" means the machine, pushing out of morality, destruction of honesty or whatever else.  That's absolutely ridiculous.  A descriptive terminology--"electrical impulses," "similar to chimpanzees in DNA"--does not destroy _the nature of what is being described_, except to make it more comprehensible, clearer to human minds.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Of course, you don't understand. No great surprise there.

----------


## sophocles07



----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Expected! 

Bye!

----------


## sophocles07

Jesus you are worth
                       less

----------


## LibertyOfOne

The Intelligent Boyancy theory has more validity.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> The Intelligent Boyancy theory has more validity.


So I notice WW2 era warships are obsolete, and have been replaced by "better" ships.

Whats with all the backpedaling?  Just as the evolutionists keep on "refining" their "theory" and moving the goal post of how many million of year ago things evolved, the Buoyancy theorists keep pulling new ship designs out of their ass.  Man may need to improve his ships to conform with junk "Buoyancy" theory, but you dont see God changing the design of ducks do you?  


If feathers supposedly help birds fly, how do airplanes do it without feathers?  How does "science" deal with that major hole in their theory of bird flight?  There is an intelligent lifter who holds up birds and planes in mid air so they may be closer to the heavens.  Only way it can work.  Fly with feathers, fly without feathers, its a complete scientific contradiction.  The only thing that can fill that hole is God

----------


## Theocrat

> You didn't do well in high school biology, did you?
> 
> This thread has become nothing but a strong argument for why schools should ot be public: the government has obviously failed to teach people what is science and what is not.


You're correct. The public schools have failed in teaching people what is science and what is not. As a student once in public schools, I was brainwashed in Evolution propaganda whenever I studied biology. After I graduated from public schools, I soon learned that everything I had been taught in Biology relating to Evolution was a farce. It was simply a fairy tale dressed up in a lab coat. Since then, I have fallen in love with science, knowing that it all points to God, and quite frankly, I don't need to believe in Evolution to appreciate science. As I've said before, I'm not against science, but I am against lies being taught to people about God's universe. Evolution is the poison mixed in with science, and it's been killing brain cells ever since.

----------


## Theocrat

> First off, you are going to have to accept the fact that the human mind is nothing special.  Its just electrical impulses moving around.


Oh, so is this something you've *observed* empirically, or is it something that you presupposed in advance? Let's follow your claim through. If our brains are nothing but electrical impulses, then how does one make sense of right and wrong? If one person thinks it's right to rape 8-year old girls because the electrical impulses in his brain tell him it's okay, then how can another person with different electrical impulses in his brain tell the other he's wrong? For all intents and purposes, perhaps what Hitler did to millions of Jews was good because it made sense by the electrical impulses in his brain to murder what those impulses interpreted to him as being an inferior race. As a matter of fact, how can we then have free will if our brains are just subject to random electrical impulses? It wouldn't make sense then for people to be punished for a crime if they were only doing what their electrical impulses made them do. As a matter of fact, what is crime, if our brains are just electrical impulses? Who decides which electrical impulse is the best impulse to judge crime by? With all due respect, do you see how *foolish* and *dangerous* your premise is that our brains are nothing special but just electrical impulses? Was your post I've quoted above just a result of electrical impulses in your brain?

----------


## Dr.3D

> The Andromeda Galaxy (IPA: /ænˈdrɒmədə/, also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224; often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts) is a spiral galaxy _approximately 2.5 million light-years away[4]_
> 
> A light year is the distance light traverses in a year. The light we are seeing from Andromeda is 2.5 million years old. 
> 
> If you say that it's not so. Than I'm afraid your problem is not evolution, but science as a whole. As with most creationists deep down to their core they are anti-science. You reject radio dating (Physics). You reject evolution and genetics (Biology). You reject geology. You reject paleontology. What field of science have you not rejected?


There is evidence, Planks constant H is increasing with time.
There is evidence the speed of light is slowing with time.

Either the speed of light is slowing or time is speeding up.
This would account for the quantile red shift observed in the universe.

There is evidence the light being seen from the Andromeda Galaxy is not 2.5 million years old but much, much younger.

It is not that we reject science but that science is rejecting scientific evidence.

The following video illustrates this scientific evidence and how science is rejecting it.
It may be too complex for some to understand but I'll leave it to you to see if you can understand it.


SCIENCE_OF_LIGHT_SPEED_AND_THE_UNIVERSE_PART_1
SCIENCE_OF_LIGHT_SPEED_AND_THE_UNIVERSE_PART_2
SCIENCE_OF_LIGHT_SPEED_AND_THE_UNIVERSE_PART_3
SCIENCE_OF_LIGHT_SPEED_AND_THE_UNIVERSE_PART_4
SCIENCE_OF_LIGHT_SPEED_AND_THE_UNIVERSE_PART_5
SCIENCE_OF_LIGHT_SPEED_AND_THE_UNIVERSE_PART_6

----------


## N13

Intelligent design = Inadequate explanation

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> There is evidence, Planks constant H is increasing with time.
> There is evidence the speed of light is slowing with time.
> 
> Either the speed of light is slowing or time is speeding up.
> This would account for the quantile red shift observed in the universe.
> 
> There is evidence the light being seen from the Andromeda Galaxy is not 2.5 million years old but much, much younger.
> 
> It is not that we reject science but that science is rejecting scientific evidence.
> ...


Already been debunked.  

1.  Proven that Setterfield cherry picked data to fit the curve he wanted.  Excluded studies that didnt fit with his idea.  Even from the studies he chose, he deliberately left out data points.

2.  Setterfield claims that we recently reached a "cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change", which is how he explained why new data shows a constant speed of light.  

4.  Answers in Genesis does not accept this hypothesis.  Institute for Creation Research does not accept this hypothesis.


-- _"From these observations it would seem that beyond 1960 the speed of light had reached its minimum value and was constant thereafter,"_

*WTF?
*

_
"This r2 is the 'Co-efficient of Determination' which tells how accurately the proposed curve fits the data. If the fit is perfect the value of r2 is 1.000000000,"

"All told, 17 values were above the curve and 21 below, the r2 value indicating a perfectly balanced distribution of the cluster of points as well as close proximity to the curve."_


*Do you see the problem here?*

_
"The DEC 10 computer at Flinders University decided that the published curve had an r2 value of 1.000 to nine significant figures. I am therefore satisfied that the postulated curve fits the observed data beyond any doubt."_


*Not only is this value wrong, since when did computers decide things?*

----------


## Theocrat

> Already been debunked.  
> 
> 1.  Proven that Setterfield cherry picked data to fit the curve he wanted.  Excluded studies that didnt fit with his idea.  Even from the studies he chose, he deliberately left out data points.


I don't know if that's really true or not, but if it is, then he is acting no different than those scientists who exclude the studies contrary to their own assumptions about the universe. For example, scientists who accept the theory that the earth is millions of years old will refrain from using radiometric dating on fossils because they already assume that the fossils in the so-called "geological record" are millions of years old, dating them by the rock layers in which they are found. They know that using radiometric dating methods on fossils will only give them a few thousands of years instead of the millions of years they are looking for, so they exclude fossils from those dating methods.




> 2.  Setterfield claims that we recently reached a "cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change", which is how he explained why new data shows a constant speed of light.


In which of the videos posted did he say this because I don't remember him saying it?




> 4.  Answers in Genesis does not accept this hypothesis.  Institute for Creation Research does not accept this hypothesis.


Can you show me where they rejected his research, please?

By the way, "3" comes after "2," not "4." I hope you don't think our numbering system has now evolved.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Intelligent design = Inadequate explanation


macro evolution = Inadequate explanations and evidence of *realities* of speciation and life.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Already been debunked.  
> 
> 1.  Proven that Setterfield cherry picked data to fit the curve he wanted.  Excluded studies that didnt fit with his idea.  Even from the studies he chose, he deliberately left out data points.
> 
> 2.  Setterfield claims that we recently reached a "cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change", which is how he explained why new data shows a constant speed of light.  
> 
> 4.  Answers in Genesis does not accept this hypothesis.  Institute for Creation Research does not accept this hypothesis.
> 
> 
> ...


How do they explain the other 4 anomalies?

1. Decreasing values in the speed of light. The systematic trend in lower speed of light measurements though time.
   100 Km/sec difference from original measurements versus later measurements.
   Video #2 @ 09:40

2. Increasing values in the Planks Constant.

3. Increasing Atomic Masses.

4. Slowing atomic clocks.

5. Quantization of the Redshift.

----------


## amy31416

> There is evidence, Planks constant H is increasing with time.
> There is evidence the speed of light is slowing with time.
> 
> Either the speed of light is slowing or time is speeding up.
> This would account for the quantile red shift observed in the universe.
> 
> There is evidence the light being seen from the Andromeda Galaxy is not 2.5 million years old but much, much younger.
> 
> It is not that we reject science but that science is rejecting scientific evidence.
> ...


I just read up on the *Planck* constant _h_ (6.626x10-23 J*s) and it is essentiall the same now as when I used it in P-chem. It is not increasing, the UK's National Physics Laboratory came up with an improved way to measure it and it increased _minutely_ in about the 44th decimal place. The improved way is called the Watt Balance.

Just read up on the speed of light as well, I saw no credible sources that it is slowing, aside from many scientists who have been intentionally slowing it down, and recently bringing it to a stop in laboratory situations. 

When you say "science" is rejecting it, who, exactly, is "science?"

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I don't know if that's really true or not, but if it is, then he is acting no different than those scientists who exclude the studies contrary to their own assumptions about the universe. For example, scientists who accept the theory that the earth is millions of years old will refrain from using radiometric dating on fossils because they already assume that the fossils in the so-called "geological record" are millions of years old, dating them by the rock layers in which they are found. They know that using radiometric dating methods on fossils will only give them a few thousands of years instead of the millions of years they are looking for, so they exclude fossils from those dating methods.


Scientists already use radiometric data on fossils.  The testing shows them to be millions of years old.






> In which of the videos posted did he say this because I don't remember him saying it?


Its not in the videos, its in the paper Barry Setterfield wrote back in 1981 in which he made all this garbage up.






> Can you show me where they rejected his research, please?


http://www.icr.org/articles/print/283/




> By the way, "3" comes after "2," not "4." I hope you don't think our numbering system has now evolved.


I was moving stuff around, and ended up deleting #3 because it was redundant.  I then forgot to go back and change #4 to #3.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> How do they explain the other 4 anomalies?
> 
> 1. Decreasing values in the speed of light. The systematic trend in lower speed of light measurements though time.
>    100 Km/sec difference from original measurements versus later measurements.
>    Video #2 @ 09:40


Already covered that.  Incorrect manipulation of data/ lack of understanding of how to even use that data




> 2. Increasing values in the Planks Constant.


Made that up to cover for the fatal flaws in his c-decay delusion




> 3. Increasing Atomic Masses.


another made-up notion




> 4. Slowing atomic clocks.


Made this up too to cover for the ridicule he got when he said the speed of light stopped slowing down in 1960.  




> 5. Quantization of the Redshift.


The evidence does not support this.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I just read up on the *Planck* constant _h_ (6.626x10-23 J*s) and it is essentiall the same now as when I used it in P-chem. It is not increasing, the UK's National Physics Laboratory came up with an improved way to measure it and it increased _minutely_ in about the 44th decimal place. The improved way is called the Watt Balance.
> 
> Just read up on the speed of light as well, I saw no credible sources that it is slowing, aside from many scientists who have been intentionally slowing it down, and recently bringing it to a stop in laboratory situations. 
> 
> When you say "science" is rejecting it, who, exactly, is "science?"


Thank you for correcting me with the spelling of Planck.  I really should have checked it before I made a post.  

The evidence I was positing was evidence none the less but had yet to be either proven true or false.   This is the reason I am asking these questions.  I can never learn anything if I don't ask appropriate questions.

There seems to be a struggle going on here between the established norm of science in general versus the newly posited evidence.  As I said, this evidence to me anyway has yet to be verified as truth.   There may be a very good reason the established norm of science is rejecting this evidence.  I ask questions so I may be informed as to how this "evidence" may or may not be valid.

Setterfield said his science was being rejected by main stream science.  This is evidenced in the video.  I am still trying to determine if the posited evidence is valid.

Presently I am reading the information on the following web site to gain a more informed view of this posited evidence.

http://www.setterfield.org/

----------


## Truth Warrior

Gee, has this thread "macro evolved" into a new species? 

Whew! Nope it's still just the same, now old, RPF thread straying ( micro evolved ) random chance mutation wise and now grossly ........ 

*OFF TOPIC*.

Max Planck??? Gimme a break!  No sign nor evidence of any Intelligent thread Design here.

----------


## amy31416

> Thank you for correcting me with the spelling of Planck.  I really should have checked it before I made a post.  
> 
> The evidence I was positing was evidence none the less but had yet to be either proven true or false.   This is the reason I am asking these questions.  I can never learn anything if I don't ask appropriate questions.
> 
> There seems to be a struggle going on here between the established norm of science in general versus the newly posited evidence.  As I said, this evidence to me anyway has yet to be verified as truth.   There may be a very good reason the established norm of science is rejecting this evidence.  I ask questions so I may be informed as to how this "evidence" may or may not be valid.
> 
> Setterfield said his science was being rejected by main stream science.  This is evidenced in the video.  I am still trying to determine if the posited evidence is valid.
> 
> Presently I am reading the information on the following web site to gain a more informed view of this posited evidence.
> ...


The info on Planck caught my eye, because that constant was, and still is, used so frequently in so many equations having to do with quantum mechanics. The only people who use it to so many decimal places have to be doing some really high-level stuff. For computational chemistry and our low-level quantum mechanics calculations, we only ever used it to three decimal places.

So, I thought to myself, I read all kinds of science magazines, online and offline--if Planck's constant is increasing, and the speed of light decreasing, this would be such _huge_ news that it would be all over the journals I read. It would be something that friends would be calling me about going "whoa." I daresay, it would even make an article in the NYT. So, I'm pretty skeptical. 

When I was in college, I worked at a book store and was in charge of the science section, and I'd talk science with all the regular customers about all the latest stuff. And my first introduction to the fact that scientists can be delusional was there--a guy who was a physicist, working in engineering brought me a copy of his "manifesto-like" treatise on the Theory of Everything, gravitation--all kinds of stuff. I took it to my advisor, a physical chemist, who was nice enough to do the math and showed me why it was bunk. He even made one of our classes about this book and other junk science like cold fusion, "free" energy, things like that. (The phrase "Free Energy" actually means something in regards to thermodynamics, it's the energy available to do work, generaly called Gibbs free energy. I was confused the first time I read about it as a perpetual motion machine.)

There is such a huge disconnect between people who have really studied science and the language used to describe a lot of the phenomena. Words like theory are understood completely differently in the realm of science, as well as free energy, work, chaos, laws, truth, and these words can be used to manipulate people who aren't "in the business," so to speak. A lot of junk science capitalizes on such things.

Okay, ending rant now. I've yapped on enough.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Look, its not that science is scared of revolutionary ideas.  Science would love for an established idea to be overturned.  A breakthrough of that magnitude would certainly earn a scientist much praise and funding.

The thing is, most of the time someone thinks they have discovered something revolutionary, they are just completely wrong.  

So while it may appear that science rejects new revolutionary ideas, its just the fact that there is a correlation of revolutionary ideas with wrong ideas.

----------


## amy31416

> Look, its not that science is scared of revolutionary ideas.  Science would love for an established idea to be overturned.  A breakthrough of that magnitude would certainly earn a scientist much praise and funding.
> 
> The thing is, most of the time someone thinks they have discovered something revolutionary, they are just completely wrong.  
> 
> So while it may appear that science rejects new revolutionary ideas, its just the fact that there is a correlation of revolutionary ideas with wrong ideas.


Very true. Here's evidence of this in the medical research area, I posted about this a while back: http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/1...anzius_machine

This could be revolutionary and scientists are open to it and are actively studying and testing it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Gee, has this thread "macro evolved" into a new species? 
> 
> Whew! Nope it's still just the same, now old, RPF thread straying ( micro evolved ) random chance mutation wise and now grossly ........ 
> 
> *OFF TOPIC*.
> 
> Max Planck??? Gimme a break!  No sign nor evidence of any Intelligent thread Design here.


Relax, the thread is still on topic.  The thread is not about evolution but rather about intelligent design.   The universe also falls into this subject and thus one may try to determine if it was created through intelligent design or by some "natural" means.

I keep seeing evidence of unintelligent posting in this thread though.  Examples would be quips and innuendos.  Those have nothing to do with the thread topic.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Relax, the thread is still on topic. The thread is not about evolution but rather about intelligent design. The universe also falls into this subject and thus one may try to determine if it was created through intelligent design or by some "natural" means.
> 
> I keep seeing evidence of unintelligent posting in this thread though. Examples would be quips and innuendos. Those have nothing to do with the thread topic.


 Purely hypothetically, of course, what IF ID is some "natural" unknown to mass humanity now universe means? Will folks in 2,000 years just look back at us, shake their heads and chuckle about what goobers we were? You know, kinda like we do now about the folks 2,000 years ago.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Purely hypothetically, of course, what IF ID is some "natural" unknown to mass humanity now universe means? Will folks in 2,000 years just look back at us, shake their heads and chuckle about what goobers we were? You know, kinda like we do now about the folks 2,000 years ago.


in 2000 years they will be laughing at the creationists.

Hopefully soon ID in schools will go the way of Segregation in schools.  Just a memory of an embarrasing time in the past when our institutions were governed by backwards thinking and ignorance.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> in 2000 years they will be laughing at the creationists.
> 
> Hopefully soon ID in schools will go the way of Segregation in schools. Just a memory of an embarrasing time in the past when our institutions were governed by backwards thinking and ignorance.


Of course, you do have your peer-reviewed scientific certified soothsayer's license, don't you? 

BTW, hasn't FORCED integration, of the government schools, worked out well, in math and science student test scores terms, over time?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Of course, you do have your peer-reviewed scientific certified soothsayer's license, don't you? 
> 
> BTW, hasn't FORCED integration, of the government schools, worked out well, in math and science student test scores terms, over time?


So test scores are down because black kids and white kids are learning together?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So test scores are down because black kids and white kids are learning together?


You brought it up, you figure it out!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Were horses designed to be ridden by man?

----------


## Theocrat

> in 2000 years they will be laughing at the creationists.
> 
> Hopefully soon ID in schools will go the way of Segregation in schools.  Just a memory of an embarrasing time in the past when our institutions were governed by backwards thinking and ignorance.


Yeah, all this coming from a person who believes our brains are *"nothing special, just electrical impulses."* I find it funny that Intelligent Design isn't even being taught in our public schools now, yet look at the degradation of science scores and curriculum in our schools where macroevolution is the dominant myth taught in the classrooms and labs. It's a dead hypothesis, it's done nothing for science, and there is no proof for it *whatsoever*. Scientists use "bait and switch" tactics to brainwash our kids that macroevolution is true by giving them examples and evidences which only prove *microevolution*.

Science has not shown us any evidence that animals evolve *vertically* (macroevolution) through their kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species. It has only proven that organisms evolve *horizontally* (microevolution) within their kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species. Lions do not and will not ever evolve into a non-feline creature, and wolves do not and will not ever evolve into a non-canine creature. Anyone who would suggest that can happen is deceived and living in a fantasy world. All we ever observe in nature are lions producing lions, and wolves producing wolves, with variations within their kinds (microevolution). That's exactly what the Bible says; the animals will produce *after their kind* (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25).

I laugh at the evolutionists who believe in such nonsense as macroevolution, as these scientists have stated:

*Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.* (Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)

*Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.* (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, _The Fresno Bee_, August 20, 1959.)

----------


## Theocrat

> Were horses designed to be ridden by man?


Were automobiles designed to be driven by men?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yeah, all this coming from a person who believes our brains are *"nothing special, just electrical impulses."*


Do you believe in dualism? 

" _Dualism is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. This concept entails that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute. One way to understand this concept is to consider our self as a container including our physical body and physical brain along with a separate non-physical mind, spirit, or soul. The mind, spirit, or soul is considered the conscious part that manifests itself through the brain in a similar way that picture waves and sound waves manifest themselves through a television set. The picture and sound waves are also non-material just like the mind, spirit, or soul._"

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I find it funny that Intelligent Design isn't even being taught in our public schools now, yet look at the degradation of science scores and curriculum in our schools where macroevolution is the dominant myth taught in the classrooms and labs.


That is funny. I live in the $#@! hole known as Florida. Here the schools don't teach evolution. Florida is ranked 47th in school performance compared to the rest of the nation.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That is funny. I live in the $#@! hole known as Florida. Here the schools don't teach evolution. Florida is ranked 47th in school performance compared to the rest of the nation.


 Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there is definitely a direct correlation there.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there is definitely a direct correlation there.


I didn't suggest such. Theocrat suggested the opposite.

----------


## Theocrat

> Do you believe in dualism? 
> 
> " _Dualism is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. This concept entails that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute. One way to understand this concept is to consider our self as a container including our physical body and physical brain along with a separate non-physical mind, spirit, or soul. The mind, spirit, or soul is considered the conscious part that manifests itself through the brain in a similar way that picture waves and sound waves manifest themselves through a television set. The picture and sound waves are also non-material just like the mind, spirit, or soul._"


I'm a Trinitarian dualist who believes in the Christological union of body and soul.

----------


## Truth Warrior

How about a massive quantum computer generated n-dimensional holographic electric universe?

----------


## Kade

> That is funny. I live in the $#@! hole known as Florida. Here the schools don't teach evolution. Florida is ranked 47th in school performance compared to the rest of the nation.


You guys are a big part of the inanity:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new...12_11_2007.asp


Anyone remember the clown with the oranges?



Yep.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> How about a massive quantum computer generated n-dimensional holographic electric universe?


I'm sure all of our brains are stored in /bin.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm sure all of our brains are stored in /bin.


  I'm figuring our brains are in our heads, but our minds are stored in /bin,  transmitting to and receiving from our brains.

----------


## Kade

> I'm figuring our brains are in our heads, but our minds are stored in /bin,  transmitting to and receiving from our brains.


/trashbin

----------


## Truth Warrior

> /trashbin


http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

----------


## amy31416

> /trashbin


/garbage disposal

-or, for the granola chompers amongst us-

/compost heap

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> /trashbin


'
/dev/null from what I gather

----------


## Kade

> '
> /dev/null from what I gather


Ironically, and very seriously,  I thought that the bit bucket would be above his head...

----------


## Theocrat

> http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html


You should check this out sometime. An interesting read, indeed.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You should check this out sometime. An interesting read, indeed.


Old news, thanks anyway.  

Here's one for ya, that I find interesting to consider. 
http://www.lloydpye.com/a-darwinism.htm

Enjoy!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Old news, thanks anyway.  
> 
> Here's one for ya, that I find interesting to consider. 
> http://www.lloydpye.com/a-darwinism.htm
> 
> Enjoy!


That website makes my eyes bleed. Looks like something right out of 1992.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That website makes my eyes bleed. Looks like something right out of 1992.


That's it? That's your whole comprehensive critique? < ROFL >

Parts of it do that to me too. I just tend to ignore those parts and focus on reading the really interesting stuff.  Like what I posted, TO SOMEONE ELSE, BTW! ( Ahem! )  

I didn't give the *WHOLE* web site a blanket endorsement, now did I?

A little intellectual *HONESTY* goes a long way. I recommend that you may want to consider trying it sometime. Who knows, you may just find out that you like it!

----------


## sophocles07

^Chill out dr. emoticon^

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ^Chill out dr. emoticon^


Yeah, I don't like nor care for your posting *"style"* nor content either!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> That's it? That's your whole comprehensive critique? < ROFL >
> 
> Parts of it do that to me too. I just tend to ignore those parts and focus on reading the really interesting stuff.  Like what I posted, TO SOMEONE ELSE, BTW! ( Ahem! )  
> 
> I didn't give the *WHOLE* web site a blanket endorsement, now did I?
> 
> A little intellectual *HONESTY* goes a long way. I recommend that you may want to consider trying it sometime. Who knows, you may just find out that you like it!


Maybe you should have a look in the mirror. Mister speed of light was much faster thousands of years ago. Stop being an idiot than maybe I would take the stuff you have to say seriously.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Maybe you should have a look in the mirror. Mister speed of light was much faster thousands of years ago. Stop being an idiot than maybe I would take the stuff you have to say seriously.


Post #?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Maybe you should have a look in the mirror. Mister speed of light was much faster thousands of years ago. Stop being an idiot than maybe I would take the stuff you have to say seriously.


Actually, I think that was Dr. 3D that made those claims.  

Truth Warrior is a slippery character.  He doesn't make claims.  Only pseudo-philosophical, vague statements of no substance.  "What the meaning of 'is' is" type stuff.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Actually, I think that was Dr. 3D that made those claims. 
> 
> Truth Warrior is a slippery character. He doesn't make claims. Only pseudo-philosophical, vague statements of no substance. "What the meaning of 'is' is" type stuff.


 Quite unlike what ALL macro evolution "theorists" always do. *< ROFLMAO >*

*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Inductive scientists peer reviewing other inductive scientists, doesn't tend to carry a whole lot of weight with me on those matters requiring deductive science. To each his own, however ..... I guess.


The problem is, the Scientific Method is not Deductive, it is Inductive.  Your entire premise is fatally flawed with this point.  

Epic Fail

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

When Truth Warrior says he demands Deductive reasoning over Inductive reasoning, he is saying that we can learn all about the universe without observation and experimentation, but by simple intuition and logic.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The problem is, the Scientific Method is not Deductive, it is Inductive. Your entire premise is fatally flawed with this point. 
> 
> Epic Fail


You really love just making all of that "crap" up, don't you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...tific%20method

----------


## Dr.3D

> Already covered that.  Incorrect manipulation of data/ lack of understanding of how to even use that data
> 
> 
> 
> Made that up to cover for the fatal flaws in his c-decay delusion
> 
> 
> 
> another made-up notion
> ...


Here is what Setterfield has to say about all of that.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/objections.htm

And, by the way, I only put forth the evidence Setterfield was showing for what he claims.   It was not my endorsement of that evidence but rather a possibility to explain why the light from a distant galaxy supposedly millions of light years away  may in fact be much younger.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Claim: Macro Evolution Is Bull$#@!!!!* 

By now, I think even Darwin would agree, based on what he wrote.  

Poor old Charles, just look at what's been done to your theory, and in your name.   And some folks have the sheer gall to dare, call it "science".  Tsk, Tsk, Tsk!  Pathetic!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Here is what Setterfield has to say about all of that.
> 
> http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/objections.htm
> 
> And, by the way, I only put forth the evidence Setterfield was showing for what he claims.   It was not my endorsement of that evidence but rather a possibility to explain why the light from a distant galaxy supposedly millions of light years away  may in fact be much younger.


And again, you show your lack of understand of how science goes about doing things.

I dont want you to show me anything unless it has stood up to scientific scrutiny and peer review.

----------


## sophocles07

> Yeah, I don't like nor care for your posting "style" nor content either!


O Truth Warrior, you’re so honest!




> When Truth Warrior says he demands Deductive reasoning over Inductive reasoning, he is saying that we can learn all about the universe without observation and experimentation, but by simple intuition and logic.


Does he like Aquinas?

----------


## Kade

The astounding inefficacy of the creationist/intelligence design debate points on this thread are beyond obvious to any outside viewer, and the rampant continuity of the remarkably illogical and irrational appeals to nonsense has now officially reached maximum inanity. *Dr.3D*,* Theocrat*, and *Truth Warrior* are buried so deep in their ill-informed and stubborn world-view now that the other contributors to this thread may never again converse in a civil manner. 

Perhaps the reasons for this ongoing debate should be considered or brought to light... I strongly disagree with the creationist side of this argument, but aside from Theocrat, I'd like to know what exactly they wish to accomplish from a political point of view in this matter...

----------


## Truth Warrior

Man he sure seems to have a lot of unquestioned and blind "faith" in "scientific scrutiny and peer review".  Why? Sure beats me!!

----------


## sophocles07

Truth Warrior--

you are excessively corny, unwitty, surpassingly pathetic.

Go to a strip club or something, cool off, you're fuming about phantoms.

----------


## Kade

> Man he sure seems to have a lot of unquestioned and blind "faith" in "scientific scrutiny and peer review".  Why? Sure beats me!!


Actually, scrutiny and peer review are the paragons of contrast of blind faith, you do realize that don't you?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The astounding inefficacy of the creationist/intelligence design debate points on this thread are beyond obvious to any outside viewer, and the rampant continuity of the remarkably illogical and irrational appeals to nonsense has now officially reached maximum inanity. *Dr.3D*,* Theocrat*, and *Truth Warrior* are buried so deep in their ill-informed and stubborn world-view now that the other contributors to this thread may never again converse in a civil manner. 
> 
> Perhaps the reasons for this ongoing debate should be considered or brought to light... I strongly disagree with the creationist side of this argument, but aside from Theocrat, I'd like to know what exactly they wish to accomplish form a political point of view in this matter...


Bull$#@!! Find my creationist/intelligent design debate posts on this thread. I dare you! Talk's cheap, put up or shut up, wise ass!

----------


## Kade

> Bull$#@!! Find my creationist/intelligent design debate posts on this thread. I dare you! Talk's cheap, put up or shut up, wise ass!


As you wish.




> macro evolution = Inadequate explanations and evidence of *realities* of speciation and life.


"Macroevolution" is the broad study of the general long term effects of the modern theory of evolution. To measure these patterns, scientists resort to geology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy, as well as paleontology.  

Your use of the term Macroevolution is unnecessary and telling of your educational background. It allows you to formulate an opinion and understanding of evolution that you think is easier to reject. 

Evolution does not occur through giant leaps as envisioned by creationist. It is a slow process, and the evidence for this process is vastly overwhelming. An understanding of the process through a broad spectrum, applications to the long viability of gene pools and biological environments and ecosystems is the central consideration of "macroevolution" when used by real scientists. 

Talk _is_ cheap my friend, and I hope your education shared that attribute.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Actually, scrutiny and peer review are the paragons of contrast of blind faith, you do realize that don't you?


That's what they *SAY*. 

It all depends on the who, what, when, where, why and how now, doesn't it?

Blanket blind, unquestioned acceptance is pure "faith". No matter who or how you slice it. 

Have your "paragons" ( so called ) *EVER* signed off on and endorsed what later proved to be errors and pure garbage? Who checks on the checkers?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> As you wish.
> 
> "Macroevolution" is the broad study of the general long term effects of the modern theory of evolution. To measure these patterns, scientists resort to geology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy, as well as paleontology. 
> 
> Your use of the term Macroevolution is unnecessary and telling of your educational background. It allows you to formulate an opinion and understanding of evolution that you think is easier to reject. 
> 
> Evolution does not occur through giant leaps as envisioned by creationist. It is a slow process, and the evidence for this process is vastly overwhelming. An understanding of the process through a broad spectrum, applications to the long viability of gene pools and biological environments and ecosystems is the central consideration of "macroevolution" when used by real scientists. 
> 
> Talk _is_ cheap my friend, and I hope your education shared that attribute.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution

Was that all you could find?

----------


## Kade

> That's what they *SAY*. 
> 
> It all depends on the who, what, when, where, why and how now, doesn't it?
> 
> Blanket blind, unquestioned acceptance is pure "faith". No matter who or how you slice it. 
> 
> Have your "paragons" ( so called ) *EVER* signed off on and endorsed what later proved to be errors and pure garbage? Who checks on the checkers?


You seem to be unable to reconcile what is considered accurate and precise versus what is considered "truth". 

Philosophically there is numerous understandings of what makes truth... those are not necessarily of concern to scientists. 

We all hold beliefs about how things really are. These have some bearings on the observations we make, as shown my Needham. However, because science is such a brute reinvestment and constant re-evaluation, there is very little that can escape unnoticed and untested over such long periods of time, which is why so much of early science has been rejected, and much of modern science is chiseled and perfected. 

If the "evidence" against evolution were real then Intelligent Design, and the advocates for intelligent design, would be real scientists, and their claims would be sufficient in the scientific community.

It is not because of science's distrust of faith that binds them against these things Truth Warrior, it is the stubborn and resistant results of endless testing and endless verifiable evidence. 

I invite you to read another Christian's viewpoint of this matter here: 
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...rer/index.html

Miller is a Christian, and what you would offensively call a "Darwinist".

----------


## Kade

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution
> 
> Was that all you could find?


Those links are links to dictionaries, are you having a hard time understanding what I'm trying to tell you, or are you going to continue to look ridiculous?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Truth Warrior--
> 
> you are excessively corny, unwitty, surpassingly pathetic.
> 
> Go to a strip club or something, cool off, you're fuming about phantoms.


Typical! ( See above )

Bye!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Those links are links to dictionaries, are you having a hard time understanding what I'm trying to tell you, or are you going to continue to look ridiculous?


Nope, I understand your faulty thinking very well. Including this post, BTW.

----------


## Kade

> Nope, I understand your faulty thinking very well. Including this post, BTW.


Are you a child? What exactly was faulty about what I explained in clear detail to you... What happened to talk is cheap?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You seem to be unable to reconcile what is considered accurate and precise versus what is considered "truth". 
> 
> Philosophically there is numerous understandings of what makes truth... those are not necessarily of concern to scientists. 
> 
> We all hold beliefs about how things really are. These have some bearings on the observations we make, as shown my Needham. However, because science is such a brute reinvestment and constant re-evaluation, there is very little that can escape unnoticed and untested over such long periods of time, which is why so much of early science has been rejected, and much of modern science is chiseled and perfected. 
> 
> If the "evidence" against evolution were real then Intelligent Design, and the advocates for intelligent design, would be real scientists, and their claims would be sufficient in the scientific community.
> 
> It is not because of science's distrust of faith that binds them against these things Truth Warrior, it is the stubborn and resistant results of endless testing and endless verifiable evidence. 
> ...


So what?  "Opinions" are a dime a truckload.  Show me the conclusive "definitive" empirical  experimental evidence, if you would.  Some valid scientific proofs would be very nice also.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Are you a child? What exactly was faulty about what I explained in clear detail to you... What happened to talk is cheap?


Yeah, that's what I want to know. Specific posts, plural. Where are they? The *ONE* you posted is neither creationist nor ID, now is it?. Keep looking.

----------


## Kade

> So what?  "Opinions" are a dime a truckload.  Show me the conclusive "definitive" empirical  experimental evidence, if you would.  Some valid scientific proofs would be very nice also.


Evidence for evolution?

You can't be serious.

Where do you want me to start?

Here's a few:

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

Molecular mechanism of a mild phenotype in coagulation factor XIII (FXIII) deficiency: asplicing mutation permitting partial correct splicing of FXIII A-subunit mRNA.

Mikkola H, Muszbek L, Laiho E, Syrjala M, Hamalainen E, Haramura G, Salmi T, Peltonen L, Palotie A
Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland. 

Meyer, et. al., 1990, Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences, Nature 347: 550-553

Breeuwer and Werren, 1990, Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species, Nature 346: 558 - 560

Gwynne and Simmons, 1990, Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect, Nature 346: 172 - 174

Gingerich, et. el., 1990, Hind Limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of Feet in Whales, Science 249: 154-156

Golenberg, et.al., 1990, Chloroplast DNA sequence from a Miocene Magnolia species, Nature 344: 656 - 658

Houde and Endler, 1990, Correlated Evolution of Female Mating Preferences and Male Color Pattern in the Guppy Poecilia reticulata, Science 248: 1405 - 1408

Kuhsel, et. al., An Ancient Group I Intron Shared by Eubacteria and Chloroplasts, Science 250: 1570 - 1572

Roose and Gottlieb, 1976, Genetic and Biochemical Consequences of Polyploidy in Tragopogon, Evolution 30: 818 - 830

Benkman and Lindholm, 1991, The advantages and evolution of a morphological novelty, Nature 349: 519-521

Luria and Delbruck, 1943, Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance, Genetics 28: 491 - 511

Cairns, et.al., 1988, The origin of mutants, Nature 335: 142 - 145

Hall, 1990, Spontaneous Point Mutations That Occur More Often When Advantageous Than When Neutral, Genetics 126: 5 - 16

Chao, 1990, Fitness of an RNA virus decreased by Muller's ratchet, Nature 348: 454 - 455

Bowcock, et. al., 1991, Drift, admixture and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms. PNAS 88: 893-843

Turlings, et. al., Exploitation of Herbivore-Induced Plant Odors by Host-Seeking Parasitic Wasps, Science 250: 1251 - 1252




These are just some of the papers I have used in some of my essays before, and with my fellow colleagues across other Universities. 

There are few trillion more where that came from... and those papers are a quick overview of proofs of the laundry list of evidence for evolution, from Fossils, homologies, and distribution to genetics, dating, biogeography, biological  analogies.

----------


## Kade

> Yeah that's what I want to know.  Specific posts, plural.  Where are they?  The *ONE* you posted is neither creationist nor ID, now is it?.  Keep looking.


It was, you did not define Macroevolution correctly.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Evidence for evolution?
> 
> You can't be serious.
> 
> Where do you want me to start?
> 
> Here's a few:
> 
> Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.
> ...


Sure I can.  

Now just remove all of the "micro" stuff, and what's left?

----------


## Kade

> Sure I can.  
> 
> Now just remove all of the "micro" stuff, and what's left?


Evolution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It was, you did not define Macro evolution correctly.


  Take your argument up with the dictionary authors.  I'm sure they'll be really glad and just thrilled to hear from you.

----------


## Dr.3D

> And again, you show your lack of understand of how science goes about doing things.


I dare say my understanding of science is just as good as yours.

What do you think I was doing all 30 years working at General Motors, working on the line?  I was a Controls Engineer for the process systems of the plant I was working in.   You know, such things a closed circuit positive feed back PID loops and the like.  I had systems using stacked PID loops where one loop would change the conditions of the others in the same system.  PID by the way is short for (Proportional, Integral and Derivative)  Honeywell as well as many other manufacturers make such controllers.  Tuning such a system can be very challenging.

One system in particular was very interesting as it was used in the air supply houses.  I had 4 of them to get working and maintain. Each unit had to supply 65 thousand cubic feet per minute of air to a paint booth.   The air had to be 80 degrees at 65% relative humidity.  I was able to maintain the temperature to within +- 0.5 degrees and the relative humidity to within +- 5% even when the outside temperature of the air coming into the system was well below zero or well above 90 degrees.  Those air houses had four Honeywell UDC 5000 controllers to control the loops for them.  One to control the natural gas valves feeding the main burners, one to control the cold water valves to the cooling coils, one to control the valves on the humidifier system (water curtain) and one to control the reheat steam valve to feed the steam coils to reheat the air after it had been humidified/dehumidified.  Those are just a part of the entire control system as there are more controls for various things such as fan speed ,air volume and shift for heating vs cooling and sensible heat.

All in all, I enjoyed my job and found it quite satisfying to be able to get those machines to do what they were intended to do.  Those were just a part of the work I had to do for that plant.  I doubt you would be interested in hearing about the other systems I had to work on.




> I dont want you to show me anything unless it has stood up to scientific scrutiny and peer review.


That is just the point, it has stood up to scientific scrutiny and peer review.... just some of those peers don't agree while others do.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Evolution.


 Nothing!

----------


## Kade

> Nothing!


You're embarrassing yourself, and your species.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You're embarrassing yourself, and your species.


How expected and predictable. Where are the posts?

----------


## Theocrat

> Evidence for evolution?
> 
> You can't be serious.
> 
> Where do you want me to start?
> 
> Here's a few:
> 
> Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.
> ...


All of those examples you gave are illustrations of *microevolution*, not  *macroevolution* (with the exception of whales having feet [rofl]). Do you have any evidence which shows apes evolving to humans as empirically observed and tested in real-time in a laboratory? By the way, fossils won't count because they're just dead bones found in the dirt and are subject to various interpretations of their origin. Better yet, give me some evidence of a vegetable evolving into an animal. *I dare you.*

----------


## Kade

> All of those examples you gave are illustrations of *microevolution*, not  *macroevolution* (with the exception of whales having feet [rofl]). Do you have any evidence which shows apes evolving to humans as empirically observed and tested in real-time in a laboratory? By the way, fossils won't count because they're just dead bones found in the dirt and are subject to various interpretations of their origin. Better yet, give me some evidence of a vegetable evolving into an animal. *I dare you.*


You missed my defining macroevolution for you, please go back and read that thread.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> All of those examples you gave are illustrations of *microevolution*, not  *macroevolution* (with the exception of whales having feet [rofl]). Do you have any evidence which shows apes evolving to humans as empirically observed and tested in real-time in a laboratory? By the way, fossils won't count because they're just dead bones found in the dirt and are subject to various interpretations of their origin. Better yet, give me some evidence of a vegetable evolving into an animal. *I dare you.*


Hilarious

----------


## Theocrat

> Hilarious


Yes, macroevolution is hilarious, and what's even more funny is that some adults actually believe this crap. Atoms to amoebas, monkeys to men. What nonsense! No wonder our education system is failing.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Hilarious


"Sideburns-ese" translations for DUH! I can't.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Hey Kade --

Found all of those creationist/ID debate posts of mine yet?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You missed my defining macroevolution for you, please go back and read that thread.


"Kade-ese" translation for "I told you what to think, now just go away and stop asking me questions".

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> All of those examples you gave are illustrations of *microevolution*, not  *macroevolution*.


There is no difference between Micro and Macro evolution other than the amount of time.  They work by the same process.  




> Do you have any evidence which shows apes evolving to humans


Apes did not evolve into humans.  Apes and humans share a common ancestor.




> as empirically observed and tested in real-time in a laboratory?


How would you go about testing something that takes millions of years, in a lab?

On a further note, Pluto has an orbit of 248 years.  We have only know about it for 80 years.  Nobody has ever seen Pluto complete a full orbit.  How do we know it has ever completed an orbit?  How do we know it has an orbit of 248 years?  How do we know it even orbits?  




> By the way, fossils won't count because they're just dead bones found in the dirt and are subject to various interpretations of their origin.


Tell that to the judge in the OJ trial.  The dead body of Nicole Simpson could mean _anything!_




> Better yet, give me some evidence of a vegetable evolving into an animal. *I dare you.*


Animals actually evolved before plants.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Then why are they two separate words and concepts with different definitions?

What common ancestor?

You wouldn't and can't, there goes the reproducibility in the lab requirement. ( scientific method )
Because Pluto moves, and is currently being tracked as moving. 

Unless it was suicide, someone killed Nicole.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Check the age of the fossils. The oldest found life were plants, and were for a very very very very long time, before animals. It's still around, BTW. What did the herbivores eat without plants?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Because Pluto moves, and is currently being tracked as moving.


But how do we know it has ever completed an orbit in the past?

----------


## Dr.3D

> But how do we know it has ever completed an orbit in the past?


Actually, we don't... it could have just been trapped in that orbit recently.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Actually, we don't... it could have just been trapped in that orbit recently.


Do you have evidence to support this?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Do you have evidence to support this?


More like do you have evidence that does not support it?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> More like do you have evidence that does not support it?


Yes, the fact that we have never seen Pluto complete a full orbit.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yes, the fact that we have never seen Pluto complete a full orbit.


But that is not to say it is not in fact in orbit.  Perhaps it never has completed a full orbit around the sun.   Perhaps it has....  those are questions we won't know the answer to until it has completed one full orbit.   At best, all they can do now is guess.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes, the fact that we have never seen Pluto complete a full orbit.


I think the supports the other case. It was captured into orbit.
If we haven't seen a complete revolution, we can't prove it had any complete orbits before our first observation.
It is assumed that it has been in its orbit prior to our spotting it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think the supports the other case. It was captured into orbit.
> If we haven't seen a complete revolution, we can't prove it had any complete orbits before our first observation.
> It is assumed that it has been in its orbit prior to our spotting it.


Very good... all of the planets and even the non planets that are in orbit around the Sun are assumed to have been captured into their orbits.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> But that is not to say it is not in fact in orbit.  Perhaps it never has completed a full orbit around the sun.   Perhaps it has....  those are questions we won't know the answer to until it has completed one full orbit.   At best, all they can do now is guess.


Lets try this again.

Even if it completes an orbit, what reason do we have to think it has ever completed an orbit in the past?  Nobody has seen it make a complete orbit.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Lets try this again.
> 
> Even if it completes an orbit, what reason do we have to think it has ever completed an orbit in the past?  Nobody has seen it make a complete orbit.


It may in fact never have made a complete orbit.  We have no reason to believe it has.

----------


## Theocrat

> There is no difference between Micro and Macro evolution other than the amount of time.  They work by the same process.


No, microevolution and macroevolution are different because of their *direction* of change, not time. Microevolution, which is observable, takes into account horizontal changes within the various kinds of animals. Macroeveolution, which is fantasy, assumes that changes occur vertically within kinds of animals.




> Apes did not evolve into humans.  Apes and humans share a common ancestor.


What was their common ancestor?




> Animals actually evolved before plants.


Oh, really? Did you *observe* that, O empiricist? Did they ever have a common ancestor?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Oh, really? Did you *observe* that, O empiricist? Did they ever have a common ancestor?


Everything has a common ancestor.  Apes and humans have a relatively recent common ancestor.


Were you there when they wrote the bible?  how do you know they didn't make stuff up?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> It may in fact never have made a complete orbit.  We have no reason to believe it has.


Physics?  We know how to not only figure out where stuff is going, but where it has been.

----------


## Theocrat

> Everything has a common ancestor.  Apes and humans have a relatively recent common ancestor.
> 
> 
> Were you there when they wrote the bible?  how do you know they didn't make stuff up?


I believe what the Bible says about us having a common Designer by faith. You believe humans, animals, and plants have a common ancestor by faith. My religion is based on facts, and yours is based on ignorance.

----------


## torchbearer

Has anyone ever stop to think that the increase in solar radiation is increasing evolution/mutation rates in earth organism?
Just a thought, because the correlation between the increase in species diversity and warming trends on the earth?
That the earth itself is like an organism that is reactive to the solar energy and we are the cells.

Everything we are made of was created in the center of a star.
How do you get that info? The only furnaces capable of creating heavy elements are at the center of stars. So if you have Carbon in your atomic structure, that carbon was created through the mashing of atoms in the nuclear furnace of life.

Trippy stuff when you think about it.

----------


## DrYongrel

> Has anyone ever stop to think that the increase in solar radiation is increasing evolution/mutation rates in earth organism?
> Just a thought, because the correlation between the increase in species diversity and warming trends on the earth?
> That the earth itself is like an organism that is reactive to the solar energy and were are the cells.
> 
> Everything we are made of was created in the center of a star.
> How do you get that info? The only furnaces capable of creating heavy elements are at the center of stars. So if you have Carbon in your atomic structure, that carbon was created through the mashing of atoms in the nuclear furnace of life.
> 
> Trippy stuff when you think about it.


Indeed.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qdb4NyHdFfE

----------


## Dr.3D

> Physics?  We know how to not only figure out where stuff is going, but where it has been.


Physics can only determine what may have happened and what may happen in the future.   It can not beyond a doubt determine if what may have happened really happened.

It would be like someone throwing a rock straight down from the 8th story window of a building when nobody was looking and then using physics to determine from the speed of the falling rock that is was dropped from the 38th story of the building.

It can only be used to predict what may happen and determine perhaps what may have happened.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I believe what the Bible says about us having a common Designer by faith. You believe humans, animals, and plants have a common ancestor by faith. My religion is based on facts, and yours is based on ignorance.


Yeah because some old book full of mythology should be considered full of facts.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Physics can only determine what may have happened and what may happen in the future.   It can not beyond a doubt determine if what may have happened really happened.
> 
> It would be like someone throwing a rock straight down from the 8th story window of a building when nobody was looking and then using physics to determine from the speed of the falling rock that is was dropped from the 38th story of the building.
> 
> It can only be used to predict what may happen and determine perhaps what may have happened.


Um, no. Any high school physics student could tell you the correct window it came from; given the speed when it hit the ground.  

If you lack basic high school education, thats your problem.  Your ignorance does not constitute a valid argument.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Um, no. Any high school physics student could tell you the correct window it came from; given the speed when it hit the ground.  
> 
> If you lack basic high school education, thats your problem.  Your ignorance does not constitute a valid argument.


Actually if you knew how to read, you would see that I said the rock was *thrown* downward from the 8th story window.   It already was moving at a higher speed than if it had just been dropped.  So the speed it hit the ground was actually as if it had been dropped from the 38th story window.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Actually if you knew how to read, you would see that I said the rock was *thrown* downward from the 8th story window.   It already was moving at a higher speed than if it had just been dropped.  So the speed it hit the ground was actually as if it had been dropped from the 38th story window.


That is where acceleration rate comes in.

You really need to go back to high school.

----------


## torchbearer

> That is where acceleration rate comes in.
> 
> You really need to go back to high school.


for the analogy to be complete, you didn't know he threw it, so you wouldn't know ro add the adjustment to the real aceleration rate, just the assumed acceleration from its assumed starting point.

that's where the assumption comes in.

it could have came from the 32nd floor with no previous acceleration, or from the 8 with positive acceleration added to it.
at least, that's what i was reading in all of that.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

This is getting ridiculous.

Where does this paranoid fear of rational though at natural science come from?  Why are you bible nutz so afraid of reality?  Why do you cling to your Christian mythology and superstition?

----------


## torchbearer

> This is getting ridiculous.
> 
> Where does this paranoid fear of rational though at natural science come from?  Why are you bible nutz so afraid of reality?  Why do you cling to your Christian mythology and superstition?


Where did that come from? When was I talking Jesus? I was talking science.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Where did that come from? When was I talking Jesus? I was talking science.


I wasnt talking to you, but about this thread in general.  60 pages of garbage.  I swear, its like the Sean Hannity forums in here.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

And no, this thread is not about science.  This thread is a debate about what constitutes a rational belief.

Why would you believe something with no rational basis to believe it?

----------


## Dr.3D

> That is where acceleration rate comes in.
> 
> You really need to go back to high school.


You can't determine the acceleration rate if somebody threw the rock downward.
That is an unknown variable.  As an engineer, you should know that.

We know the acceleration if it was dropped would be 32.2 Ft/Sec/Sec but if it were thrown downward we would have no idea how fast it was going when it left the persons hand.  It would all be dependent how hard the person threw it downward.  

Since nobody knew what floor the person who threw it downward was on and it was already traveling as fast when it left his hand, as if it had been dropped from 30 floors higher, then it would appear as if it had been dropped from the 38th floor.

Remember from high school physics there are 5 variables you have to deal with.
Initial Velocity (VI), Final Velocity (VF), Distance (s), Acceleration (A) and Time (t).

In this case, there is an unknown variable and it is the Initial Velocity (VI) at the 8th floor when it left the persons hand. It wasn't zero because it was thrown downward.  We don't know the Distance (s), we do know the Acceleration due to gravity, but we don't know the time (t) and don't really know the final velocity (VF).

All we can assume is if we could determine the final velocity (FV) that the rock had been dropped from the 38th floor if it actually had been dropped and not thrown downward.  In order to do this, one would have to measure the building to find the distance (s).

So here are the variables:

VI = ?  --- the rock was thrown downward at an unknown velocity from an unknown floor.
VF = 0 --- the rock hit the ground so it should be zero but perhaps someone could determine from the hole in the ground how fast it was going when it hit.
s = measured height of each floor up to the 38th floor.
A = 32.2 ft/sec/sec assuming it was dropped and then accelerated rather than being thrown downward.
t = ?  --- unknown, nobody saw when the rock was thrown downward.

This isn't rocket science here.  Now explain how one would find what floor the rock was actually thrown downward from.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

When did I say I was an engineer?

----------


## sophocles07

> No, microevolution and macroevolution are different because of their direction of change, not time. Microevolution, which is observable, takes into account horizontal changes within the various kinds of animals. Macroeveolution, which is fantasy, assumes that changes occur vertically within kinds of animals.


Jesus this is getting old.




> Were you there when they wrote the bible? how do you know they didn't make stuff up?


It says they didn’t!  $#@!!  Don’t you GET IT sideburns?????

Do you believe that Jonah was really consumed by a whale and came out again?

You’ve said you believe the world is 6,000 years old.  You mean anything past 4,000 BC never happened?  Tell it to the Chinese.



If anyone who barely knew about Ron Paul wandered into this forum, looked at this thread, they’d get the $#@! out of here—this thread is *$#@!ing pathetic*.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Lets get back to what this thread is really about.

How do you determine what constitutes a rational belief?


I think it is rational to believe things that are real, and can be supported by evidence, observation, or experimentation.  The God mythologists seem to disagree.\

Dont be fooled.  The criticisms of Evolution are not based on the scientific evidence, but on the very nature of science itself.  Science is the study of the natural world.  Problem is, when you limit science to the study of the natural world, you start casting doubt on old superstitions about God and fairies and stuff.  The Creationists want to include the supernatural in there somewhere.  Leaves room for their God myth.

Evolution is targeted because it directly discredits the Biblical story of creation.  And if the story of creation isnt real, how much of the rest of it could be real?  They see it as an attack on their faith, which it is.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Lets get back to what this thread is really about.
> 
> How do you determine what constitutes a rational belief?
> 
> 
> I think it is rational to believe *things that are real*, and can be supported by *evidence, observation, or experimentation*.  The God mythologists seem to disagree.\
> 
> Dont be fooled.  The criticisms of Evolution are not based on the scientific evidence, but on the very nature of science itself.  Science is the study of the natural world.  Problem is, when you limit science to the study of the natural world, you start casting doubt on old superstitions about God and fairies and stuff.  The Creationists want to include the supernatural in there somewhere.  Leaves room for their God myth.
> 
> Evolution is targeted because it directly discredits the Biblical story of creation.  And if the story of creation isnt real, how much of the rest of it could be real?  They see it as an attack on their faith, which it is.


It is true there are people who don't believe in anything that can not be detected. They would conclude such things are *not real*.

Before the year 1886, when Heinrich Hertz successfully made a device to detect electromagnetic radiation, few would believe it existed. 

Before that time, electromagnetic radiation was only a theory developed by James Clerk Maxwell and there was no *evidence, observation or experimentation* being done with electromagnetic radiation.

People who lived before Maxwell had no idea there was any such thing as electromagnetic radiation and surly would have laughed at the thought of such a thing being *real*.

Imagine there being no radio or television because nobody discovered a way to detect electromagnetic radiation.

One has to wonder how many other things exist we can not yet detect.

Just because there is no proof something exists, it does not mean it doesn't exist.  People who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of things we have not yet discovered are not going to be the ones who make any of the discoveries.

Those people are stuck thinking inside the proverbial box.  You see, they limit their studies to what has already been discovered.

----------


## sophocles07

> Lets get back to what this thread is really about.


Maybe we should come up with some sort of questionnaire to answer the thread title.

1. Do you mean by Intelligent Design simply that things are so complicated they are created by God (i.e., "It's hard, so it must be 'God'")?

2. How would you teach Intelligent Design, in very practical terms, in a classroom setting? (I want specifics of how Intelligent Design would operate, be of use in lab procedures, etc.  I want no generalities, as usually given).

3. What does teaching Intelligent Design accomplish?

4. Why is Intelligent Design--since it is not based on observation and experiment--not a philosophical or theological point, but instead a scientific question (i.e. Why should Intelligent Design not be covered, as many other theories are, in college philosophy and religion classes)?

5. Would the teaching of Intelligent Design be religion-neutral?  (Would you also teach that it was possibly a Hindu god who created all of this?)

6. What do you think of the Kent Hovind prison situation?  Does it bother you that one of the main proponents of this publicly is now in prison for running obvious scams, and being utterly selfish and greedy?

7. If it is accepted that the world is 6,000 years old by you, what do you say to the civilizations existing before 4,000 BC?

8. Why is the Bible's version of Creation any more reliable than the (as you suggest) non-evidence theory of evolution?  (I.e., I'm not looking for "Because the Bible says so," which would be a funny reply if there weren't 10s of thousands of people waging inane battles because of "faith" in illogical premises.)

Add and answer if you so wish.

I think this whole thread is utterly ridiculous.  Truth Warrior has no real place in it as he isn't arguing about Intelligent Design, he's just a distracting little rectum rose of a mind.  It seems we've come to the age-old "Dumb Jesus Freak" routine: instead of addressing the issue of what and why they believe what they believe, they immediately search about for the easiest, Google-friendly non-science to attack someone else.  C'mon now, those who have a mainline connection to the ABSOLUTE, OMNIPOTENT, whatever TRUTH should be able to put down some rationale for why anyone else anywhere around them should believe anything they say (or claim to "know").

----------


## Truth Warrior

*What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?*

American Heritage Dictionary 
n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...igent%20design

Ron Paul doesn't "*buy"* evolution, and neither do I. 

Next thread!

----------


## Mesogen

> It is true there are people who don't believe in anything that can not be detected. They would conclude such things are *not real*.
> 
> Before the year 1886, when Heinrich Hertz successfully made a device to detect electromagnetic radiation, few would believe it existed. 
> 
> Before that time, electromagnetic radiation was only a theory developed by James Clerk Maxwell and there was no *evidence, observation or experimentation* being done with electromagnetic radiation.
> 
> People who lived before Maxwell had no idea there was any such thing as electromagnetic radiation and surly would have laughed at the thought of such a thing being *real*.
> 
> Imagine there being no radio or television because nobody discovered a way to detect electromagnetic radiation.
> ...


But no one said "I have absolute faith in radio waves and if you don't believe it you're soul is damned." They were right to doubt and disbelieve until good evidence came along to support the existence of radio waves. 

There are scientists out there who say there is dark matter and dark energy. They don't know what it is, but there is evidence for its existence. But if you ask these scientists if they could be wrong, they would say "Yes. It is possible we are wrong." ("I doubt we're wrong, but it's possible.") If any of them said, "This is how it must be. I have faith in this." they would be crappy scientists. 

To compare it to ID, if someone said, "The theory of relativity and quantum theory aren't compatible in situation X, so Mypet theory must be correct in this situation, even though there is no evidence to support Mypet theory." That would be what ID does.

ID says "There is a lack of evidence to support evolutionary theory in situation X, so ID theory must be true." when there is no evidence to support ID theory. ID people will say that lack of evidence for evolution is in itself evidence for ID, which is complete nonsense. ID needs positive evidence. There is none at all.

----------


## Mesogen

> *What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?*
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary 
> n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...igent%20design
> 
> Ron Paul doesn't "*buy"* evolution, and neither do I. 
> 
> Next thread!


So what would you do if Ron Paul jumped off a bridge?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So what would you do if Ron Paul jumped off a bridge?


Jump in and save him.  Wouldn't you? 

You will, of course, note that I did not say that I don't buy evolution BECAUSE Ron Paul doesn't.   He has his reasons and I have mine.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Physics can only determine what may have happened and what may happen in the future.   It can not beyond a doubt determine if what may have happened really happened.
> 
> It would be like someone throwing a rock straight down from the 8th story window of a building when nobody was looking and then using physics to determine from the speed of the falling rock that is was dropped from the 38th story of the building.
> 
> It can only be used to predict what may happen and determine perhaps what may have happened.


That first line is based on a strawman. You made up a scenario where there is not enough information to answer the question, but the reality is there are many situations where there is enough information to gain answers form. Nice strawman of physics in general.

----------


## torchbearer

> That first line is based on a strawman. You made up a scenario where there is not enough information to answer the question, but the reality is there are many situations where there is enough information to gain answers form. Nice strawman of physics in general.


I think the lack of information was for the analogy of let's say, the orbit of pluto, and how long its been in orbit.
We've only seen so much of the path of pluto, we assume a path before our knowledge of it, but indeed, it could have been caught into orbit and this is its first revolution.
So, in the analogy, you didn't see all the info, just the ball at some point after the 8th floor.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Prove logic!

----------


## Truth Warrior

CELESTIAL MECHANICS, PLUTO (PLANET), SOLAR ORBITS, ASTRONOMICAL COORDINATES, LEAST SQUARES METHOD, LONG TERM EFFECTS, POSITION ERRORS, TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

Abstract

Three series of periodic terms are presented which make it possible to calculate the heliocentric coordinates of Pluto (longitude, latitude, radius vector) during a time interval of more than two centuries. The terms and coefficients have been derived indirectly by least-square approximation of a numerical integration of the motion of Pluto. For the years 1885 to 2099, the maximum error is 0.5 arcsec in longitude, 0.1 arcsec in latitude, and 0.00002 AU in radius vector as compared to the numerical integration. 
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...155..323G

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I think the lack of information was for the analogy of let's say, the orbit of pluto, and how long its been in orbit.
> We've only seen so much of the path of pluto, we assume a path before our knowledge of it, but indeed, it could have been caught into orbit and this is its first revolution.
> So, in the analogy, you didn't see all the info, just the ball at some point after the 8th floor.


Still a strawman given the claim he made.

----------


## torchbearer

> Still a strawman given the claim he made.


That just shows you can't really prove anything prior to your knowledge of it.
Which is kinda the point of the analogy.
You can only assume.

----------


## Truth Warrior

The Cosmic Calendar is a scale in which the lifetime of the universe is mapped onto a calendrical year; that is to say, the Big Bang took place on a cosmic January 1 at precisely midnight, and today's date and time is December 31 at midnight.[1] On this calendar, the solar system did not appear until September 9, life on Earth arose on September 30, the first dinosaurs appeared on December 25th, the first flowers on December 28th and the first primates on December 30. The first humans did not arrive until around 10:30 p.m. on New Year's Eve, and all of human history has been recorded in the last 10 seconds. The Middle Ages to the present is a little more than one second. On this timescale, an average human life is about 0.15 seconds. The scale was popularized by Carl Sagan in his book The Dragons of Eden and on the television series Cosmos, which he hosted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> That just shows you can't really prove anything prior to your knowledge of it.
> Which is kinda the point of the analogy.
> You can only assume.


No he used it to justitfy this bit of nonsense. "Physics can only determine what may have happened and what may happen in the future. It can not beyond a doubt determine if what may have happened really happened" Well if it can only determine what may happen in the future than poof your computer no longer works. Total and absolute garbage. If you have enough information you can determine what happened and what will happen.

----------


## Kade

> I wasnt talking to you, but about this thread in general.  60 pages of garbage.  I swear, *its like the Sean Hannity forums* in here.


I made this very same point a few months ago... I've been working hard to iron it out... and expose the elements of wasteful thinking that are causing the disaster. I think we have gathered them nicely here...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I made this very same point a few months ago... I've been working hard to iron it out... and expose the elements of wasteful thinking that are causing the disaster. I think we have gathered them nicely here...


Is that including your own very frequent and numerous thread disasters contributions.  Or are you just choosing to conveniently ignore those and leave them out?  

Oh yeah, new day, BTW have you found all of those previously discussed thread posts of mine yet?

----------


## Theocrat

> Maybe we should come up with some sort of questionnaire to answer the thread title.
> 
> 1. Do you mean by Intelligent Design simply that things are so complicated they are created by God (i.e., "It's hard, so it must be 'God'")?
> 
> 2. How would you teach Intelligent Design, in very practical terms, in a classroom setting? (I want specifics of how Intelligent Design would operate, be of use in lab procedures, etc.  I want no generalities, as usually given).
> 
> 3. What does teaching Intelligent Design accomplish?
> 
> 4. Why is Intelligent Design--since it is not based on observation and experiment--not a philosophical or theological point, but instead a scientific question (i.e. Why should Intelligent Design not be covered, as many other theories are, in college philosophy and religion classes)?
> ...


"Unlocking the Mystery of Life"

"The Privileged Planet"

"The Case for a Creator"

If these evidences aren't convincing enough, then I guess there's nothing more I can show you which will scientifically prove that our universe is created. You can keep believing that you are an evolved ape, but don't expect me to escape the obvious and give in to that monkey $#@!.

As I've said in the beginning, if we know that this was designed,



then how much more is this designed, being much more complex than a mere machine.



We perform scientific analysis on both to figure out *how* they function, but as we do that analysis, we never deny that they were both designed with purpose in mind. To suspect otherwise is to be foolish.

----------


## Kade

> Is that including your own very frequent and numerous thread disasters contributions.  Or are you just choosing to conveniently ignore those and leave them out?  
> 
> Oh yeah, new day, BTW have you found all of those previously discussed thread posts of mine yet?


I love those threads. Light the fires under the ass of some of the more worthy here.

But this is different. This is just mental handicap.

Pretending to act like I didn't post anything is absolutely retarded on your part. You already screwed up with macroevolution, the requirement has been fulfilled, I don't feel like wasting my time to gather more when you can't even respond appropriately to the first one I did post!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I love those threads. Light the fires under the ass of some of the more worthy here.
> 
> But this is different. This is just mental handicap.
> 
> Pretending to act like I didn't post anything is absolutely retarded on your part. You already screwed up with macroevolution, the requirement has been fulfilled, I don't feel like wasting my time to gather more when you can't even respond appropriately to the first one I did post!


No pretense, you claimed to have found one, I disagreed and told you why.  

You falsely claimed that I was one of the major defenders  of creationism/ID on this thread.  I called you on your false claim.  You now falsely claim the above.  

You Sir, are a blatant and habitual liar among some other despicable things.  But I really think that you already really know that.  And now the rest of us do too.  I will now add coward to your list of attributes. 

*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## sophocles07

> What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary 
> n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...igent%20design
> 
> Ron Paul doesn't "buy" evolution, and neither do I.  
> 
> Next thread!


Another informative post from the resident 13 yr old.

Theocrat, your answers were pathetic.  You should sit uneasy in your very flimsy house of faith.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Another informative post from the resident 13 yr old.
> 
> Theocrat, your answers were pathetic. You should sit uneasy in your very flimsy house of faith.


Another one. 

Bye!

----------


## sophocles07

> Another one. 
> 
> Bye!


( . . . )

----------


## Kade

> I'm not defending ID, merely among several attacking the macro evolution fairytale.  
> 
> Did the gay Buddhists wrap up early today?


Look here, another one *Truth Warrior*, and I randomly clicked to a page. And a derogatory comment to boot. 

Your use of the term macroevolution is ONLY defended by ID proponents and creationist.

If you are neither, please then, tell us what it is you believe.

----------


## Mesogen

Theocrat,

The Jaguar vs. jaguar argument is not scientific. It just says "Look at that thing! It must be designed." Where is the evidence that the jaguar was designed?

Dr. 3D,

If you could measure the velocity of the ball that was dropped from the 8th floor, you would not calculate that it was dropped from the 35th floor. And to further subtract from Theocrat's argument, ID is like finding a ball on the street and saying, "Look at that ball! It must have fallen from the 35th floor!"

----------


## Dr.3D

> Dr. 3D,
> 
> If you could measure the velocity of the ball that was dropped from the 8th floor, you would not calculate that it was dropped from the 35th floor. And to further subtract from Theocrat's argument, ID is like finding a ball on the street and saying, "Look at that ball! It must have fallen from the 35th floor!"


Duh... the ball was not dropped from the 8th floor.   Go back and read the original problem again.

----------


## Mesogen

> Duh... the ball was not dropped from the 8th floor.   Go back and read the original problem again.


Ok. Thrown vs. dropped. Point taken. 

I guess Pluto was thrown into orbit.

----------


## torchbearer

> Ok. Thrown vs. dropped. Point taken. 
> 
> I guess Pluto was thrown into orbit.


It could have been knocked there through a collision.The pluto system is in several pieces.
The collision would have transfered energy in a similar way as throwing an object.
We don't know how pluto came to be in its orbit. We can only assume.
And off those assumptions, you can use physics to run time backwards and see how it may have orbited if it formed originally in the same orbit.

----------


## torchbearer

But on another interesting note.
The moon is slowly getting furthur away from the earth. about 1cm a year if i remember correctly. (could be wrong on the distance per year)
Which means, when rewinded... you can tell that the moon came from a collision with the earth. Which is the assumption.
You could even tell what year it was.. if not closer, it all depends on how accurate your data is.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> But on another interesting note.
> The moon is slowly getting furthur away from the earth. about 1cm a year if i remember correctly. (could be wrong on the distance per year)
> Which means, when rewinded... you can tell that the moon came from a collision with the earth. Which is the assumption.
> You could even tell what year it was.. if not closer, it all depends on how accurate your data is.


The moon is also sapping rotational energy off the Earth. So as time goes by Earth days will get longer.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, your answers were pathetic.  You should sit uneasy in your very flimsy house of faith.


By what absolute standard are you judging that my answers are pathetic, sophocles07?




> Theocrat,
> 
> The Jaguar vs. jaguar argument is not scientific. It just says "Look at that thing! It must be designed." Where is the evidence that the jaguar was designed?


Yes, my Jaguar argument is scientific. It's based on common sense, too. The designs of a Jaguar car and a Jaguar cat are axiomatic by observation, due to their inherent complexities and composition of structures, systems, organs, and properties all of which function together and could not have come about of themselves.

The reasoning for intelligent design is similar to when one peers at a building, that person automatically assumes that it was designed due to its peculiar structure and order. That person does not need to perform a scientific hypothesis in order to conclude the building had a builder. It would be unnecessary and irrational for him to do that, and so the reasoning goes for living things in our universe.

Science is utilized to explain *how* the universe works, but in order for science to have consistency and induction be possible, it needs to assume uniformity of the natural world. The only way this can come about is by a universal Designer Who has created and established the universe with fixed laws, governed by His own power and wisdom. Otherwise, the universe would just be random and unpredictable, which undermines the preconditions necessary for induction to work in scientific inquiry, experimentation, and discovery.

So, I've said all this to drive home the point that our entire universe presupposes design, and the evidence of it is all around us, whether you see it through a microscope or telescope. Going back to your question of how can I know if the Jaguar cat was designed, I'm saying it's self-evident by observation, and irrefutable after experimentation. Exploring the *"hows"* of the universe through the scientific process reveals God's signature and handiwork, and exploring God's word through His Spirit gives us the *"whys"* of God's universe.

----------


## sophocles07

> By what absolute standard are you judging that my answers are pathetic, sophocles07?


No one has an 'absolute standard' by which to judge things.  

I guess stalagmite is, too, "designed," not a natural development, right?

----------


## sophocles07

> The designs of a Jaguar car and a Jaguar cat are axiomatic by observation, due to their inherent complexities and composition of structures, systems, organs, and properties all of which function together and could not have come about of themselves.


Why?




> The reasoning for intelligent design is similar to when one peers at a building, that person automatically assumes that it was designed due to its peculiar structure and order. That person does not need to perform a scientific hypothesis in order to conclude the building had a builder. It would be unnecessary and irrational for him to do that, and so the reasoning goes for living things in our universe.


That’s not the same thing.  We assume that because we are familiar with buildings, skyscrapers, etc.  If we came upon it and had never seen anything like it, we would not “assume” anything.  




> Science is utilized to explain how the universe works, but in order for science to have consistency and induction be possible, it needs to assume uniformity of the natural world. The only way this can come about is by a universal Designer Who has created and established the universe with fixed laws, governed by His own power and wisdom. Otherwise, the universe would just be random and unpredictable, which undermines the preconditions necessary for induction to work in scientific inquiry, experimentation, and discovery.


I see no reason why there need be a “designer” at this role.  The “designer” is a process, not a anthropomorphized “wise” old man.  You seem to be stuck in the 8th century.




> So, I've said all this to drive home the point that our entire universe presupposes design, and the evidence of it is all around us, whether you see it through a microscope or telescope. Going back to your question of how can I know if the Jaguar cat was designed, I'm saying it's self-evident by observation, and irrefutable after experimentation. Exploring the "hows" of the universe through the scientific process reveals God's signature and handiwork, and exploring God's word through His Spirit gives us the "whys" of God's universe.


How would you “experiment” to prove that it was designed?  You have to PROVE the claim is true.  “Self-evident”?  You are aware that sounds really, really,     really $#@!ing stupid right?

----------


## Kade

[QUOTE=Theocrat;1446294]
Yes, my Jaguar argument is scientific. It's based on common sense, too. The designs of a Jaguar car and a Jaguar cat are axiomatic by observation, due to their inherent complexities and composition of structures, systems, organs, and properties all of which function together and could not have come about of themselves.


Alright goatsecrat, meet your friend, Pseudaelurus validus. 

He is an ancient cat, living about 20-8 million years ago, and an ancestor of all Pantherinae. These fossils were found in the Ulaan Tologoi locality, Loh Formation (early Miocene)





dorsal (A) and ventral (B) views.(ses) = sesamoid bones, nav = navicular, cu = cuboid, ent = entocuneiform, lat conc = lateral concavity of second phalanx.


 .upper third incisor (I3), upper canine (C), upper first premolar (P1), alveolus or socket for upper second premolar (P2 alv), petrosal (P), mastoid (M), paroccipital process (PP).



Complete set.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No he used it to justitfy this bit of nonsense. "Physics can only determine what may have happened and what may happen in the future. It can not beyond a doubt determine if what may have happened really happened" Well if it can only determine what may happen in the future than poof your computer no longer works. Total and absolute garbage. If you have enough information you can determine what happened and what will happen.


Is it garbage to consider a light bulb and physics saying it will light up as long as I put electrical current through it.   I have many times turned on a light only to see a flash and the bulb burn out.  No light was produced except for the flash of the burning out filament.

One may look at an automobile moving down the road toward a concrete wall and calculate by the speed of the automobile and the direction it is moving that it will hit the wall at a specific time.   Then along comes a semi truck and broadsides the automobile and it never hits the wall.

There is an assumption made when dealing with physics that all the variables will continue to be as they are, uninterrupted.  The moment something comes along to interrupt the event, the physics fails in it's prediction of the outcome.

This same can be true of previous calculations where variables are assumed, as in the rock being dropped from the 38th floor but instead it was actually thrown from the 8th.

Physics can not always predict the future of an event nor can it always determine the cause of a previous event.   Variables are very often assumed for calculation purposes.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Is it garbage to consider a light bulb and physics saying it will light up as long as I put electrical current through it.   I have many times turned on a light only to see a flash and the bulb burn out.  No light was produced except for the flash of the burning out filament.
> 
> One may look at an automobile moving down the road toward a concrete wall and calculate by the speed of the automobile and the direction it is moving that it will hit the wall at a specific time.   Then along comes a semi truck and broadsides the automobile and it never hits the wall.
> 
> There is an assumption made when dealing with physics that all the variables will continue to be as they are, uninterrupted.  The moment something comes along to interrupt the event, the physics fails in it's prediction of the outcome.
> 
> This same can be true of previous calculations where variables are assumed, as in the rock being dropped from the 38th floor but instead it was actually thrown from the 8th.
> 
> Physics can not always predict the future of an event nor can it always determine the cause of a previous event.   Variables are very often assumed for calculation purposes.


I like ketchup and sugar.

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat:

Do you not see that someone coming upon the above stalagmites might think that it is "self-evident" that they are "designed" by some God/Creator because of the immense complexity of the structure?

----------


## Dr.3D

> I like ketchup and sugar.



The Newbeats - Bread And Butter

----------


## sophocles07

Let’s make it plain:

You have said that by looking at this 



we “know” it is designed.

You have said by looking at this



we “know” it is designed.

You have said by looking at this



we “know” it is designed.

Do you “know” this is designed?



And this?



How do you “know” this?  

Your argument simply _doesn’t_ hold up.

----------


## Theocrat

> No one has an 'absolute standard' by which to judge things.


Are you *absolutely* sure this is true? Yes, there is an absolute standard by which we judge things, in this case, the logic or  coherency of my answers to a question, and that standard is based on God's thinking and reason by means of His own personal revelation (the Scriptures). What I want to know is by *what standard* do *you* judge my answers to be pathetic, and is that standard universal or conventional?




> I guess stalagmite is, too, "designed," not a natural development, right?


Yes, I would say that this stalagmite is designed, ultimately shaped by God. I don't believe it to be a mere result of blind chance or some random formation. God is in control of all natural occurrences as the omnipotent Designer of our universe.




> Why?


I've already explained to you why. If you don't agree with my claim, explain to me what it is you disagree with and why my claim is false.




> That’s not the same thing.  We assume that because we are familiar with buildings, skyscrapers, etc.  If we came upon it and had never seen anything like it, we would not “assume” anything.


That's *your* assumption, sophocles07.




> I see no reason why there need be a “designer” at this role.  The “designer” is a process, not a anthropomorphized “wise” old man.  You seem to be stuck in the 8th century.


Tell me how this "process" you're referring to allows for there to be consistency and uniformity of nature. Would you consider it to be personal or impersonal? How does this "process" ensure that the future will be like the past when performing scientific experiments so that induction can be used for establishing scientific conclusions about the universe in discovery of a law (or "theory," as you would say)?




> How would you “experiment” to prove that it was designed?  You have to PROVE the claim is true.  “Self-evident”?  You are aware that sounds really, really, really $#@!ing stupid right?


Scientific experiments are not performed to prove whether something is designed because that would be deduction, and science uses induction to come up with results. Whether or not there is a Designer is assumed in the beginning, and that assumption governs how the results are interpreted by the scientist at the end of the experiment. Science deals with the "how" of an organism, system, or object, but inevitably, the "how" implies a purpose, reason, or way of something coming about, and purpose ultimately comes from an intelligent mind.

[QUOTE=Kade;1446341]


> Yes, my Jaguar argument is scientific. It's based on common sense, too. The designs of a Jaguar car and a Jaguar cat are axiomatic by observation, due to their inherent complexities and composition of structures, systems, organs, and properties all of which function together and could not have come about of themselves.
> 
> 
> Alright goatsecrat, meet your friend, Pseudaelurus validus. 
> 
> He is an ancient cat, living about 20-8 million years ago, and an ancestor of all Pantherinae. These fossils were found in the Ulaan Tologoi locality, Loh Formation (early Miocene)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What exactly are you trying to prove here except that you found some *dead bones* in the dirt? Doggy dug up some bones? You want a treat, boy? Okay, sit. Good boy...

----------


## DrYongrel

> Are you *absolutely* sure this is true? Yes, there is an absolute standard by which we judge things, in this case, the logic or  coherency of my answers to a question, and that standard is based on God's thinking and reason by means of His own personal revelation (the Scriptures). What I want to know is by *what standard* do *you* judge my answers to be pathetic, and is that standard universal or conventional?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would say that this stalagmite is designed, ultimately shaped by God. I don't believe it to be a mere result of blind chance or some random formation. God is in control of all natural occurrences as the omnipotent Designer of our universe.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained to you why. If you don't agree with my claim, explain to me what it is you disagree with and why my claim is false.
> ...


*cough*carbon-14 dating*cough*

----------


## Theocrat

> *cough*carbon-14 dating*cough*


*cough*Carbon-14 Dating doesn't work for more than a few thousand years, which is why evolutionists never use Carbon-14 Dating on fossils because they assume they're millions of years old, dating them by the index rock layers of their so-called "geologic column." Anyway, how does Carbon-14 Dating prove we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago, and how is it in any way relevant to my replies with the evolved apes I've responded to?*cough*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

OK.  Lets try this.  Ill concede your micro/macro.  Though it is wrong, I will conceded it for the purposes of this debate.  

Lets say you are right, and Micro evolution is possible, but Macro evolution is not.  *Now, you must prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is Macro, and not Micro. * 


If you are willing to concede that this is an example of micro evolution:

---------------------------------

Why isnt this?

You must now prove that this is not an example of Micro evolution, but Macro evolution; and therefore not a natural process, but the work of a creator.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Someone call homeland security.  I just dropped bombshell in this debate.

----------


## sophocles07

> Are you absolutely sure this is true? Yes, there is an absolute standard by which we judge things, in this case, the logic or coherency of my answers to a question, and that standard is based on God's thinking and reason by means of His own personal revelation (the Scriptures). What I want to know is by what standard do you judge my answers to be pathetic, and is that standard universal or conventional?


blah blah blah




> Yes, I would say that this stalagmite is designed, ultimately shaped by God. I don't believe it to be a mere result of blind chance or some random formation. God is in control of all natural occurrences as the omnipotent Designer of our universe.


So it’s not formed by a process of water drippage?

Right.




> That's your assumption, sophocles07.


No, it’s logic.  If you haven’t seen something before, you don’t assume it to be something you could only have assumed by having been familiar with it.  At least in terms of saying something is “true”.




> Tell me how this "process" you're referring to allows for there to be consistency and uniformity of nature. Would you consider it to be personal or impersonal? How does this "process" ensure that the future will be like the past when performing scientific experiments so that induction can be used for establishing scientific conclusions about the universe in discovery of a law (or "theory," as you would say)?


I see no reason why a process could not allow for ‘consistency and uniformity of nature.’  

I don’t know what you mean by ‘personal or impersonal’.  It’s not a personal Jesus thing if that’s what you mean.

Process does not mean “random $#@!”.  I see no reason why an experiment could not be used by future scientists.




> Scientific experiments are not performed to prove whether something is designed because that would be deduction, and science uses induction to come up with results.


(...) 




> Whether or not there is a Designer is assumed in the beginning, and that assumption governs how the results are interpreted by the scientist at the end of the experiment. Science deals with the "how" of an organism, system, or object, but inevitably, the "how" implies a purpose, reason, or way of something coming about, and purpose ultimately comes from an intelligent mind.


No.




> What exactly are you trying to prove here except that you found some dead bones in the dirt? Doggy dug up some bones? You want a treat, boy? Okay, sit. Good boy...


Wow...




> Someone call homeland security. I just dropped bombshell in this debate.


Yes, you did.  Truth Warrior:

----------


## mczerone

> *cough*Carbon-14 Dating doesn't work for more than a few thousand years, which is why evolutionists never use Carbon-14 Dating on fossils because they assume they're millions of years old, dating them by the index rock layers of their so-called "geologic column." Anyway, how does Carbon-14 Dating prove we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago, and how is it in any way relevant to my replies with the evolved apes I've responded to?*cough*


There are a multitude of Natural Isotopes used to date samples, which are then correlated both to other Isotopes, and soil layers and tree rings and the other known fossils (i.e. evidence).

And Carbon-14 dating could be used to date a sample of indefinite age, if only the sample size were big enough.  Having a half-life of 3742 years (I think, it was part of a problem I taught once), there would still be 1/1024 of the original C14 (usually enough for accurate, independent sampling) in a Fossil that was 37420 years old.  Much further than what Young Earth Creationists propose.


oops - its 5730 (+/- 40) years, so our accurate timeline of fossils goes back even further, using only ONE Measuring stick.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The Cosmic Calendar is a scale in which the lifetime of the universe is mapped onto a calendrical year; that is to say, the Big Bang took place on a cosmic January 1 at precisely midnight, and today's date and time is December 31 at midnight.[1] On this calendar, the solar system did not appear until September 9, life on Earth arose on September 30, the first dinosaurs appeared on December 25th, the first flowers on December 28th and the first primates on December 30. The first humans did not arrive until around 10:30 p.m. on New Year's Eve, and all of human history has been recorded in the last 10 seconds. The Middle Ages to the present is a little more than one second. On this timescale, an average human life is about 0.15 seconds. The scale was popularized by Carl Sagan in his book The Dragons of Eden and on the television series Cosmos, which he hosted.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar


Physics has mathematical equations and formulas. (ie. E = mc^2, f = ma, etc. )

Chemistry has mathematical equations and formulas. (ie. H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, Na + Cl = NaCl, etc. )

Other combinations of physics and chemistry have mathematical equations and formulas.

Life is only just another ongoing combination of physics and chemistry, when you get right down to it. Correct? If not, then just what is life? What's the most probable alternative, life explaining mechanism? Unlikely unique cosmic fluke, accident, coincidence?

What and where are the mathematical equations and formulas of the prokaryote, of the eukaryote, of life itself, of the first life, and last but certainly not least of "The Theory of Evolution"?

Without the *necessary and required* mathematical equations and formulas, how can evolution even seriously, rationally, logically and reasonably be considered valid "science" ( so called )?

Extraordinary claims *REQUIRE* extraordinary *EVIDENCE*! 

*SWAG!!!*

( BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS ) != "science". Just 10(BS).  

Compared to all that there is to be known, our species doesn't really know let alone understand "squat" ..... yet.

*"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." - Arthur C. Clarke*

*NOTE: WARNING:* The preceding has *NOT* been scientifically peer reviewed and approved.

----------


## Hiki

> Yes, I would say that this stalagmite is designed, ultimately shaped by God. I don't believe it to be a mere result of blind chance or some random formation. God is in control of all natural occurrences as the omnipotent Designer of our universe.


Oh. Well what about Tsunamis, Volcano Eruptions, meteors, hurricanes etc.? God must be one evil son of a bitch.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?*
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary 
> n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...igent%20design
> 
> Ron Paul doesn't "*buy"* evolution, and neither do I. 
> 
> Next thread!


The above post should have been thread post # 2 instead of post # 636. Ah, the benefits of good old 20/20 hindsight.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Physics has mathematical equations and formulas. (ie. E = mc^2, f = ma, etc. )
> 
> Chemistry has mathematical equations and formulas. (ie. H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, Na + Cl = NaCl, etc. )
> 
> Other combinations of physics and chemistry have mathematical equations and formulas.
> 
> Life is only just another ongoing combination of physics and chemistry, when you get right down to it. Correct? If not, then just what is life? What's the most probable alternative, life explaining mechanism? Unlikely unique cosmic fluke, accident, coincidence?
> 
> What and where are the mathematical equations and formulas of the prokaryote, of the eukaryote, of life itself, of the first life, and last but certainly not least of "The Theory of Evolution"?
> ...


*HardyWeinberg law*


*Mutation-selection balance*


*Inbreeding coefficient*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is Macro-evolution, not just Micro-evolution.

pwnt, btw

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is Macro-evolution, not just Micro-evolution.
> 
> pwnt, btw


*What and where are the mathematical equations and formulas of the prokaryote, of the eukaryote, of life itself, of the first life, and last but certainly not least of "The Theory of Evolution"?*

Calculating from false and faulty first premises produces BS. ( see above )

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Your basic premise is that Micro evolution is true (dog breeds), but Macro evolution is false, and therefore the result of God, not natural process.

Prove that the Man and Ape evolutionary gap is an example of Macro evolution rather than Micro evolution.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Prove that the Man and Ape evolutionary gap is an example of Macro evolution rather than Micro evolution.


If you can not prove it, your entire argument is fatally flawed.

Dont post anything else unless its an answer to this question.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Your basic premise is that Micro evolution is true (dog breeds), but Macro evolution is false, and therefore the result of God, not natural process.
> 
> Prove that the Man and Ape evolutionary gap is an example of Macro evolution rather than Micro evolution.


I know my basic premise, I really don't need you to tell me what it is.   BTW, your lame *guess,* ain't even close.

Take your calculations to the lab and reproduce the phenomenon.

( *Hint:*  Try reading the "equations and formulas" post again, this time for comprehension.  I really do understand that is very tough for you to do.  Reading between the lines only makes it harder.  Just read the lines.)

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Prove that the Man and Ape evolutionary gap is an example of Macro evolution rather than Micro evolution.
> *The burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative. < YAWN ! >( Debate class #  .000001 )*
> 
> 
> If you can not prove it, your entire argument is fatally flawed.
> *BS!  Still just making up "crap" rules and bogus logic as you go along, I see. Pathetic!*
> Dont post anything else unless its an answer to this question.
> *Still trying to tell me what to do, eh? ( What a silly loon! )*

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Physics has mathematical equations and formulas. (ie. E = mc^2, f = ma, etc. )
> 
> Chemistry has mathematical equations and formulas. (ie. H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, Na + Cl = NaCl, etc. )
> 
> Other combinations of physics and chemistry have mathematical equations and formulas.
> 
> Life is only just another ongoing combination of physics and chemistry, when you get right down to it. Correct? If not, then just what is life? What's the most probable alternative, life explaining mechanism? Unlikely unique cosmic fluke, accident, coincidence?
> 
> What and where are the mathematical equations and formulas of the prokaryote, of the eukaryote, of life itself, of the first life, and last but certainly not least of "The Theory of Evolution"?
> ...


That is an argument? Because you think evolution does not use equations and formula therefor it must not be science? Talk about weak. If you knew anything about allele frequency analysis of isolated populations than you wouldn't have made such an ignorant claim. Even if it didn't have fancy equations it would still be considered science because it can be falsified, it can make predictions, and it is supported by the evidence.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> 


Yes, the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is an example of macro-evolution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That is an argument? Because you think evolution does not use equations and formula therefor it must not be science? Talk about weak. If you knew anything about allele frequency analysis of isolated populations than you wouldn't have made such an ignorant claim. Even if it didn't have fancy equations it would still be considered science because it can be falsified, it can make predictions, and it is supported by the evidence.


Nope, it's a statement actully.  Guess again? 

( BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS ) != "science". Just 10(BS).

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Oh. Well what about Tsunamis, Volcano Eruptions, meteors, hurricanes etc.? God must be one evil son of a bitch.


Yeah no $#@!.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> ( BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS + BS ) != "science". Just 10(BS).


Nice lack of argument you have there. I can say the same about any idea that exists, but of course unlike you I want to be bound to reality.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is an example of macro-evolution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Nice lack of argument you have there. I can say the same about any idea that exists, but of course unlike you I want to be bound to reality.


You've missed a lot, go back a few pages and catch up, unless you just really enjoy appearing stupid.  Your choice.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is an example of macro-evolution.


No! Even if that made any sense the answer would still be ................. No. Your pet theory, you prove it. Should just be piece of cake for an evolution guru, like you.  What does a gap prove? Just curious!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> You've missed a lot, go back a few pages and catch up, unless you just really enjoy appearing stupid.  Your choice.


This coming from someone who rejects DNA evidence. How funny. I'm sick of your creationist antics. Your constant denial of it shows you are just a creationist who lies, which of course the world is not in short supply of.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> No! Even if that made any sense the answer would still be ................. No. Your pet theory, you prove it. Should just be piece of cake for an evolution guru, like you.  What does a gap prove? Just curious!


You accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.  Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape fails the qualifications for micro-evolution.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> This coming from someone who rejects DNA evidence. How funny. I'm sick of your creationist antics. Your constant denial of it shows you are just a creationist who lies, which of course the world is not in short supply of.


  DNA research is very interesting.   Chose the stupid route again, I see.  If you're truly sick of your lies, then just quit.  I wouldn't think any the less of you.  ( I can't, BTW )

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape fails the qualifications for micro-evolution.


Didn't buy the burden is on the affirmative *TRUTH*.  Too bad, though not too surprised.  You may want to look it up.  But probably not.

----------


## yongrel

Hahahahaha!

Truth Warrior is stumped.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> DNA research is very interesting.   Chose the stupid route again, I see.  If you're truly sick of your lies, then just quit.  I wouldn't think any the less of you.  ( I can't, BTW )


"Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html


Now if humans didn't share an ancestor with the great apes than why is there such a strong gene match between the two? 

Answer the question. If you don't I will just consider you a creationist by default.

----------


## Dr.3D

Wow, an epiphany!

Evidence shows ground transportation evolved.....

Studies by automobile manufacturers shows all automobiles share a common ancestor.
The Volkswagen shares many of the same parts as the Cadillac, as do all automobiles.

Headlights, tail lights, turn indicators, windshield, steering wheel, seats, doors, fuel tank, exhaust system, four wheels, engine, horn.... the list goes on and on. 

I suppose some people might conclude the Cadillac evolved from the Volkswagen or vise versa.  Did the Cadillac share a common ancestor with the Volkswagen?  I guess the answer would be yes.  Now if we can just find the fossil records showing the slow transition from one  into the others.  

Could it simply be the similarities show they were all designed by man?

----------


## Theocrat

> OK.  Lets try this.  Ill concede your micro/macro.  Though it is wrong, I will conceded it for the purposes of this debate.  
> 
> Lets say you are right, and Micro evolution is possible, but Macro evolution is not.  *Now, you must prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape is Macro, and not Micro. * 
> 
> 
> If you are willing to concede that this is an example of micro evolution:


These two creatures are the same *kind* of animal, which means they are able to reproduce with one another (or "bring forth," as the Bible says). There are genetic variations within the different kinds of animals, but those variations are limited because of the genetic information that is stored in their DNA. These dogs will never evolve wings, scales, or webbed-feet because their genetic coding lacks that sort of information. All we ever observe are dogs producing dogs, never dogs producing cats, never dogs changing into anything which in non-canine. Yet, you macroevolutionists believe that can happen, and I find that to be hilariously unscientific.




> Why isnt this?
> 
> You must now prove that this is not an example of Micro evolution, but Macro evolution; and therefore not a natural process, but the work of a creator.


Hold on for a moment. I never said macroevolution was true. It is not. The burden of proof is on *you* to prove that the example you gave is illustrating macroevolution. If macroevolution were true, then surely you would have been able to provide examples of *living transitions* between Ben Stiller and the chimps you've posted because according to macroevolution, changes in species is gradual. Where are the transitions? All we have our apes and humans living today. You will then say, "The transitions went extinct through evolutionary stages and by natural selection," but don't you realize how that's such a convenience for your hypothesis without any proof? It just so happens that the only transitions you have are bones found in the ground, subject to the interpretations of the scientists who presuppose evolutionary gradualism!

In addition to that, you have thousands if not millions of transitional gaps betwixt the living organisms we observe in nature today, yet all the while you *believe* these transitions are *conveniently* evidenced in the fossil record?! What a joke! No wonder Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge came up with their hypothesis of "punctuated equilibrium!" He understood that there were problems in using evolutionary gradualism to explain how macroevolution was possible. Even then, that hypothesis is a convenience for the macroevolutionist, but it still has not been scientifically proven.

Macroevolution has nothing to do with a Creator. God has already informed us how animals produce and how they change, and it only occurs within their *kinds*. As I've said before, the burden of proof is on *you*. If you have any evidence, show me some pictures of the living transitions between the two pictures you've previously posted which would suggest macroevolution is true. I await your findings.

----------


## Theocrat

> Wow, an epiphany!
> 
> Evidence shows ground transportation evolved.....
> 
> Studies by automobile manufacturers shows all automobiles share a common ancestor.
> The Volkswagen shares many of the same parts as the Cadillac, as do all automobiles.
> 
> Headlights, tail lights, turn indicators, windshield, steering wheel, seats, doors, fuel tank, exhaust system, four wheels, engine, horn.... the list goes on and on. 
> 
> ...


Exactly my point. (Maybe they evolved from a Micro Machine over millions of years... )

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Wow, an epiphany!
> 
> Evidence shows ground transportation evolved.....
> 
> Studies by automobile manufacturers shows all automobiles share a common ancestor.
> The Volkswagen shares many of the same parts as the Cadillac, as do all automobiles.
> 
> Headlights, tail lights, turn indicators, windshield, steering wheel, seats, doors, fuel tank, exhaust system, four wheels, engine, horn.... the list goes on and on. 
> 
> ...


Do you have an argument or just mere non sequitur? It does not follow. Comparing the non living with the living. Comparing something that we do have evidence for design vs. something that clearly was not designed by anyone intelligent at least, and which has no evidence of the existence of said designer.

----------


## Theocrat

> Now if humans didn't share an ancestor with the great apes than why is there such a strong gene match between the two?


Hmmm, could it be that their similarities of genes proves a common *Designer*?

*NOTE*: There is no disagreement that humans and apes have similar DNA codes; that's been observed and tested. The disagreement is in explaining *why*, not *how*, these genes are similar, and that is based on one's interpretation of the evidence. Both explanations are religious at some level, using some measure of faith to make sense of the results. The difference is one is based on God-given revelation (creationism), and the other is based on subjective, man-centered speculation (evolution).

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Hmmm, could it be that their similarities of genes proves a common *Designer*?
> 
> *NOTE*: There is no disagreement that humans and apes have similar DNA codes; that's been observed and tested. The disagreement is in explaining *why*, not *how*, these genes are similar, and that is based on one's interpretation of the evidence. Both explanations are religious at some level, using some measure of faith to make sense of the results. The difference is one is based on God-given revelation (creationism), and the other is based on subjective, man-centered speculation (evolution).


No because there is nothing to show that a designer even exists. Even so if there was a so called designer than why is there not an exact match between genes of other species that perform the same function such as eye color? If the so called designer is to use one nut to build something why would he use a similar nut to build something else when both nuts have the same result and function?

----------


## Theocrat

> Comparing something that we do have evidence for design vs. something that clearly was not designed by anyone intelligent at least, and which has no evidence of the existence of said designer.


Your "intelligently designed" comment is just your opinion, not a scientific statement. I just wanted to make that clear because some scientists say that same thing, and they elevate their opinion to the level of scientific analysis in their own pompous, evolution superfluity.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> "Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species"
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...imp_genes.html
> 
> 
> Now if humans didn't share an ancestor with the great apes than why is there such a strong gene match between the two? 
> 
> Answer the question. If you don't I will just consider you a creationist by default.


I believe it's closer to 99% with the chimps, 95% with the gorillas, go back and check, will ya? 

Oh no, not the dreaded "considered a creationist by default", how will I ever survive? Will you hold you breath until you turn blue too? 

I've heard that crap before, from better folks than you, junior. You may outgrow the standard boring evolutionist's bogus smear false childish propaganda, one of these days. If you care enough, which I strongly doubt. Playing the "creationist card" is very much like playing the "race card", and just as bogus. 

You really need to up your game, by a factor of about 10, I'd say. Get some new material, the stupidity is really getting very boring.

Oh BTW, I don't need an alternate "theory" in order to punch holes in your's.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Prove that the evolutionary gap between Man and Ape falls outside the range of Micro-evolution, which you have said you believe to be true.

For the purposes of this argument, I will concede your point.  Micro evolution is real, Macro evolution is impossible.  Now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the gap between Man and Ape falls outside the bounds of Micro-evolution.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Hahahahaha!
> 
> Truth Warrior is stumped.


Indeed.  The micro/macro point DOES NOT MATTER unless you can prove that the gap between Man and Ape falls outside the range of Micro-evolution.

Untill they can, I will just argue the early primates *micro-evolved* into Man and Ape.  Therefore voiding their entire argument.

----------


## Theocrat

> Even so if there was a so called designer than why is there not an exact match between genes of other species that perform the same function such as eye color? If the so called designer is to use one nut to build something why would he use a similar nut to build something else when both nuts have the same result and function?


To understand the answer to your own question, I would refer you to Dr.3D's last post for you to reflect upon. Ultimately, I would say ask the Designer (pray).




> No because there is *nothing* to show that a designer even exists.


 (emphasis mine)

By the way, do you know everything? I sure don't...

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I believe it's closer to 99% with the chimps, 95% with the gorillas, go back and check, will ya? 
> 
> Oh no, not the dreaded "considered a creationist by default", how will I ever survive? Will you hold you breath until you turn blue too? 
> 
> I've heard that crap before, from better folks than you, junior. You may outgrow the standard boring evolutionist's bogus smear false childish propaganda, one of these days. If you care enough, which I strongly doubt. Playing the "creationist card" is very much like playing the "race card", and just as bogus. 
> 
> You really need to up your game, by a factor of about 10, I'd say. Get some new material, the stupidity is really getting very boring.


What was that again? You were the one that linked to a guy who claimed that DNA was made up of proteins. It's clear you have no formal education in biology, because if you had you wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake.  Now answer the question. Why are they so similar if there is no such thing as evolution? Answer me that. 

It's not a bogus smear on my part, it's a guess. I'm pretty sure that you are given the type of arguments you have made and the nonsense you have linked to.

----------


## yongrel

Polio, Smallpox, Downs Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Harlequin Babies, Bowel Cancer, AIDS, Huntington's Disease, Crutzfeld-Jakob disease, New Guinean zombies, Ebola virus, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Malaria, Spanish Flu, Radiation Sickness, Multiple Sclerosis, Scleroderma, Lupus, Dysentary, autism, crack babies, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Parkinson's, Ricketts, and Alzheimer's.

Intelligent Design?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> To understand the answer to your own question, I would refer you to Dr.3D's last post for you to reflect upon. Ultimately, I would say ask the Designer (pray).
> 
>  (emphasis mine)
> 
> By the way, do you know everything? I sure don't...


Nothing has been shown to me that is evidence for said creator.

----------


## Theocrat

> Indeed.  The micro/macro point DOES NOT MATTER unless you can prove that the gap between Man and Ape falls outside the range of Micro-evolution.
> 
> Untill they can, I will just argue the early primates *micro-evolved* into Man and Ape.  Therefore voiding their entire argument.


Have you considered what I posted in response to your "Ben Stiller" post, O pompous one?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Polio, Smallpox, Downs Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Harlequin Babies, Bowel Cancer, AIDS, Huntington's Disease, Crutzfeld-Jakob disease, New Guinean zombies, Ebola virus, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Malaria, Spanish Flu, Radiation Sickness, Multiple Sclerosis, Scleroderma, Lupus, Dysentary, autism, crack babies, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Parkinson's, Ricketts, and Alzheimer's.
> 
> Intelligent Design?


Silly argument.  Nowhere in the Intelligent Design argument do they ever claim the designer to not be a complete $#@!ing asstard.

----------


## Theocrat

> Polio, Smallpox, Downs Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Harlequin Babies, Bowel Cancer, AIDS, Huntington's Disease, Crutzfeld-Jakob disease, New Guinean zombies, Ebola virus, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Malaria, Spanish Flu, Radiation Sickness, Multiple Sclerosis, Scleroderma, Lupus, Dysentary, autism, crack babies, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Parkinson's, Ricketts, and Alzheimer's.
> 
> Intelligent Design?


What's wrong with those things, yongrel?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Have you considered what I posted in response to your "Ben Stiller" post, O pompous one?


I will not answer your question, because you completely misunderstood what I was even talking about.

I have answered plenty of your questions, answer one of mine for a change.

What makes you think Man did not *micro-evolve* from early primates?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Silly argument.  Nowhere in the Intelligent Design argument do they ever claim the designer to not be a complete $#@!ing asstard.


Maybe they should change the name to asstard design.

----------


## Hiki

> What's wrong with those things, yongrel?


Nothing! I love AIDS!!

----------


## yongrel

> Silly argument.  Nowhere in the Intelligent Design argument do they ever claim the designer to not be a complete $#@!ing asstard.


Obviously. I'm just taking a break from the usual arguments of logic and substance to point out that if there is an intelligent designer, he is a sadistic bastard.

----------


## Theocrat

> Nothing! I love AIDS!!


No wonder Finland is in the mess it is right now...

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Obviously. I'm just taking a break from the usual arguments of logic and substance to point out that if there is an intelligent designer, he is a sadistic bastard.


If eyeballs are too "perfect" to have not been designed, why am I wearing glasses?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

Biology - Mind $#@!ing complex in form, retarded in "design".

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

The creationists are stumped with this one.  They cant answer it.

Even after conceding to their stupid micro/macro argument, they can not prove that the gap between Man and Ape falls outside of the bounds of micro-evolution.

----------


## Theocrat

> I will not answer your question, because you completely misunderstood what I was even talking about.


What did I misunderstand?




> I have answered plenty of your questions, answer one of mine for a change.
> 
> What makes you think Man did not *micro-evolve* from early primates?


God did not create His creatures that way, and there's no evidence of it today which has been observed in nature and empirically tested in science. All we have are primates and humans, nothing in between.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What was that again? You were the one that linked to a guy who claimed that DNA was made up of proteins. It's clear you have no formal education in biology, because if you had you wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake. Now answer the question. Why are they so similar if there is no such thing as evolution? Answer me that. 
> 
> It's not a bogus smear on my part, it's a guess. I'm pretty sure that you are given the type of arguments you have made and the nonsense you have linked to.


We covered that, what last week? Have you slept since then? I gave you a follow up link and quote, and you dropped it.

IF I had, I'd probably just be a "brainwashed" programmed robot spewing garbage and nonsense, just like you do. Uh, on second thought, no I wouldn't.

How long ago did the split happen according to your "experts"? 

I don't need answers, the burden of proof is on the affirmative in debate AND in science. You say it happened, then you prove it did, in the lab and do it again, Slick. It's called science.

Merely recycling Sideburn's bogus horse crap is not the road to success, BTW.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> We covered that, what last week.  Have you slept since then?  I gave you a follow up link and quote, and you dropped it.
> 
> IF I had, I'd probably just be a "brainwashed" programmed robot spewing garbage and nonsense, just like you do.  Uh, on second thought, no I wouldn't.
> 
> How long ago did the split happen according to your "experts"?  
> 
> I don't need answers, the burden of proof is on the affirmative in debate AND in science. You say it happened, then you prove it did, in the lab and do it again, Slick.  It's called science.
> 
> Merely recycling Sideburn's bogus horse crap is not the road to success, BTW.


I'm not asking you to prove anything. I want to know what you think is the reason for the similarities.

----------


## yongrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

----------


## Dr.3D

> Polio, Smallpox, Downs Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Harlequin Babies, Bowel Cancer, AIDS, Huntington's Disease, Crutzfeld-Jakob disease, New Guinean zombies, Ebola virus, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Malaria, Spanish Flu, Radiation Sickness, Multiple Sclerosis, Scleroderma, Lupus, Dysentary, autism, crack babies, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Parkinson's, Ricketts, and Alzheimer's.
> 
> Intelligent Design?


Don't blame the programmer for changes made to his program.  

If your computer has a problem with the programming it didn't originally have when it was installed, do you blame the software company for the corruption of their coding?  

Obviously there was another source for the corruption to that programming.  It could be environmental such as lightening or contaminants.  Something changed the original programming.

----------


## Theocrat

> Don't blame the programmer for changes made to his program.  
> 
> If your computer has a problem with the programming it didn't originally have when it was installed, do you blame the software company for the corruption of their coding?  
> 
> Obviously there was another source for the corruption to that programming.  It could be environmental such as lightening or contaminants.  Something changed the original programming.


Yongrel doesn't like to use the "S" word, Dr.3D, and that's why he can't reconcile God with the evil of this world. As a matter of fact, yongrel has no absolute moral standard by which to judge something as evil because he believes he's just an evolved ape. How sad.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Don't blame the programmer for changes made to his program.  
> 
> If your computer has a problem with the programming it didn't originally have when it was installed, do you blame the software company for the corruption of their coding?  
> 
> Obviously there was another source for the corruption to that programming.  It could be environmental such as lightening or contaminants.  Something changed the original programming.


Programmers are mere humans and are not all knowing of what hardware their products will end up on. In the case of the intelligent designer it would have the ability to keep things static and absent of said change. After all the said designer is all powerful and knowing.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Programmers are mere humans and are not all knowing of what hardware their products will end up on. In the case of the intelligent designer it would have the ability to keep things static and absent of said change. After all the said designer is all powerful and knowing.


He said He saw that it was good... He didn't say He saw that it was perfect.  Man has a way of causing changes in the programming.   Many call it sin.  Taking certain drugs while pregnant can cause changes in the program code.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What makes you think Man did not *micro-evolve* from early primates?


Because, by definition, it would then be MACRO, wouldn't it? DUH!!!

If you had a friggen' clue on what you are talking about, it just might possibly lead to better questions.  Unlikely to happen. 

Here's two helpful clues:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macro
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/micro

Momentary generosity feeling is now passing. Ahhhh, that's better.

----------


## sophocles07

> Because, by definition, it would then be MACRO, wouldn't it? DUH!!!


God you've been dragged through cow pies on this one, Truth Warrior.  Sideburns' got you in a sleeper-hold.  You're blurting out half-obscenities; snot is running out of your nose; sweat getting in your eyes.

You've been beaten.  Accept it.  Have a popsicle.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> He said He saw that it was good... He didn't say He saw that it was perfect.  Man has a way of causing changes in the programming.   Many call it sin.  Taking certain drugs while pregnant can cause changes in the program code.


So all of human disease is good in his eyes? All of the starving and malnutrition is good in the eyes of the so called god? If he is god he has the power to change it.

----------


## Theocrat

> Because, by definition, it would then be MACRO, wouldn't it? DUH!!!
> 
> If you had a friggen' clue on what you are talking about, it just might possibly lead to better questions.  Unlikely to happen. 
> 
> Here's two helpful clues:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macro
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/micro
> 
> Momentary generosity feeling is now passing. Ahhhh, that's better.


Mitt Romneys sideburns doesn't fully understand the nature of his own assumptions about humans and monkeys. To him, he sees the two being so closely related that he believes their differences are just minor ones. Therefore, to him, the evolutionary changes are micro, not macro. It appears he needs to get some new eyeglasses, and I'm not talking about the ones he wears.

----------


## Dr.3D

> So all of human disease is good in his eyes? All of the starving and malnutrition is good in the eyes of the so called god? If he is god he has the power to change it.


Numbers 14:18  The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. _KJV_

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Mitt Romneys sideburns doesn't fully understand the nature of his own assumptions about humans and monkeys. To him, he sees the two being so closely related that he believes their differences are just minor ones. Therefore, to him, the evolutionary changes are micro, not macro. It appears he needs to get some new eyeglasses, and I'm not talking about the ones he wears.


It's not a problem. The so called missing link has been found. 

http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html

----------


## Theocrat

> God you've been dragged through cow pies on this one, Truth Warrior.  Sideburns' got you in a sleeper-hold.  You're blurting out half-obscenities; snot is running out of your nose; sweat getting in your eyes.
> 
> You've been beaten.  Accept it.  Have a popsicle.


Don't worry about sophocles07, Truth Warrior. He's been *Theowned* many times in these forums, so he obviously knows what defeat is.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Biology - Mind $#@!ing complex in form, retarded in "design".


 Just chemistry and physics. Right? Nature figured out how to do it long long ago, with only the tools and materials on hand, why can't you? 

Blame your parent's collective gene pool, for your "design".

----------


## Theocrat

> Polio, Smallpox, Downs Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Harlequin Babies, Bowel Cancer, AIDS, Huntington's Disease, Crutzfeld-Jakob disease, New Guinean zombies, Ebola virus, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Malaria, Spanish Flu, Radiation Sickness, Multiple Sclerosis, Scleroderma, Lupus, Dysentary, autism, crack babies, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Parkinson's, Ricketts, and Alzheimer's.
> 
> Intelligent Design?


If there is no "Intelligent Designer," then how do you explain these illnesses and diseases?

----------


## yongrel

> If there is no "Intelligent Designer," then how do you explain these illnesses and diseases?


Evolution is wild.

If their is an intelligent designer, how do you rationalize him creating these terrible afflictions?

----------


## Theocrat

> Evolution is wild.
> 
> If their is an intelligent designer, how do you rationalize him creating these *terrible* afflictions?


(emphasis mine)

That's your *best* explanation?! Why do you call them "terrible" if they're just processes of nature by means of evolution? By what standard do you judge them to be "terrible?"

----------


## sophocles07

> Don't worry about sophocles07, Truth Warrior. He's been Theowned many times in these forums, so he obviously knows what defeat is.


hahaha

Oh....


god religious people are corny.




> If there is no "Intelligent Designer," then how do you explain these illnesses and diseases?


wut duz u mean, cockspur?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Mitt Romneys sideburns doesn't fully understand the nature of his own assumptions about humans and monkeys. To him, he sees the two being so closely related that he believes their differences are just minor ones. Therefore, to him, the evolutionary changes are micro, not macro. It appears he needs to get some new eyeglasses, and I'm not talking about the ones he wears.


Yeah, he reminds me a lot of Mitt.   It's a semi-clever ploy to suck us back into micro quagmire.  It's all just about time, dontcha know?    Too bad his delivery is just so transparent and bad.  Maybe he's gone out and is getting Mitt's brain.   I predict that it won't help much.

BTW, didn't Mitt too refuse to sign off on evolution during one of the early TV debates?  I seem to recall that he did.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Don't worry about sophocles07, Truth Warrior. He's been *Theowned* many times in these forums, so he obviously knows what defeat is.


Ahh, that may explain and account for his much more than crappy attitude.  Thanks!

----------


## sophocles07

> Ahh, that may explain and account for his much more than crappy attitude. Thanks!


Serious question: How old are you?

----------


## yongrel

> (emphasis mine)
> 
> That's your *best* explanation?! Why do you call them "terrible" if they're just processes of nature by means of evolution? By what standard do you judge them to be "terrible?"



Evolution is an objective and unemotional process. Huntington's doesn't kill before reproduction, so it's just a mutation that has no real effect on the survival of a species.

From a human perspective, Huntington's blows. Or do you enjoy a slow and agonizing death as your body and mind deteriorates around you?

----------


## Theocrat

> Yeah, he reminds me a lot of Mitt.   It's a semi-clever ploy to suck us back into micro quagmire.  It's all just about time, dontcha know?    Too bad his delivery is just so transparent and bad.  Maybe he's gone out and is getting Mitt's brain.   I predict that it won't help much.
> 
> BTW, didn't Mitt too refuse to sign off on evolution during one of the early TV debates?  I seem to recall that he did.


Yes, in the Evolution paradigm, time is God, and the bones they find in the dirt are their prophets. Macroevolution is simply superstitious.

----------


## Theocrat

> Evolution is an objective and unemotional process. Huntington's doesn't kill before reproduction, so it's just a mutation that has no real effect on the survival of a species.
> 
> From a human perspective, Huntington's blows. Or do you enjoy a slow and agonizing death as your body and mind deteriorates around you?


Are those diseases and illnesses you've posted beneficial or detrimental to evolutionary survival of species?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm not asking you to prove anything. I want to know what you think is the reason for the similarities.


 Beats me! I'm far more interested in the many more than obvious differences the 1% makes. Aren't You?

----------


## yongrel

> Are those diseases and illnesses you've posted beneficial or detrimental to evolutionary survival of species?


It is folly to group them all into the same category when asking that question.

The Spanish Flu was beneficial to the influenza virus, since it allowed for the species to spread and multiply. It sucked for humans, since it killed about 250 million of them.

Each ailment is different. What point are you trying to make? That God gave us Ebola to make us stronger (when we weren't bleeding out of our eyeballs)?

----------


## Hiki

> It is folly to group them all into the same category when asking that question.
> 
> The Spanish Flu was beneficial to the influenza virus, since it allowed for the species to spread and multiply. It sucked for humans, since it killed about 250 million of them.
> 
> Each ailment is different. What point are you trying to make? That God gave us Ebola to make us stronger (when we weren't bleeding out of our eyeballs)?


I believe he's trying to make the point that evolution isn't perfect in terms of including terrible things like those diseases. He's just comparing God to Evolution (if God shouldn't allow these things, why does evolution?). 

I know it's stupid but what can ye do.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes, in the Evolution paradigm, time is God, and the bones they find in the dirt are their prophets. Macroevolution is simply superstitious.


 Yep, it's kinda like they never even heard of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics. DUH! Systems wind down not up. 

Interesting temporary alliance here, no? 

Thanks!

----------


## Theocrat

> It is folly to group them all into the same category when asking that question.
> 
> The Spanish Flu was beneficial to the influenza virus, since it allowed for the species to spread and multiply. *It sucked for humans, since it killed about 250 million of them.*
> 
> Each ailment is different. What point are you trying to make? That God gave us Ebola to make us stronger (when we weren't bleeding out of our eyeballs)?


(emphasis mine)

You keep making these moral judgments about natural occurrences (assuming Evolution is correct), and I want to know why you keep doing that. It seems like you're adding *nurture* to *nature*, which is something Carl (Pagan) Sagan staunchly forbade those who accepted Evolution as a fact of nature.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yep, it's kinda like they never even heard of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics. DUH! Systems wind down not up. 
> 
> Interesting temporary alliance here, no? 
> 
> Thanks!


They're just having difficulty connecting their own dots. Too bad we have to snatch their pencils from them, and do the work ourselves.

----------


## Hiki

> (emphasis mine)
> 
> You keep making these moral judgments about natural occurrences (assuming Evolution is correct), and I want to know why you keep doing that. It seems like you're adding *nurture* to *nature*, which is something Carl (Pagan) Sagan staunchly forbade those who accepted Evolution as a fact of nature.


Seriously what the $#@! mate?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> They're just having difficulty connecting their own dots. Too bad we have to snatch their pencils from them, and do the work ourselves.


 I haven't seen or found a single biologist here yet.  Have you?

----------


## Theocrat

> Seriously what the $#@! mate?


I'm sorry. Did I touch a nerve?

----------


## Theocrat

> I haven't seen or found a single biologist here yet.  Have you?


I don't think any of us are biologists, though. We're all people who deeply appreciate science, though we have different views of how to interpret the information.

----------


## Hiki

> I'm sorry. Did I touch a nerve?


I think you did. You really make no sense to me whatsoever. Most of the time I have no idea what on earth your point is in your posts, it all seems to be just some fine writing and playing with fancy words.
Like the "nurture to nature"-thing. I looked up "nurture" in the dictionary (my english not being the best) and it said something about how being treated as a child. So what the hell was your point again?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I don't think any of us are biologists, though. We're all people who deeply appreciate science, though we have different views of how to interpret the information.


  Sorry, I gotta quibble with you on the *"all"* part.   No biggee!

----------


## Theocrat

> I think you did. You really make no sense to me whatsoever. Most of the time I have no idea what on earth your point is in your posts, it all seems to be just some fine writing and playing with fancy words.
> Like the "nurture to nature"-thing. I looked up "nurture" in the dictionary (my english not being the best) and it said something about how being treated as a child. So what the hell was your point again?


I keep forgetting that English is a second language to you. What is meant by that phrase is that we shouldn't expect our natural world to be kind to us if Evolution is true.

----------


## yongrel

Quick Question: Was the above harlequin baby intelligently designed?

----------


## Theocrat

> Quick Question: Was the above harlequin baby intelligently designed?


Yes, of course. Occurrences like that are consequential of the *sinful curse* upon our world which is slowly being overcome by God through the redemption of the world which is found in Christ Jesus.

Are you "pro-choice," yongrel?

----------


## yongrel

> Yes, of course. Occurrences like that are consequential of the *sinful curse* upon our world which is slowly being overcome by God through the redemption of the world which is found in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Are you "pro-choice," yongrel?


Wow. I'm done talking with you.

----------


## Theocrat

> Wow. I'm done talking with you.


What's the alternative explanation? If there is no Designer, then that baby is just a result of evolutionary forces of nature. As you put it, "Evolution is an objective and unemotional process."

Are you "pro-choice?"

----------


## Hiki

> Yes, of course. Occurrences like that are consequential of the *sinful curse* upon our world which is slowly being overcome by God through the redemption of the world which is found in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Are you "pro-choice," yongrel?


This has to be the explanation of the year 

e. I'm not yongrel but let it be stated that I'm pro-choice.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Don't blame the programmer for changes made to his program.  
> 
> If your computer has a problem with the programming it didn't originally have when it was installed, do you blame the software company for the corruption of their coding?  
> 
> Obviously there was another source for the corruption to that programming.  It could be environmental such as lightening or contaminants.  Something changed the original programming.


You sir, have just made the case for evolution.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Because, by definition, it would then be MACRO, wouldn't it? DUH!!!


Why would Human's evolution from Primates have to be MACRO?  Why is it not micro?

you cant just say, "IT JUST IS"

You need to explain fully why the jump from early Primates to Humans defies the process of micro-evolution.  

You see, you have already admitted that micro-evolution is a fact.  To disprove Human evolution, you must now prove that it is incompatible with micro-evolution.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You sir, have just made the case for evolution.


Yeah, It's a good thing I keep original copies of the programs so I can stop my computer programs from evolving into complete corruption by just reinstalling them.

----------


## sophocles07



----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> It could be environmental such as lightening or contaminants. Something changed the original programming.


Dr. 3D believes in evolution

----------


## Dr.3D

> Dr. 3D believes in evolution


Yes I do... I see it happen when people don't take all of the antibiotic they were prescribed.   When the microbes return, they are resistant to the antibiotic the person had been taking because the ones that lived were able to reproduce and grow again.  

If the person had only continued the regimen of antibiotics they had been prescribed, the chances are all of the microbes would have died and none would have been left to grow back. 

This is a problem that has been going on for a while now and the reason there are more and more drug resistant microbes.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Yes I do... I see it happen when people don't take all of the antibiotic they were prescribed.   When the microbes return, they are resistant to the antibiotic the person had been taking because the ones that lived were able to reproduce and grow again.  
> 
> If the person had only continued the regimen of antibiotics they had been prescribed, the chances are all of the microbes would have died and none would have been left to grow back. 
> 
> This is a problem that has been going on for a while now and the reason there are more and more drug resistant microbes.


Then why dont you believe in the evolution of Humans from earlier ancestors?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why would Human's evolution from Primates have to be MACRO? Why is it not micro?
> 
> you cant just say, "IT JUST IS"
> 
> You need to explain fully why the jump from early Primates to Humans defies the process of micro-evolution. 
> 
> You see, you have already admitted that micro-evolution is a fact. To disprove Human evolution, you must now prove that it is incompatible with micro-evolution.


Yeah, I could tell that you weren't paying attention.
Proof burden's on the affirmative. Jeez! *S L O O O O O O W L E A R N E R S !* 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution

----------


## Dr.3D

> Then why dont you believe in the evolution of Humans from earlier ancestors?


Evolution is a way for the organism to adapt and survive to a changing environment.

The organisms that don't survive don't reproduce and thus only the ones able to survive reproduced and the species adapted to the change in the environment.

There is no reason an organism would have to change species to adapt to the environment.   A complete change from one species to another would not be incremental as evolution suggests but rather it would have to be a sudden change.

Let's take a dolphin as an example.  What evolved into the dolphin?   Did the creature have a nose on the front of it's face below the eyes?
It more than likely would and thus one would expect to find fossil remains of the intermediate, transitional forms of the creature with the nostrils moving together to one and slowly moving back along the top of the skull toward the location it is found now on top of the head behind the eyes.

We find no transitional species in the fossil records to verify the evolutionary claim of slowly evolving from one species to another.  

There should be billions of different transitional species in the fossil record and one should be able to identify the slow transition from one species to another from those records.   Instead we find an explosion of what would be called new species in the so called Cambrian Explosion.

----------


## Theocrat

> This has to be the explanation of the year 
> 
> e. I'm not yongrel but let it be stated that I'm pro-choice.


Even though this question was intended for yongrel, I guess I'll ask it to you since you answered my question. If you have a problem with the condition of this baby as a result of "nature,"



then why don't you have a problem with the conditions that allow this to happen to a baby "in nature (assuming there is no God and macroevolution is true)?"

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Even though this question was intended for yongrel, I guess I'll ask it to you since you answered my question. If you have a problem with the condition of this baby as a result of "nature,"
> 
> 
> 
> then why don't you have a problem with the conditions that allow this to happen to a baby "in nature (assuming there is no God and macroevolution is true)?"


Those photos are super depressing.

----------


## familydog

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese452.html

Everything you need to know about this debate. And then some.

----------


## Mesogen

> (emphasis mine)
> 
> You keep making these moral judgments about natural occurrences (assuming Evolution is correct), and I want to know why you keep doing that. It seems like you're adding *nurture* to *nature*, which is something Carl (Pagan) Sagan staunchly forbade those who accepted Evolution as a fact of nature.


There is a drive in most organisms to survive. This stems from the fact that the ones that had the drive to survive tended to, uh, have a better chance at surviving and replicating, making more things with a will to survive. 

One of these things is called a human being. These things typically have an innate will to survive. When you ask one of these things what it would be like to not survive, it would tell you that it would suck. 

There is no moral judgment call here. It's just a preference of surviving and not surviving, between pleasure and pain.

----------


## amy31416

> Those photos are super depressing.


At least they won't know the pain of this thread..

----------


## driller80545

> At least they won't know the pain of this thread..


Ah, then there must be a god

----------


## amy31416

> Ah, then there must be a god


Well $#@!, ya got me there. Best argument for the existence of god on this thread. Period.

----------


## Mesogen

> Evolution is a way for the organism to adapt and survive to a changing environment.


Individual organisms don't evolve. They don't even adapt. Species adapt (using the word adapt the way a biologist would.) Individual organisms acclimate.

http://www.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/courses/phys/adapt.pdf




> Acclimation is a physiological change that allows the organism to cope with a changed condition. It is a homeostaticresponse. An example is the production of more Red Blood Cells to deal with low [O2] at high elevations (assuming you stay there for a few days).





> Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation involves the evolutionary selection of gene alleles. Every individual of a population (same species) has the same genes, but each gene may be represented in the population by different versions (alleles). If the activity of a biochemical process is particularly sensitive to  nvironmental conditions, then the specific properties of the proteins of that process might be important. A higher affinity of O2 might to Hb might be good under some environmental condition but not so good under other environmental conditions, where good relates to overall survivability and mating success (passing on the genes). A gene is represented by multiple alleles (versions)
> among a population. The environment changes. Individuals with one specific allele end up predominating in the mating rituals and that representation of that allele in the next generation increases (or maybe decreases). Adaptation refers to specific alleles.






> There is no reason an organism would have to change species to adapt to the environment.   A complete change from one species to another would not be incremental as evolution suggests but rather it would have to be a sudden change.


Says who? Lets say a population of beetles lives in a forest. Over time an edge of the forest starts to become grassy and then eventually turns dry while the other part remains lush forest. The population of beetles in the lush part didn't change much over this time and if you had a time machine you could take a beetle from the past and mate it with a beetle from the present population. The beetles in the newly formed dry zone adapted to the dry zone and changed so much that they can no longer breed with members of the lush zone. If you bring their ancestor beetle from the past in the time machine, they won't be able to breed with them. 

This is speciation. This happens.




> Let's take a dolphin as an example.  What evolved into the dolphin?   Did the creature have a nose on the front of it's face below the eyes?
> It more than likely would and thus one would expect to find fossil remains of the intermediate, transitional forms of the creature with the nostrils moving together to one and slowly moving back along the top of the skull toward the location it is found now on top of the head behind the eyes.
> 
> We find no transitional species in the fossil records to verify the evolutionary claim of slowly evolving from one species to another.  
> 
> There should be billions of different transitional species in the fossil record and one should be able to identify the slow transition from one species to another from those records.   Instead we find an explosion of what would be called new species in the so called Cambrian Explosion.


Fossils are extremely rare. We are very lucky to have the ones we do. 

The Cambrian "Explosion" took 70-80 million years to "Explode." There was a transition from soft bodied animals and plants to ones that would better leave fossils in what would become the Burgess Shale.

----------


## Hiki

> Even though this question was intended for yongrel, I guess I'll ask it to you since you answered my question. If you have a problem with the condition of this baby as a result of "nature,"
> 
> 
> 
> then why don't you have a problem with the conditions that allow this to happen to a baby "in nature (assuming there is no God and macroevolution is true)?"


Yes, it isn't nice that babies are aborted so late.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

----------


## Dr.3D

> Individual organisms don't evolve. They don't even adapt. Species adapt (using the word adapt the way a biologist would.) Individual organisms acclimate.
> 
> http://www.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/courses/phys/adapt.pdf



So we are going to play the game of semantics.  
Exactly what takes place when bacteria become resistant to a particular antibiotic?   They surly didn't acclimate.
The change took place through at least one generation of the bacterium.  






> Says who? Lets say a population of beetles lives in a forest. Over time an edge of the forest starts to become grassy and then eventually turns dry while the other part remains lush forest. The population of beetles in the lush part didn't change much over this time and if you had a time machine you could take a beetle from the past and mate it with a beetle from the present population. The beetles in the newly formed dry zone *adapted* to the dry zone and changed so much that they can no longer breed with members of the lush zone. If you bring their ancestor beetle from the past in the time machine, they won't be able to breed with them. 
> 
> This is speciation. This happens.


So now you are the one using the word adapted.  So get out your time machine and prove it.  There is nothing to say those two species of beetles were not always two different species.




> Fossils are extremely rare. We are very lucky to have the ones we do. 
> 
> The Cambrian "Explosion" took 70-80 million years to "Explode." There was a transition from soft bodied animals and plants to ones that would better leave fossils in what would become the Burgess Shale.


Fossils are not so darned rare.   I have a small collection of my own.  I can go down to the local gravel pit and find more just about any given summers day.

70-80 million years is an assumption based on the current rate of atomic decay.  Again, one would need a time machine to prove the rate of decay has always been the same.

As for soft bodied fossils... I would have to guess a fern is not a soft bodied plant judging from what you just said.  We have many examples of fern fossils.

I suggest it had little to do with soft bodies but rather the conditions needed to preserve the body as a fossil.   

Look up fossil formation and find out what kind of conditions are necessary to form fossils.  If the plant or animal does not get covered with sediment it will not form a fossil.   You will however find many fossils where formed in places subject to flooding.

----------


## Truth Warrior

This article seems much more than pertinent and VERY applicable to this thread, to me.  For your consideration and possible amusement:

*Compulsory Evolutionism
*by Fred Reed

I read with what would be despair if I cared enough that the courts, this time in Pennsylvania, are again getting their knickers in a knot over Evolution. Oh help. There must be another planet somewhere upon which to hide. Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, singing commercials, delayed flights, and Evolution. Anyway:

Why, oh why, are the curricula of the schools the business of the courts? If Pennsylvania wants to mention Creationism, or to require three years of French for graduation, it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents in Pennsylvania. Yes, I know: In practice, both freedom of expression and local government are regarded as ideals greatly to be avoided. The desire to centralize government, impose doctrine, and punish doubt is never far below the surface, anywhere. Thus our highly controlled media, our “hate-speech” laws, our political correctness and, now, Evolutionary Prohibition. The Catholic Church once burned heretics. The Church of Evolution savages them in obscure journals and denies them tenure and publication. As a heretic I believe that I would prefer the latter, but the intolerance is the same.

I note that Compulsory Evolutionists are fellow travelers of the regnant cultural Marxism, though I don’t think that they are aware of it. They display the same hermetic materialism, the same desire to suppress dissent by the application of centralized governmental power, the same weird hostility to religion. They do not say, “I think Christianity is nonsense and will therefore ignore it,” but rather “These ideas shall not be permitted.” The justification often is pseudo-constitutional: “the separation of church and state.” Neither the phrase nor the idea is found in the Constitution. If, for example, it is unconstitutional to have a nativity scene on a town square, why did no one notice this, certainly to include the Founding fathers, until at least 1950? One might point out, fruitlessly, that Creationism, communism, Christianity, and capitalism are all major intellectual currents and therefore ought to be explained to the young. Not likely. The free market of ideas applies only to one’s own ideas.

Now, what grave consequences are thought to await if children hear briefly in school an argument that they have heard a dozen times in the course of ordinary life? Will the foundations of civilization crack? The birds of the air plunge, appalled, to earth? The planets shudder in their orbits and fall inward in dismay? Surely everyone short of the anencephalic knows of Creationism. 

Or is it thought that kids attracted to the sciences will abruptly change their course through life and enter the clergy? That applications to graduate school in biochemistry will cease? Children learn (or did) of the Greek gods and goddesses, and that ancient people believed that the earth rode on the back of a giant turtle. I have not heard that they now sacrifice oxen to Athena. 

One plausible explanation for this rigid evolutionary monotheism, though I think an incorrect one, is a fear that the children might come to believe in Creationism. Unlikely, but again, so what? A belief in Creationism does not prevent one from working in the sciences. A goodly number of scientists, to include biochemists, are in fact Christian and, some of them, Creationists. Others presumably are Buddhists or Hindus. The only thing for which acceptance of Creationism renders one unsuitable is…Evolutionism. 

A more likely explanation is a fear that children might realize that a great deal of Evolution, not having been established, must be accepted on faith, and that a fair amount of it doesn’t make a lot of sense. While Creationism is unlikely to convert children into snake-handlers, it does suggest that orthodox Evolution can be examined critically. Bad juju, that.

Now (and I hope this doesn’t bore those who have read me before on the matter), an entertaining way to study the politics is to ask the Evolutionists questions that a scientist would answer (since scientists are not ashamed not to know things), but that an ideologue can’t afford to. They are simple. (1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no. (2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no. (3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no. (4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.

I once posed these questions in a column and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully. Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none – not one – answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.

This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers. I have spent countless hours as a reporter talking to scientists, as distinct from zealots with a scientific background. Without exception that I can remember, they were rational, honest, and forthcoming. Yes, they were often trying to establish a pet theory. But they said, “I think this is so, and here’s the evidence, and I think it’s pretty solid, but I still need to show this or that, and no, we haven’t, but I hope we will.” If I expressed doubts, they either showed me clearly and civilly why I was wrong, or said, “Good point. Here’s what we think.” Parenthetically, my impression, based on a small sample, is that the more incensed of the Evolutionists tend to be either of the hard Right or the hard Left: those who need to believe one thing categorically seem to need to believe other things categorically. Which means that if they are wrong, they are unlikely to notice it.

And this is what disturbs me about them. I do not object to the content of Evolutionism. Some, all, or part of it may be correct. I would like to know. A more fascinating question does not readily come to mind. But dispassionate discussion with them is not possible, anymore than it is with Gloria Steinem or Herbert Marcuse or Cornell West, and for exactly the same reasons. They are the same people. How sad.

October 17, 2005
Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.
Copyright © 2005 Fred Reed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

this thread is crazy

----------


## Truth Warrior

> this thread is crazy


An accurate observation and a correct conclusion.<IMHO>  

Maybe that's why it's stuck off in the Off Topic forum.

----------


## Mesogen

> So we are going to play the game of semantics.  
> Exactly what takes place when bacteria become resistant to a particular antibiotic?   They surly didn't acclimate.
> The change took place through at least one generation of the bacterium.


In science, words have specific meanings. When you say adapt in a biological context, it has to have a specific definition. That's all I was saying.

There are random variations within the genome of bacteria (like anything). When the environment changes (an antibiotic is introduced) some bacteria "make it" while others die away. The ones that make it continue to divide build up to a measurable population. 

Now, lets say a single bacterium has a mutation that one day will provide immunity to the antibiotic. It was just dumb luck that it had this mutation. The mutation wasn't a response to the antibiotic that may come in the future. 

So, no, it didn't acclimate. The 'species' (strain) adapted to the new environment through random mutation and natural selection.






> So now you are the one using the word adapted.  So get out your time machine and prove it.  There is nothing to say those two species of beetles were not always two different species.


They mated before and now they can't. (Besides, this is just a scenario.)




> Fossils are not so darned rare.   I have a small collection of my own.  I can go down to the local gravel pit and find more just about any given summers day.


Compared to the number of life forms and species that have ever lived on this planet, yeah, they are damned rare. 





> 70-80 million years is an assumption based on the current rate of atomic decay.  Again, one would need a time machine to prove the rate of decay has always been the same.


Well, we could be solipsists and say that there is no way of knowing anything. We could be Last Thursdayists and think that everything came into existence last Thursday.




> As for soft bodied fossils... I would have to guess a fern is not a soft bodied plant judging from what you just said.  We have many examples of fern fossils.


No, it's not. We also have jellyfish fossils, but they are exceedingly rare and hard to detect. Hell, there are bacteria fossils. Again, really hard to detect and even harder to verify.




> I suggest it had little to do with soft bodies but rather the conditions needed to preserve the body as a fossil.


Or both.




> Look up fossil formation and find out what kind of conditions are necessary to form fossils.  If the plant or animal does not get covered with sediment it will not form a fossil.   You will however find many fossils where formed in places subject to flooding.


That's why fossils are so rare. 

Wait a minute. Are you a young earth creationist?

----------


## Kade

> There is no reason an organism would have to change species to adapt to the environment.   A complete change from one species to another would not be incremental as evolution suggests but rather it would have to be a sudden change.



A change in species is not an adaptation, it is not necessary for survival, it is a byproduct of selection and adaptation.

As soon as two populations can no longer reproduce, genetic recombination has stopped, and for all intents and purposes, we consider it the two populations as separate species (see Species Problem).  We give this a taxonomic description when in reality everything in biology is a sliding scale.

A long process of "microevolution" has the innate attribute of using the varying methods of evolution to guide certain traits and adaptations, for instance, Pteromyini (flying squirrel) of the family Sciuridae, has an adaptation that allows it to exert taunt control of it's patagium, (the skin under it's arms) and glide long distances safely between trees. You can see minor differences between the same members of the family Sciuridae, like the Eastern Gray Squirrel, but you do not see them "flying" about. The squirrels are genetically related, but because of the time span between their populations, they are considered different species, and either they cannot have offspring, or their offspring is considered sterile (This relationship exists between Panthera leo × Panthera tigris aka Ligers). 

I wanted to point out, as gently as possible, that your understanding of the science behind evolution and speciation is a bit convoluted.  The terms are just terms, and it helps to think of the big picture, but it is not necessary. Taxonomy itself is an odd science, and difficult. Some animals are genetically different, yet do not quite make the next gap to call different species... for instance, several versions of dog exist in the world, and one can imagine that a St. Bernard, Chihuahua, and Grey Wolf are wildly different species, but you would be wrong, they all belong to the species Canis lupus, and are all capable, at least within the bounds of physicality, of breeding, although many scientists now refer to the subspecies of domesticated dog as _Canis lupus familiaris_.

----------


## Dr.3D

This will be my last post to this thread.

Here is a little paper I found and perhaps it may help you understand a bit about how assumptions can be dangerous.

*Toward a Deeper Understanding of General Relativity*

This thread is going nowhere and thus I don't see any need to perpetuate it further.

----------


## Truth Warrior

99.99% of the once living species on earth are now extinct, I read somewhere.  

So much for an overall adaptation paradigm, batting average.

----------


## Kade

> This will be my last post to this thread.
> 
> Here is a little paper I found and perhaps it may help you understand a bit about how assumptions can be dangerous.
> 
> *Toward a Deeper Understanding of General Relativity*
> 
> This thread is going nowhere and thus I don't see any need to perpetuate it further.


I've read that before. I'll read it again if it pleases you. As I recall, it says nothing of evolution, nor does it prove any point. Evolution is not an assumption.






> 99.99% of the once living species on earth are now extinct, I read somewhere.  
> 
> So much for an overall adaptation paradigm, batting average.


Ironic how you've turned a statistical fact that actually strengthens evolutionary theory and somehow use it to make a useless point that goes nowhere...

Do you have any idea the period of time that has passed in that 99.99%?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Ironic how you've turned a statistical fact that actually strengthens evolutionary theory and somehow use it to make a useless point that goes nowhere...
> 
> Do you have any idea the period of time that has passed in that 99.99%?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar

Get a clue.

----------


## Kade

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar
> 
> Get a clue.


This is your method of debating? Posting a link to something I just accused you of not understanding... instead of proving that you understand it?

Life on this planet began somewhere around 4,400,000,000 years ago. Let that number swirl in your mouth a bit before chiming in again please.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> This is your method of debating? Posting a link to something I just accused you of not understanding... instead of proving that you understand it?
> 
> Life on this planet began somewhere around 4,400,000,000 years ago. Let that number swirl in your mouth a bit before chiming in again please.


Oh, really what life was that? 

WRONG, ignorant, stupid and clueless, ETC., is hardly a glowing recommendation for the validity of your accuracy and worth.

Hey, look at the bright side at least, it's much better than you warrant and deserve.

----------


## Kade

> Oh, really what life was that? 
> 
> WRONG, ignorant, stupid and clueless, ETC., is hardly a glowing recommendation for the validity of your accuracy and worth.
> 
> Hey, look at the bright side at least, it's much better than you warrant and deserve.


If that is all you are left with in responses, I consider this a victory on the side of the rational.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> If that is all you are left with in responses, I consider this a victory on the side of the rational.


Nope, not by a very long shot. However, in your particular case it's just what *YOU* get ( and deserve ). 

It figures! *DUH!!!*

What life was that again, Goober?

----------


## Theocrat

> Life on this planet began somewhere around 4,400,000,000 years ago. Let that number swirl in your mouth a bit before chiming in again please.


I find it interesting how you state the age of this planet as if it's such an undeniable fact, but empirically speaking, you don't know for sure if that date is correct. You weren't present 4.4 billion years ago to affirm that hypothesis of the earth's age, so ultimately, it's based on faith. Yes, my believing the planet is 6,000 years old is also based on faith, and yes, I have evidence of that, as you will say you have your evidence which suggests the earth is 4.4  billion years old. The point of my post is only to show that we both begin with data which cannot be *scientfically proven* because none of us were there at the beginning of this planet's formation. Yet, we can observe evidences in the universe which suggest either the earth is young or the earth is old, but ultimately, the interpretation of those evidences will be guided by our presuppositions about the origin and operation of our universe, whether God superintended it or random forces processed it. Let that soak in your mind for a little while.

----------


## Kade

> I find it interesting how you state the age of this planet as if it's such an undeniable fact, but empirically speaking, you don't know for sure if that date is correct. You weren't present 4.4 billion years ago to affirm that hypothesis of the earth's age, so ultimately, it's based on faith. Yes, my believing the planet is 6,000 years old is also based on faith, and yes, I have evidence of that, as you will say you have your evidence which suggests the earth is 4.4  billion years old. The point of my post is only to show that we both begin with data which cannot be *scientfically proven* because none of us were there at the beginning of this planet's formation. Yet, we can observe evidences in the universe which suggest either the earth is young or the earth is old, but ultimately, the interpretation of those evidences will be guided by our presuppositions about the origin and operation of our universe, whether God superintended it or random forces processed it. Let that soak in your mind for a little while.


The Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. The 4.4 billion is an estimate for abiogenesis, during which water vapor first liquefied.  Being a person who worships a translated obsolete text written a few thousand years ago, you are not in a position to explain to me how anyone knows anything from the past. Nothing you say is new, and nothing you offer is remotely interesting at this point. It is that you are just simply wrong, and so utterly misinformed that your entire way of thinking is almost as flawed as *Truth Warrior*'s behavior. 

Nothing in science is based on your version of faith. Everything you name gets a response, to which you conveniently annoy. Ask me a legitimate science question, and I will give you an answer.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Legitimate science question:* What was that somewhere around 4,400,000,000 year old life on Earth? 

< ROFLMAO ! >

----------


## Theocrat

> The Earth is 4.6 Billion years old.


The earth is not 4.6 billion years old. It's much younger than that, only about 6,000 years old. Here's some evidence of this.




> The 4.4 billion is an estimate for abiogenesis, during which water vapor first liquefied.


You believe in abiogenesis? You do realize that superstition was disproven back in the 19th Century by Louis Pasteur, right? Besides, you weren't even there to observe the first time water vapor liquefied. What *obsolete book* taught you that myth?




> Being a person who worships a translated obsolete text written a few thousand years ago, you are not in a position to explain to me how anyone knows anything from the past. Nothing you say is new, and nothing you offer is remotely interesting at this point. It is that you are just simply wrong, and so utterly misinformed that your entire way of thinking is almost as flawed as *Truth Warrior*'s behavior.


I don't worship a book; I worship the living God Who is testified and verified within the pages of that "translated, obsolete text" in which you speak of, being understood and evidenced in our universe. You're right in that I'm in no position to explain how anyone knows anything from the past. It's obvious you continually ignore God's own testimony about the beginnings of HIStory, so I shouldn't expect you to heed anything I add about human origins. The fact of the matter is God is true whether you choose to believe it or not, whether you refuse to view the evidence or not. Those who foolishly reject God's own handiwork in His creation are simply reduced to their own absurdity for ignoring the obvious.




> Nothing in science is based on your version of faith. Everything you name gets a response, to which you conveniently annoy.


Likewise.




> Ask me a legitimate science question, and I will give you an answer.


Do we observe monkeys evolving into humans today? If not, then why do you believe some bones in the dirt could do it for millions of years?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> The earth is not 4.6 billion years old. It's much younger than that, only about 6,000 years old. Here's some evidence of this.


No it's not. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

----------


## Theocrat

> No it's not. 
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html


Yes, it is. Click here.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yes, it is. Click here.


"We have had     many people contact us concerning the recession rate of the moon. Hopefully this short article will help to     clarify the details of lunar recession and why it supports a young age for our     solar system.
   The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year."



It was slower. 


" This paleontological evidence comes in the form of _tidal rhythmites_, also known as _tidally laminated sediments_. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (_Williams, 1997_), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, _paleorotation_)
  As you can see, the paleontological evidence indicates that moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly. This is exactly as expected from the theoretical models that I have already referenced. The combination of consistent results from both theoretical models and paleontological evidence presents a pretty strong picture of the tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system. Bills & Ray (1999) give a good review of the current status of this harmony. Without realizing it, they have also explained well why the creationist arguments are unacceptable."



Now what evidence do the creationists have that show it was faster? Oh wait they just declare it so.

----------


## Mesogen

Does ID "theory" include a 6000 year old Earth now?

----------


## Mesogen

The Earth-Moon(-Sun) system is actually much more complicated that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;313/5787/622




> In the work of Garrick-Bethell et al., the central issue is the Moon's own nonspherical shape, which, together with its orbit, lead the authors to an interesting conclusion about its past history: Its orbit around Earth in the distant past must have been much closer and also more eccentric than it is now (see the figure). In fact, their optimum solutions locate the young Moon at a time 100 to 200 million years after its formation, when it was at a distance of some 24 to 27 Earth radii. At this time it would have passed through the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, reminiscent of the present-day behavior of the planet Mercury, which rotates three times about its own axis for every two revolutions about the Sun. They show that the distance and eccentricity at this time would have been optimal for the bulge to "freeze" into the solidifying Moon, a fossil bulge we observe to this day.




http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5787/652




> Evidence for a Past High-Eccentricity Lunar Orbit
> Ian Garrick-Bethell,* Jack Wisdom, Maria T. Zuber
> The large differences between the Moon's three principal moments of inertia have been a mystery since Laplace considered them in 1799. Here we present calculations that show how past high-eccentricity orbits can account for the moment differences, represented by the low-order lunar gravity field and libration parameters. One of our solutions is that the Moon may have once been in a 3:2 resonance of orbit period to spin period, similar to Mercury's present state. The possibility of past high-eccentricity orbits suggests a rich dynamical history and may influence our understanding of the early thermal evolution of the Moon.



When science takes all the evidence at hand into account, it can sometimes determine that the ball was thrown from the 8th floor.

----------


## Truth Warrior

No moon, no life ( as we know it ) on Earth!

----------


## Mesogen

> No moon, no life ( as we know it ) on Earth!


This is true. Lucky, ain't we?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> "We have had     many people contact us concerning the recession rate of the moon. Hopefully this short article will help to     clarify the details of lunar recession and why it supports a young age for our     solar system.
>    The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 4 cm/year."
> 
> 
> 
> It was slower. 
> 
> 
> " This paleontological evidence comes in the form of _tidal rhythmites_, also known as _tidally laminated sediments_. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (_Williams, 1997_), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, _paleorotation_)
> ...


Can you prove the moon even exists?  I mean, I know you can look up and see it, and we have landed people on it, but that doesnt mean we absolutely know for a fact that it exists.  We have to have "faith" that what we are seeing is real, and not just more trickery of the Illuminati.

I have never once been to Australia.  How do I know for sure it exists?  I have to have "faith" that all the maps are correct.

How do I even know Im in the United States?  I have to have "faith" that such a country actually exists and that I am really in it.

---

Do you see how silly this whole line of "faith" logic is?  Get over the notion of absolute certainty.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Can you prove the moon even exists?  I mean, I know you can look up and see it, and we have landed people on it, but that doesnt mean we absolutely know for a fact that it exists.  We have to have "faith" that what we are seeing is real, and not just more trickery of the Illuminati.
> 
> I have never once been to Australia.  How do I know for sure it exists?  I have to have "faith" that all the maps are correct.
> 
> How do I even know Im in the United States?  I have to have "faith" that such a country actually exists and that I am really in it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Do you see how silly this whole line of "faith" logic is?  Get over the notion of absolute certainty.


How do I know I even exist?

----------


## Theocrat

> Can you prove the moon even exists?  I mean, I know you can look up and see it, and we have landed people on it, but that doesnt mean we absolutely know for a fact that it exists.  We have to have "faith" that what we are seeing is real, and not just more trickery of the Illuminati.
> 
> I have never once been to Australia.  How do I know for sure it exists?  I have to have "faith" that all the maps are correct.
> 
> How do I even know Im in the United States?  I have to have "faith" that such a country actually exists and that I am really in it.
> 
> ---
> 
> Do you see how silly this whole line of "faith" logic is?  Get over the notion of absolute certainty.


In a sense, you're correct when you say one must have faith in order to believe a place which he has never visited nor seen exists. That person must rely upon maps, books, pictures, etc. which were drawn and written by fallible men to assert that a particular place truly exists. We never really consider that level of faith because we daily take it for granted that places such as Australia, Japan, and Antarctica truly exist, even if we've never been to them before.

The point I'm trying to get out is that many people use the argument that if they can't see the "Intelligent Designer," then He must not exist, so those who believe in such a Being are relying upon "blind faith" without evidence. This speaks of a lack of empirical proof for the existence of God (even if He is spoken of in a holy book), but no one applies that same standard across the board, especially when it comes to places they've never visited, historical figures they've never met, and other such things outside of their own personal experience.

The "tangibility" of God is really an irrelevant question when doing scientific experimentation and exploration in our universe because God has given evidence of His existence through the natural order we observe, being understood by things which are made. We know computers were designed and programmed a certain way, and the "tangibility" of a Bill Gates, Michael Dell, or Steve Jobs is irrelevant when trying to troubleshoot or reprogram something within the computer. For example, no one who troubleshoots a computer virus in a computer would ever say, "Because I know how this virus got in the computer, and I fixed it, having studied computer science for several years, there is no need to believe it was first engineered by Michael Dell." No, the fact that an intelligent mind was involved to put together the computer in all its intricacies and systems is axiomatic. Common sense and reason guide that assumption.

And so it is with our universe, which is much more complex and systematic than a computer. We observe the world and it screams out to us that there's an intelligent Designer who put this all together. You don't need to do a scientific experiment to prove God's existence; it is (or should) be clear from the beginning just by the sheer order and structure of what's been made, whether it's a dune, DNA, or dogs. The "Intelligent Designer" has promised He would make Himself known to all men who sincerely and humbly seek after Him with a pure heart. Only those who are haughty or hateful towards God will have a tough time acknowledging the universe is designed because they continue to suppress that truth in their own heart, and trust me, there are many, many scientists who refuse to admit the obvious of intelligent design because they just don't want there to be a God.

But the point remains that one does not need faith to see clearly there's a God who created the universe. All you need are eyes that can see and a brain that works.

----------


## Kludge

> How do I know I even exist?


You don't because I don't believe in you and I am the God of my own Truths.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

I believe that the speed of light has remained constant.  I believe that because the data, observation, and experimentation suggests it to be so.    

If you want to call that "faith", thats fine with me.  However, I don't see how silly word games advance the creationist argument one bit.

My beliefs are based on evidence.  Creationist believe whatever they want to believe.  If the evidence doesnt back up what they claim, they start spewing out pseudo-philosophical garbage questioning whether or not you can trust observable reality.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> This is true. Lucky, ain't we?


I'd say the jury is still out on that one.

----------


## wv@SC

> I believe that the speed of light has remained constant.  I believe that because the data, observation, and experimentation suggests it to be so.    
> 
> If you want to call that "faith", thats fine with me.  However, I don't see how silly word games advance the creationist argument one bit.
> 
> My beliefs are based on evidence.  Creationist believe whatever they want to believe.  If the evidence doesnt back up what they claim, they start spewing out pseudo-philosophical garbage questioning whether or not you can trust observable reality.


  What if it turns out that the speed of light is _not_ constant (not saying that it is or isn't)?  Surely that is a point of science to which we *must* be impartial.

  It was hard for me to accept the *possibility* that the speed of light could be degenerating.  But since looking at the data and thinking it through, my approach has become more scientific regarding it.  The reason is that we are extremely limited in our ability to test it.  After we test it, how can we be sure that c is the same outside our solar system (i.e., other systems beyond our solar system and galaxy might not be the same vacuum as ours and be more populated with molecules).  We can't know that right now because we can't test it. 

  This only gives limited evidence, enough for us to make useful technological advances for the improvement of mankind.  But we can't know that it's enough for us to precisely predict something (or everything) that takes place around the farthest star without testing it _there_.

  In conclusion, our scientific knowledge is as small as the solar system in relation to the Universe.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Content of the universe:*

Dark energy: 74%, Dark matter: 22%, Atoms: 4% ( approx. 95% hydrogen, 5% all the other elements )

Oh, and lots of space.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> In conclusion, our scientific knowledge is as small as the solar system in relation to the Universe.


And science has no problem admitting this.  

Science is all about exploring the unknown.  Creationism is about isolating yourself from reality.  Creationists dont want to learn things.  They dont want to explore things.  They dont want to search out answers.

Creationists are afraid of reality.   Why?  Because reality is a direct assault on their delusions.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> And science has no problem admitting this. 
> 
> Science is all about exploring the unknown. Creationism is about isolating yourself from reality. Creationists dont want to learn things. They dont want to explore things. They dont want to search out answers.
> 
> Creationists are afraid of reality. Why? Because reality is a direct assault on their delusions.


And much more than obviously, in this thread, over and over and over and over, neither do, and so are blatantly, the evolutionists.  ( top of thread page #80, in spades )

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> And much more than obviously, in this thread, over and over and over and over, neither do, and so are blatantly, the evolutionists.  ( top of thread page #80, in spades )


Why do you keep posting opinion articles?

That would be like I go in a thread about WMDs and start posting articles by Ann Coulter, then saying , "Thats proof of WMDs"

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why do you keep posting opinion articles?
> 
> That would be like I go in a thread about WMDs and start posting articles by Ann Coulter, then saying , "Thats proof of WMDs"


Because in both creationism AND evolutionism, opinion is pretty much all we have. DUH!!! Now that wasn't really all that hard to figure out now, was it?

----------


## Theocrat

> And science has no problem admitting this.  
> 
> Science is all about exploring the unknown.  Creationism is about isolating yourself from reality.  Creationists dont want to learn things.  They dont want to explore things.  They dont want to search out answers.
> 
> Creationists are afraid of reality.   Why?  Because reality is a direct assault on their delusions.


Where are you getting all this from? I know of no creationist who is trying to isolate himself from reality nor is resistant to learning new things about the natural world through exploring God's universe. I find your comments to be ignorant and deceitful. As I've shown you before, all of the great scientists who founded the different disciplines of the life and physical sciences we enjoy today were indeed *creationists*.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Because in both creationism AND evolutionism, opinion is pretty much all we have. DUH!!! Now that wasn't really all that hard to figure out now, was it?


Evolution has much much more than silly "opinions".

You see, there is this stuff called "evidence".  You might want to try it yourself some day.

----------


## sophocles07

dddddd

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Evolution has much much more than silly "opinions".
> *And this is still just your "silly" opinion.*
> 
> You see, there is this stuff called "evidence". You might want to try it yourself some day.
> *You're just speaking gibberish again, as is usual.   What is that? Evolution Tongues?*
> 
> *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence*


(1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no. 

(2) Do we really know what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no.

(3) Do we know what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no.

(4) Can we show mathematically that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.

( Hint: The answers to *ALL* of the above questions are: *No.* ) 

Science, my ass.  

Enjoy your membership in *The Church of Evolution*, as a faithful worshiper and fervent fundamentalist evangelical.

When should we able to expect Evolution Claus, the Evolution Bunny, the Evolution Fairy, and St. Charles' birthday celebration?

----------


## sophocles07

> When should we able to expect Evolution Claus, the Evolution Bunny, the Evolution Fairy, and St. Charles' birthday celebration?


Oh   my   god   you   are   so   funny   man   .

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> When should we able to expect Evolution Claus, the Evolution Bunny, the Evolution Fairy, and St. Charles' birthday celebration?



You see, here you are acknowledging the inferiority of religion.  Throughout this entire thread you have tried to make the argument that Science is a religion too.  You attempt this in a derogatory manner.  You think that by bringing down science to the lowly level of religion, you are somehow advancing your argument.

If you are such a big fan of "faith", why do speak of it in such a derogatory tone?

----------


## Theocrat

> Evolution has much much more than silly "opinions".
> 
> You see, there is this stuff called "evidence".  You might want to try it yourself some day.


Evolution makes me laugh.

----------


## Mesogen

> I'd say the jury is still out on that one.


True. We don't even know how many Earth like rocky planets are out there, much less how many have large moons and water, and are in the habitable zone of a mellow, well-behaved yellow dwarf star. 

But that might not be the only situation that would harbor life.

We just don't know.

----------


## Mesogen

> (1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no.


Would we know what to look for if it had been?




> (2) Do we really know what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no.


Evidence points to:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high
http://www.universetoday.com/2005/10...-toxic-oceans/
(toxic to us now, not to early life forms)
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl...ion_years.html

We have some idea.





> (3) Do we know what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no.


No. But we can form hypotheses and test them and if then try to form a theory by putting together lots of facts and seeing if the theory fits them all and into other accepted and well-supported theory. It's called science.




> (4) Can we show mathematically that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.


First "Life" must be defined. I see it as innumerable chemical pathways kept far from equilibrium by constant input of energy.  





> ( Hint: The answers to *ALL* of the above questions are: *No.* ) 
> 
> Science, my ass.


You act like science should be able to give you any and all answers and then prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt, but obviously science doesn't work that way. 





> Enjoy your membership in *The Church of Evolution*, as a faithful worshiper and fervent fundamentalist evangelical.
> 
> When should we able to expect Evolution Claus, the Evolution Bunny, the Evolution Fairy, and St. Charles' birthday celebration?


Yeah, that's really great.  I love this logic.

Science hasn't shown x, y, z ergo "There is a God, his name is Jesus Christ, he is the grand designer of the universe, and he designed the flagellum on E. coli so that people would die of food poisoning quicker."

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You see, here you are acknowledging the inferiority of religion.
> *Are you really that incredibly stupid, or is that just the phony mask that you choose to wear for the covering of your unbelievable and GLARING intellectual dishonesty? I strongly suspect the latter. I am ridiculing your evolutionism religious "faith" only. DUH! Do you understand it now?*
> 
> Throughout this entire thread you have tried to make the argument that Science is a religion too.
> *ALL of those "entire thread" post #s, of which you speak, please. Without the complete "evidence" chain, then you too are just another phony liar (again), just like Kade ( again ), and even evolutionism too BTW (again), just making false unfounded claims and statements.* *"Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."* 
> 
> *Ya know, you can tell an awful lot about an orthodox dogma by the "quality" of it's supporters, advocates and cheerleaders, I have repeatedly found.* 
> 
> *Evolutionism is in very big trouble, in this regard, as clearly and repeatedly "evidenced" by this thread. "By their fruits, ye shall know them."*
> ...


Are we having any fun here yet? 

*"Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of 'expert opinion'." - Richard P. Feynman*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Evolution makes me laugh.


 If it wasn't just so absurd and hilarious, it would make me cry.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> True. We don't even know how many Earth like rocky planets are out there, much less how many have large moons and water, and are in the habitable zone of a mellow, well-behaved yellow dwarf star. 
> 
> But that might not be the only situation that would harbor life.
> 
> We just don't know.


My response was my answer to your question of, "Aren't we lucky?" 
"The jury is still out on that one."  As in, our "luck" is still being decided, and it's not looking any too good, so far.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Would we know what to look for if it had been?
> 
> Evidence points to:
> http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high
> http://www.universetoday.com/2005/10...-toxic-oceans/
> (toxic to us now, not to early life forms)
> http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl...ion_years.html
> 
> We have some idea.
> ...


Do you have some inherent built in opposition to "Yes or No"? Yes or No. 

Re: your final post paragraph. Never a claim of mine anywhere, on this forum thread, now is it? Yes or No. If Yes, then my post #, please.

Thanks!

----------


## Drknows

So who intelligently designed god then? haha



this is exactly why creationism is ridiculous and will never be treated as science. 
it has no scientific process!! its still based around faith. It is not supported by evidence or logic.

This is the only evidence they have.


a book written by *man* (not god) thousands of years ago filled with mythical stories that they pick and choose from.  without that story book god would have never existed. no magical afterlife with La-Z-Boy recliners and High definition TV.


Until they come up with new evidence of god and present it to the scientific community its probably best to keep quiet.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Render Unto Darwin That Which Is Darwins*

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ch_is_darwins/

Posted on May 11, 2008
By Chris Hedges

The German chemist August Kekulé fell asleep in his study after a fruitless struggle to identify the chemical structure of benzene. He dreamed of a snake eating its own tail and awoke instantly. The dream gave him, through the ancient language of symbolism, the circular structure of the benzene ring that had eluded his conscious mind. The dream may have had its basis in Kekulés experiments, but it was the nonrational that brought him his discovery.

Many physicists see string theoryin which the structure of the universe is made up of resonating, one-dimensional submicroscopic stringsas plausible. Yet no scientist has ever seen a string. No direct experimentation has established a firm ground for strings. Cosmology routinely bases arguments on things that cannot be seen in order to explain things that can, as in the case of dark matter, whose effects can be seen. Quantum physics demolished the assumption that physical elements are governed by fixed laws.

Science is often as inexact and intuitive as theology, philosophy and every other human endeavor. A mirror demonstrates the randomness of nature. A mirror reflects about 95 percent of light hitting it. The other 5 percent passes through the mirror. Photons, which are invisible, are either reflected or pass through the mirrors surface. But there is no way of knowing which photons will be reflected and which will be absorbed. Electrons are also subject to these quantum effects. This led Werner Heisenberg to formulate his uncertainty principle. This principle states that we cannot know everything about a particle. If we can determine a particles position we cannot determine its momentum. We can measure momentum, but in this measurement we lose the particles exact position. We can know a particles momentum or its position. We cannot know both with definitive accuracy.

Science is not always directly empirical. Science is not governed by absolute, immutable laws. Science, and especially quantum mechanics, far from telling us we can know everything, tells us there will always be things we cannot know. No one ultimately understands. Science affirms the complexity and mystery of the universe. Science, like the religious impulse, opens us up to a world where we face mystery. There are forces in the universe that will always lie beyond the capacity of the human mind.

The New Atheist writers from Richard Dawkins to E.O. Wilson to Sam Harris have become the high priests not of science but the cult of science. Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore, for example, call religious beliefs memes. Memes are defined as cultural artifactsprototypical ideasthat invade and restructure minds in order to reproduce themselves. A meme replicates in human minds, they argue, the way genes replicate in human bodies. Memes include a word, belief, thought, religious ritual, dance, poem or any of the myriad of behaviors that are copied and reproduced in human societies. Although memes, unlike genes, are not identifiable physical structures, Dawkins uses the image of a virus to describe them. Religion, for Dawkins, is equated with a disease, and the religiously inclined are disease carriers.

The attempt to equate patterns of human society with the behavior of genes, while it sounds plausible, and may even be instructive in some settings, is part of this cult of science. The genetic coding that permits the transfer of DNA-encoded units of information is fairly precise. But this model fails to work for the transfer of cultural, social, ethical and political behavior. Patterns of morality are easily reversed or erased, especially in ages of revolutionary fervor, war, anarchy, fear, social decline and despotism. Those who are schooled in identical religious texts, even within the same communities, have different views of morality and ethics. It is possible to transfer literal meaning. It is possible to transfer genetic information. It is possible to pass on heritable characteristics mediated by hard-and-fast rules of chemistry and physics. These rules, however, have no counterpart in the dissemination of ideas. Ideas do not replicate like genes. Ideas are snuffed out or forgotten, often for centuries. Ideas that prevail are often not the best ideas but more often ideas backed by power. The rise of Christianity owed more to the brutality of Constantine and the Holy Roman Empire than it did its particular theology. Those who advocate the theory of memes ignore the role of power, repression, persecution and force in human history, as well as the inherent chaos and irrationality of human thought. Human thought cannot be treated like an object in a laboratory. There is no scientific mechanism that explains cultural evolution. 

Those who endorse the meme theory speak of memetic engineering. This memetic engineering would involve the conscious manipulation of intellectual evolution by disseminating good memes and curtailing bad ones. The question of who decides which memes are good and which bad is not raised. Dennett has argued that human evolution can be shaped and directed through memetic engineering. He advocates not science but indoctrination, an updated version of thought control. The theory of memes and memetic engineering, like the idea of the new man, is another form of magical thinking. It is not real. It has no more scientific validity than Intelligent Design. And, should it ever be adopted it would result in anti-intellectualism, a war on science and democratic freedom and a silencing of those who fail to conform. The world the high priests of memetic engineering propose is as repugnant as the fundamentalist utopia advocated by the radical Christian right.

Einsteins quest for a unified field theory explaining subatomic structure or the Big Bang no more undermined religious contemplation than evolutionary biology. The questions of science are not the questions of religion. Science does not attempt to address, nor is it capable of addressing, the final mystery of existence, our moments of transcendence, the moral life, love, our search for meaning and our mortality. Science, limited to what can be proved and disproved, is a morally neutral discipline. It serves human needs and human ambitions. There are times when it protects and advances life. There are times when it empowers ambitions that are immoral and deadly. Science, like all human endeavors, comes with good and bad, possibilities of hope and possibilities of destruction.

When Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859, he named natural selection as the mechanism that drives and defines life. Evolutionary science, however, swiftly became for many a surrogate religion. It was used to promote racism and pseudo-science, such as eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Darwins cousin. It was turned like a club on religion and used to justify exploitation and neglect of the poor and disadvantaged. 

There are unfortunate implications in Darwins theory of evolution. Darwin believes in the possibility of compassion and benevolence. He argues that these adaptations give one species advantage over another. He uses compassion to insist that sooner or later the superior racesthose with compassionwill exterminate the more savage races. Compassion, he implies, does not exist, or certainly not in the same abundance, in others as it does in us. But Darwin left the championing of these implications to others such as Herbert Spencer, a utopian and a doctrinaire Malthusian. It was Spencer, not Darwin, who argued that step by step we were progressing as a species and would end with the perfect human being. And it was Spencer who coined the phrase survival of the fittest. 

The atheists, while they do not endorse the hierarchy of races or espouse the crude racist doctrines of earlier Social Darwinists, continue to argue that natural selection is social selection. They continue to create moral hierarchies among human beings and use these hierarchies to sanction violence. They do this because they insist we are moving toward a final good. This is not a position supported by human history, human nature or evolutionary biology.

Wilson, in his book On Human Nature, uses evolutionary biology to justify power structures such as the subjugation of women and social inequality. All behavior in society, he argues, has a genetic basis. Religious belief exists, he writes, only because it gives humans a biological advantage. Religion helps congeal identity, provides unquestioned membership in a group claiming great powers and gives to a human being a driving purpose in life compatible with his self-interest. Wilson, while correct in assuming that many of the laws that govern animals also govern the behavior and habits of the human species, goes much further. He leaps from science to the unscientific propositions that evolution means we can, as a species, morally advance. He dreams of a day when the human race, having jettisoned religion and embraced science and reason, will be able to alter human nature and control its own destiny:

 [G]enetic evolution is about to become conscious and volitional, and usher in a new epoch in the history of life. ... The prospect of this volitional evolutiona species deciding what to do about its own hereditywill present the most profound intellectual and ethical choices humanity ever faced ... humanity will be positioned godlike to take control of its own ultimate fate. It can, if it chooses, alter not just the anatomy and intelligence of the species but also the emotions and creative drive that compose the very core of human nature.

Dawkins writes that the human species, unlike other animals, can transcend its biological map. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators, he says.

This leap by Wilson and Dawkins is not science. It certainly is not Darwinian science. Darwin wrote nothing to indicate that the human species had risen above its biological composition. He argued that human morality was linked to the behavior of animals. The social instincts that constitute humankinds understanding of moral behavior can be found, he wrote, in monkeys, pelicans and dogs, as well as other animals.

Wilson and Dawkins build their vision of human perfectibility out of the legitimate theory that human beings are shaped by the laws of heredity and natural selection. They depart from this position when they assert that we can leave that determinism behind. There is nothing in science that implies that our genetic makeup allows us to perfect ourselves. Those who, in the name of science, claim that we can overcome our imperfect human nature make a leap of faith. In this leap they leave the realm of science. They operate on a belief system that functions like religion. It gives meaning. It gives purpose and hope. But it is a myth. It is not true. And there is nothing, when you cut through their scientific jargon, which supports their absurd proposition. 

The attempt to impose the methodology of science onto collective and personal relationships also has grave consequences. If a scientific hypothesis does not work it is discarded. Pluralism has no place in science. Neither do competing truths. Science, when set up as a model for our moral and social existence, implicitly banishes compromise and tolerance. Scientific ideas, because they can be demonstrated or disproved, are embraced or rejected on quantifiable evidence. But human relationships and social organizations interact and function effectively when they are not rigid, accept morally ambiguity and take into account the irrational. Politics, for example, is about channeling and managing human drives and desires. It is only fitfully in contact with reason. This profound understanding of the irrational element in politics led Sigmund Freud to write his masterpiece Civilization and Its Discontents. The secular fundamentalists, in a gross misuse of Darwin and of science, turn biological evolution into a methodology to champion moral progress for the human race. They seek to give to their arguments the patina of unassailable truth. But what they sell are myths, bizarre utopian visions of a new heaven and a new earth dressed up in the language of scientific rationalism. 

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School, is the author of I Dont Believe in Atheists.

----------


## wv@SC

> And science has no problem admitting this.  
> 
> Science is all about exploring the unknown.  Creationism is about isolating yourself from reality.  Creationists dont want to learn things.  They dont want to explore things.  They dont want to search out answers.
> 
> Creationists are afraid of reality.   Why?  Because reality is a direct assault on their delusions.


  My statements regarding the speed of light decay theory did not include a condemnation of creationism.  In fact, I believe the God of the Bible created the universe in six literal days.  There is scientific evidence to support this.  

  The written Word of God is not just a dead historical account of man's origin.  From it *we can know* the origin of the universe, not just theorize about it.  Without taking a stand on the Bible, you can never *know* anything - you can only guess at what the future holds and hope you are correct in you're assumptions.  We have the account of creation penned by Moses under inspiration of God, and God obviously was there in the beginning.

  Think about it.  If you assert the big bang theory and evolution through natural selection over billions of years, you are never going to arrive at true knowledge (i.e., *know*) regarding the origin of the universe because you cannot test it and have no eyewitness accounts.  Without your hypotheses meeting one or the other of the above criteria (or both), you proceed to reason on an uncertain foundation, one which is definitely not scientific (and therefore not science).

  What much of it boils down to is how we know what we know.  It also has to do with a proper theory of reality.  This is known to scholars as *philosophy*, or the way by which we reason and make sense of the world.

  As one atheist said (or says), "Think about it."

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Throughout this entire thread you have tried to make the argument that Science is a religion too.
> *ALL of those "entire thread" post #s, of which you speak, please. Without the complete "evidence" chain, then you too are just another phony liar (again), just like Kade ( again ), and even evolutionism too BTW (again), just making false unfounded claims and statements. "Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."*





> Enjoy your membership in The Church of Evolution, as a faithful worshiper and fervent fundamentalist evangelical.


You must have really short term memory.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> In fact, I believe the God of the Bible created the universe in six literal days.  There is scientific evidence to support this.


Where? 




> The written Word of God is not just a dead historical account of man's origin.


The written word of God is no more historical than Aesop's fables.  Believing in the story of creation is no different than believing in the story of "The Tortoise and the Hare"




> From it *we can know* the origin of the universe, not just theorize about it.  Without taking a stand on the Bible, you can never *know* anything - you can only guess at what the future holds and hope you are correct in you're assumptions.


We know plenty of stuff without the Bible.  We dont need the Bible because God isnt real.




> We have the account of creation penned by Moses under inspiration of God, and God obviously was there in the beginning.


Moses wasnt real.




> Think about it.  If you assert the big bang theory and evolution through natural selection over billions of years, you are never going to arrive at true knowledge (i.e., *know*) regarding the origin of the universe because you cannot test it and have no eyewitness accounts.  Without your hypotheses meeting one or the other of the above criteria (or both), you proceed to reason on an uncertain foundation, one which is definitely not scientific (and therefore not science).


Once again, the creationist is hung up on the notion of absolute certainty.  We can never reach absolute certainty.  We can keep getting closer and closer to absolute truth, but never reach it.  There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence still exists that could change our knowledge on things.




> What much of it boils down to is how we know what we know.  It also has to do with a proper theory of reality.  This is known to scholars as *philosophy*, or the way by which we reason and make sense of the world.
> 
>   As one atheist said (or says), "Think about it."


Why are the creationists so hung up on Philosophy?  Philosophy and Science split apart a looooong time ago.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You must have really short term memory.


That's it?  Whatever  happened to the "entire thread"? <ROFLMAO>

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> That's it?  <ROFLMAO>


I only had to click through about 2 pages.  I am NOT going through 85 pages looking for each instance when you claimed Evolution is based on faith

Here is another

#130



> Chemistry and physics can be tested.
> Macro evolution requires that it be believed ( AKA taken on faith ).

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

And please stop posting the opinion articles.  They are irrelevant to the discussion, and nobody here is reading them anyways.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I only had to click through about 2 pages. I am NOT going through 85 pages looking for each instance when you claimed Evolution is based on faith


 Of course you are not. My accusation and charge of you still stands. 

Hell, you can't even remember your own false and bogus accusations, and keep them straight.



> Throughout this entire thread you have tried to make the argument that Science is a religion too.


Truly pathetic!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> And please stop posting the opinion articles. They are irrelevant to the discussion, and nobody here is reading them anyways.


No, and obviously you're not. How do you judge relevance without even reading them?  Afraid that you just may learn something? 

How do you determine that "nobody here is reading them anyways", by evolutionism cult faith? 

I think that Theocrat may just really enjoy some parts of it.  I may be wrong.

----------


## yongrel



----------


## Theocrat

> 


This comic makes no sense, yongrel. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about the harlequin baby in why you have a problem with the condition of such a baby if evolution is "objective and unemotional." In this case, silence is not golden, but it does reveal that you find a problem with your own hypothesis.

----------


## Theocrat

> No, and obviously you're not. How do you judge relevance without even reading them?  Afraid that you just may learn something? 
> 
> How do you determine that "nobody here is reading them anyways", by evolutionism cult faith? 
> 
> I think that Theocrat may just really enjoy some parts of it.  I may be wrong.


I do enjoy your articles, Truth Warrior.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I do enjoy your articles, Truth Warrior.


Thank you, Sir.

----------


## Theocrat

> Once again, the creationist is hung up on the notion of absolute certainty.  *We can never reach absolute certainty.*  We can keep getting closer and closer to absolute truth, but never reach it.  There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence still exists that could change our knowledge on things.


(emphasis mine)

Are you *absolutely certain* that we can never reach absolute certainty?




> Why are the creationists so hung up on Philosophy?  Philosophy and Science split apart a looooong time ago.


It's because one's philosophy influences and directs how one performs experiments and interprets the evidence in science. Everyone has assumptions that he or she brings to the table before he or she engages in the "scientific method." Both creationists and evolutionists take for granted their own views of how the universe came about and how it operates. The difference between them is that creationists can account for the induction they use in science, whereas evolutionists cannot. Induction is a philosophical necessity in order to allow for scientific advancement, and without it, scientific knowledge of the universe would not be possible.

----------


## Theocrat

> There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence still exists that could change our knowledge on things.


TRANSLATION: I have *faith* that there's still evidence out there that will help me better understand my own conceptions about science, even though no one has seen this evidence yet.

Mitt Romneys sideburns, you're just as religious as us creationists.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

ERV's show common ancestry. 

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.ph...93d0e8ea67f466

The evolution of the flagellum

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.ph...1625a5e81eef6e

I simply posted the second video for the song :P

----------


## yongrel

> http://www.godtube.com/view_video.ph...93d0e8ea67f466


I love that the vid was posted on GodTube.

----------


## Kludge

> I love that the vid was posted on GodTube.


...... God Tube?

Edit: You must admit that the virtual bible is pretty cool...

----------


## sophocles07

> In fact, I believe the God of the Bible created the universe in six literal days. There is scientific evidence to support this.


Let this guy answer these kinds of questions:



That’s the kind of stuff you’ll get.




> This comic makes no sense, yongrel. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about the harlequin baby in why you have a problem with the condition of such a baby if evolution is "objective and unemotional." In this case, silence is not golden, but it does reveal that you find a problem with your own hypothesis.


This is a stupid $#@!ing question you’re asking.  

If evolution is “objective and unemotional” (which it is), then there could be no moral objection to the process itself—you couldn’t “blame evolution.”  Of course, you could realize, as humans are equipped with the brain to do so, the (perhaps) tragic situation (of mutated, painful genetic births).  That the situation is tragic does not, though, have anything to do with the veracity of the process.

On the other hand, which is the point I think yongrel was making: if you claim an intelligent, omnipotent Father God, and he KNOWINGLY creates man, then creates painful, tragic births and forms—you have set up a relationship of tyrant to slave; we are at his every whim and mercy, whether he will make you attached to a twin’s spinal cord and thus die early, or be born with no legs one arm and no hearing.  And so on.  The idea that a baby can be born defective because of sin is absurd.  This is the kind of crap folk-lore medicine men have been using for centuries.

This should be fairly obvious.  When your guy is sentient and all-knowing, etc., and he still does this $#@!, it's not excusable.  An impersonal process cannot hold responsibility; it's not an "actor".




> Are you absolutely certain that we can never reach absolute certainty?


Thus spake:

----------


## Mesogen

> Do you have some inherent built in opposition to "Yes or No"? Yes or No. 
> 
> Re: your final post paragraph. Never a claim of mine anywhere, on this forum thread, now is it? Yes or No. If Yes, then my post #, please.
> 
> Thanks!


Are you certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that Earth and the life upon it was divinely created? Yes or No. 

Is the Earth older than 6000-10,000 years? Yes or No. 

Have you ever seen God? Yes or No.

Have you ever seen a ghost? Yes or No. 

Have you ever met anyone who has been to heaven or hell? Yes or No.

etc.

----------


## wv@SC

> Where?


Most importantly, God Himself says so in the Bible.  In addition, the things about creation that are written in the Bible have never been invalidated by any scientific experiment or discovery.  In fact, science commends and upholds the truth of the Bible.  However, I (and no Christian) should never allow the scientific method to determine whether or not the Bible is true because it's the basis of all truth.  It's kind of like you holding to evolutionary theory of origin regardless of the evidence to the contrary.





> The written word of God is no more historical than Aesop's fables.  Believing in the story of creation is no different than believing in the story of "The Tortoise and the Hare"


How can you prove that the Bible is a book of myths?  Is this just your opinion or have you an authority to which you can refer me? 





> We know plenty of stuff without the Bible.  We dont need the Bible because God isnt real.


How can you prove that you *know* anything?  You would be in an endless cycle of tests to prove that because without appealing to the God of the Bible, you have no basis to prove the *necessity* for the uniform nature of the universe.  You can't be *sure* that the same test will have the same results without testing it again (and again and again).




> Moses wasnt real.


I don't wish to keep harping on it, but I'm going to need more than just your say-so for proof that Moses wasn't real.  Can you give me an authoritative source?




> Once again, the creationist is hung up on the notion of absolute certainty.  We can never reach absolute certainty.  We can keep getting closer and closer to absolute truth, but never reach it.  There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence still exists that could change our knowledge on things.


How can you be absolutely certain that we cannot know something absolutely?  Do you think it might be better to say that you don't know if we can reach absolute certainty (since you can't be *absolutely* certain)?
If science is not able to proceed on absolute certainty, how do you *know* that you are getting closer and closer to the truth?





> Why are the creationists so hung up on Philosophy?  Philosophy and Science split apart a looooong time ago.


Philosophy plays hugely into the way science is taught.  Your foundational assumptions make your conclusions on any given topic or field very much different from someone who has differing foundational assumptions.  In other words, the creationist and evolutionist both have the same data but come up with different conclusions about the data given their respective world views.

----------


## Mesogen

> Photons, which are invisible,...


Photons between ~380 nm - 760 nm are quite visible.




> Evolutionary science, however, swiftly became for many a surrogate religion.


This is stupid.




> The atheists, while they do not endorse the hierarchy of races or espouse the crude racist doctrines of earlier Social Darwinists, continue to argue that natural selection is social selection.


Who are THE atheists? Is that like saying THE christians believe that women should keep quite in church and obey their husbands at all times?

----------


## FreeTraveler

Intelligent Design? 

Who would place a waste disposal plant next to the playground?

Case closed!

----------


## Mesogen

> why you have a problem with the condition of such a baby if evolution is "objective and unemotional."


Wait, are you saying that yongrel IS evolution? 




> Most importantly, God Himself says so in the Bible.


I watched a movie that said "Everything in this film happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away."

I know it's true because the movie said so.

----------


## driller80545

I know the Bible is a book of myths because it claims that Jesus was resurrected after being dead for three days. Easier to imagine that he was taken and buried. RIP. The bible says Moses parted the Red Sea. Nonsense. And Original Sin=absolute guilt. 
I need something a lot more plausible to believe in. 
On the other hand, I don't care at all if you want to believe this illusion. Walk on water!

----------


## Theocrat

> Most importantly, God Himself says so in the Bible.  In addition, the things about creation that are written in the Bible have never been invalidated by any scientific experiment or discovery.  In fact, science commends and upholds the truth of the Bible.  However, I (and no Christian) should never allow the scientific method to determine whether or not the Bible is true because it's the basis of all truth.  It's kind of like you holding to evolutionary theory of origin regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you prove that the Bible is a book of myths?  Is this just your opinion or have you an authority to which you can refer me? 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amen, and amen! Great minds think alike. I couldn't have said it better myself. God be praised and all glory to Him!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I know the Bible is a book of myths because it claims that Jesus was resurrected after being dead for three days. Easier to imagine that he was taken and buried. RIP. The bible says Moses parted the Red Sea. Nonsense. And Original Sin=absolute guilt. 
> I need something a lot more plausible to believe in. 
> On the other hand, I don't care at all if you want to believe this illusion. Walk on water!


What is the chemical composition of a frozen lake in winter? H2O?  

I've personally walked on water bunches of times.

----------


## driller80545

Ha, you got me there!

----------


## wv@SC

> I know the Bible is a book of myths because it claims that Jesus was resurrected after being dead for three days. Easier to imagine that he was taken and buried. RIP. The bible says Moses parted the Red Sea. Nonsense. And Original Sin=absolute guilt. 
> I need something a lot more plausible to believe in. 
> On the other hand, I don't care at all if you want to believe this illusion. Walk on water!


So the reason you know the Bible is a book of myths is because you reason:

1.  It claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being dead for three days.
2.  Moses parted the Red Sea.

I'm having difficulty understanding why Original Sin automatically makes the Bible false, but I guess if you are the ultimate authority, you can be arbitrary...

Were you there?  How can you argue with something that you were not there to see?  How do you *know* it didn't take place?  Do you even have a solid foundation for knowing anything *absolutely*?  Can you know anything absolutely?

On the other hand, I can *know* that it has taken place because the Bible is the foundation of truth, and God Himself is the Author(ity) of it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Photons between ~380 nm - 760 nm are quite visible.
> *Wow! You must have really really good eyes. Much better than mine.*
> 
> 
> This is stupid.
> *Yes it is, true, but stupid. Yet not entirely unprecedented in all of human history.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks!

----------


## Theocrat

> This is a stupid $#@!ing question you’re asking.  
> 
> If evolution is “objective and unemotional” (which it is), then there could be no moral objection to the process itself—you couldn’t “blame evolution.”  Of course, you could realize, as humans are equipped with the brain to do so, the (perhaps) tragic situation (of mutated, painful genetic births).  That the situation is tragic does not, though, have anything to do with the veracity of the process.


Define "tragedy," please. The term seems to suggest a negative emotional assessment or response to a given situation or result of some action. Why would your brain interpret a harlequin baby as being the *tragic* result of a "mutated, painful birth" if is itself the product of an "objective, unemotional" process?




> On the other hand, which is the point I think yongrel was making: if you claim an intelligent, omnipotent Father God, and he KNOWINGLY creates man, then creates painful, tragic births and forms—you have set up a relationship of tyrant to slave; we are at his every whim and mercy, whether he will make you attached to a twin’s spinal cord and thus die early, or be born with no legs one arm and no hearing.  And so on.  The idea that a baby can be born defective because of sin is absurd.  This is the kind of crap folk-lore medicine men have been using for centuries.


Coming from someone who denies the existence of God, I find it foolish how you would even begin to suggest that such a God would be a "tyrant" for allowing "painful, tragic births and forms." How does the concept of tyranny correlate with how a person decides to create something that is rightfully his own (in this case, God)? Who are you to judge God, O *man*? Shall not God do with His own creation as He pleases? Shall He not demonstrate His own power, wisdom, and justice through both favorable and unfavorable things and conditions upon His own universe? Does not God show His mercy even towards those who hate Him by allowing them to have good health even when they deny His existence?

You obviously have no understanding of how powerful sin is towards the human race. God has declared that *death* is in the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), so how much more should sin affect the living conditions of an individual in this life? Yes, biologically, there are reasons why we have defects and ailments in our bodies, but the body and soul are connected to one another. We live in a cursed world (gradually being redeemed by God in Christ our Savior) where diseases and illnesses are used by God in diverse ways, sometimes to judge people and other times to manifest His power through healing them miraculously. Ultimately, I can't say which reason God uses in every single case of a harlequin baby being born, but as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent Being He is, God has a sufficient and good reason for allowing such a condition to come about. You may not like that answer or be satisfied with how God allows such things to happen, but *you are not God.* Instead of asking why this happens to babies, you should be asking why hasn't God allowed this to happen to you. I think you'll find the latter question to be more profound than you think.




> This should be fairly obvious.  When your guy is sentient and all-knowing, etc., and *he still does this $#@!*, it's not excusable.  An impersonal process cannot hold responsibility; it's not an "actor".


(emphasis mine)

Here's another emotional complaint of a process which you believe is only "objective and unemotional." I would disagree with you that an "impersonal process" is not an actor. In fact, it is, howbeit it a random, unrestrictive, and unintelligible process. Nonetheless, it acts upon something and causes a change. What I want to know is why would it be inexcusable for a personal actor to allow something as harlequin babies to occur, and by what moral, absolute standard would you judge that actor by.

I also find it revealing that you would make such a moral judgment of a harlequin baby by calling it "$#@!" if God allows it, but if the result of random evolutionary processes, then it's not. Also, you're assuming that God cannot be sentient and all-knowing by allowing harlequin babies to be born, which is nothing short of idolatry (making a God to suit the desires and wishes of your own mind based on your standards of morality and metaphysical necessity).

But you see, if macroevolution is really true, then those observed mutations which are inherent of a harlequin baby are just natural results of speciation, and that just means the weaker species will not survive in nature. I imagine you would say that such a condition would be "unfavorable" (tragic, as you've mentioned) for humans, but why? Can evolution really justify why there are harlequin babies, and more importantly, can there ever be any *moral assessment* of evolutionary processes and products (such as harlequin babies) if mutations are either beneficial or detrimental towards the vertical advancement of a species according to macroevolution dogma?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Intelligent Design? 
> 
> Who would place a waste disposal plant next to the playground?
> 
> Case closed!


The government?

----------


## Theocrat

> Intelligent Design? 
> 
> Who would place a waste disposal plant next to the playground?
> 
> Case closed!


Evolution?

*Skeletal System*


*Nervous System*


*Muscular System*


*Digestive System*


*Reproductive System*


*Circulatory System*


*Respiratory System*


*Excretory System*


Answer this: which evolved first? *I dare you.*

Case closed.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Evolution?
> 
> *Reproductive System*
> 
> 
> Case closed.


Like I said - a playground next to a waste disposal system. Not a sign of Intelligent Design.

----------


## Theocrat

> Like I said - a playground next to a waste disposal system. Not a sign of Intelligent Design.


Oh, I get your logic. If McDonald's decides to build a "Playland" near Men's and Women's Restrooms within their establishment, that only proves the building evolved from bricks in a junkyard for millions of years. Yeah, that makes sense. 

By the way, I noticed you evaded my question about which human system evolved first...

----------


## amy31416

876 posts of pure, unadulterated fail.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 876 posts of pure, unadulterated fail.


Not too sure about just how "pure, unadulterated" it is.   And you've read them all?

BTW, your last post was # 876.

----------


## amy31416

> Not too sure about just how "pure, unadulterated" it is.   And you've read them all?
> 
> BTW, your last post was # 876.


That was intentional, son.

I've read too many, I'll leave it at that.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That was intentional, son.
> 
> I've read too many, I'll leave it at that.


 Well Mom,  I've found just a very few real gems in the slop.

----------


## sophocles07

> Define "tragedy," please. The term seems to suggest a negative emotional assessment or response to a given situation or result of some action. Why would your brain interpret a harlequin baby as being the tragic result of a "mutated, painful birth" if is itself the product of an "objective, unemotional" process?


Because humans have brains that register emotional reactions to human situations.  Our capacity to react to a situation as “tragic” is an extension of the ability for abstract thought.  A dog may react negatively to an immediate situation, i.e. he will flinch and run away or fight back if he is stabbed in the leg, but as far as I know he has no capacity to think abstractly about situations in general.  Meaning: if he were shown a picture of a dog baby with only two legs, he would not consider it a tragic situation.  Humans have brains that consider things abstractly, so we can apply the situation as a general statement: if this happened to this baby, it could have happened to me or my child or anyone, therefore one reacts to a generality/abstraction/general rule.  The situation becomes tragic when it, as Aristotle/Stephen Daedelus tells us, combines feeling of pity and terror.  

Point: no matter if the process is objective/unemotional itself (it is not a person or a “subject” so it cannot emit emotions or make judgments) the human subject has the ability to judge and react to situations with a highly-developed (except for Theocrat and Truth Warrior and a few others, albeit) brain and nervous system.




> Coming from someone who denies the existence of God, I find it foolish how you would even begin to suggest that such a God would be a "tyrant" for allowing "painful, tragic births and forms."


I am saying the concept is tyrannical.  Belief/Non-belief in a concept does not limit my ability to place an ethical valuation on said concept.




> How does the concept of tyranny correlate with how a person decides to create something that is rightfully his own (in this case, God)?


I don’t know what this means.




> Who are you to judge God, O man?


God is man-made; man is the only entity that can judge him.  I’m a man.  Rock on.




> Shall not God do with His own creation as He pleases?


Do you think a father and mother should be able to kill or deform their children without justification? 




> Shall He not demonstrate His own power, wisdom, and justice through both favorable and unfavorable things and conditions upon His own universe?


This is God speaking incomprehensibly “out of the whirlwind.”  Job put this vapid tyrant God to rest thousands of years ago.  Let it go.




> Does not God show His mercy even towards those who hate Him by allowing them to have good health even when they deny His existence?


What is it when he deforms them at birth?  You’re skirting the issue.





> You obviously have no understanding of how powerful sin is towards the human race.


Well $#@!.  



> God has declared that death is in the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), so how much more should sin affect the living conditions of an individual in this life?


What was the sin?  Knowledge-seeking?  Right.  What a $#@!ing sin.  I’m glad he’s deforming babies 6,000 years later because of one mistake.  $#@!ing cool.  This is Dark Ages Pope Innocent $#@! right here.




> Yes, biologically, there are reasons why we have defects and ailments in our bodies, but the body and soul are connected to one another. We live in a cursed world (gradually being redeemed by God in Christ our Savior) where diseases and illnesses are used by God in diverse ways, sometimes to judge people and other times to manifest His power through healing them miraculously. Ultimately, I can't say which reason God uses in every single case of a harlequin baby being born, but as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent Being He is, God has a sufficient and good reason for allowing such a condition to come about.


Omnibenevolent?  Chill on the compounds, boy.

This is all garbage.  You’re basically saying you don’t know, and because a book tells you so, you believe there’s a “reason.”  $#@!ing pathetic.




> You may not like that answer or be satisfied with how God allows such things to happen, but you are not God. Instead of asking why this happens to babies, you should be asking why hasn't God allowed this to happen to you. I think you'll find the latter question to be more profound than you think.


No, I don’t like the answer.  Never claimed I was God, just a rational observer.  The last question is I think a parody of John Hagee, not sure I should take it seriously.  You’re a fascist.




> Here's another emotional complaint of a process which you believe is only "objective and unemotional." I would disagree with you that an "impersonal process" is not an actor. In fact, it is, howbeit it a random, unrestrictive, and unintelligible process. Nonetheless, it acts upon something and causes a change. What I want to know is why would it be inexcusable for a personal actor to allow something as harlequin babies to occur, and by what moral, absolute standard would you judge that actor by.


No.  A process is not an actor, it is a descriptive concept of a general principle.  Things adapt to survive.  This is not a platonic form, it is a general principle of environmental adaptation manifested in endlessly differing ways.  You are a Platonist, as I’ve said before.




> I also find it revealing that you would make such a moral judgment of a harlequin baby by calling it "$#@!" if God allows it, but if the result of random evolutionary processes, then it's not.


No, they’re both $#@!ty.  They’re both tragedies.  The difference is that one is a process, discovered through scientific inquiry, and the other is a tyrannical concept come up with by men thousands of years ago.  One admits the tragedy is a tragedy, the other claims the baby deserved it (but doesn’t know exactly what “it” is).  




> Also, you're assuming that God cannot be sentient and all-knowing by allowing harlequin babies to be born, which is nothing short of idolatry (making a God to suit the desires and wishes of your own mind based on your standards of morality and metaphysical necessity).


Blah blah blah  that means nothing.




> But you see, if macroevolution is really true, then those observed mutations which are inherent of a harlequin baby are just natural results of speciation, and that just means the weaker species will not survive in nature. I imagine you would say that such a condition would be "unfavorable" (tragic, as you've mentioned) for humans, but why? Can evolution really justify why there are harlequin babies, and more importantly, can there ever be any moral assessment of evolutionary processes and products (such as harlequin babies) if mutations are either beneficial or detrimental towards the vertical advancement of a species according to macroevolution dogma?


There are moral assessments of every situation.  There is no choice in the matter for humans; it is instinctive.  Whether or not your species is going to survive or not is not the issue; the issue is that a baby, for no fault of his own (he had no chance to make errors), has been born deformed into the world.   This does not, however, mean that evolution is “untrue”; it means man is born into this world without absolute existential truth given him, and into many terrible circumstances.  Basically, Hamlet addressed this 400 years ago (or so).  




> Oh, I get your logic. If McDonald's decides to build a "Playland" near Men's and Women's Restrooms within their establishment, that only proves the building evolved from bricks in a junkyard for millions of years. Yeah, that makes sense.


So because men invented hammers God must have designed the human skeleton?

L ah  j i ck     my   man    logic

----------


## torchbearer

you know this debate will never end. it is time wasted.

----------


## Kludge

> you know this debate will never end. it is time wasted.

----------


## amy31416

Is it time yet to hijack this thread?

Where's Aratus?

----------


## torchbearer

> 


That's what I'm saying.

----------


## yongrel

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...

----------


## Kludge

> Is it time yet to hijack this thread?
> 
> Where's Aratus?

----------


## DamianTV

Shame this forum doesnt support video tags...

http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com...NATI_BLUEPRINT

----------


## amy31416



----------


## Kludge



----------


## Kludge



----------


## amy31416



----------


## amy31416



----------


## Truth Warrior

> you know this debate will never end. it is time wasted.


Hey look at the bright side. Many very strange folks are spending bunches of time here, and are not out messing up other people's threads and forums, while here. It seems like time well spent to me. We also serve, we who only collect the trash and garbage.  

Who knows, something may just evolve out of it. < LOL >

----------


## torchbearer

> Hey look at the bright side. Many very strange folks are spending bunches of time here, and are not out messing up other peoples threads and forums, while here. It seems like time well spent to me. We also serve, we who only collect the trash and garbage.  
> 
> Who knows, something may just evolve out of it. < LOL >


Your wisdom is astounding.
You are 100% correct.

----------


## Kludge

Where's Dan Quayle?



 Bought that for one of my old American History teachers =)

----------


## LibertyOfOne



----------


## PaulineDisciple

I am an atheist and I want to say a few words that are consistent with my worldview;

p)e#l,^ mcQd= @C?f\V3 lD*h> r$8{d

Aaaaaah, that felt good!

----------


## Theocrat

Yeah, this thread probably needs to die. You evolutionists aren't interested in the facts if they point to the obvious that there is a God of this universe Who has created all things for Himself and for the benefit of His people. It has become very evident to me that evolutionists are just as religious as creationists in believing what they want about the scientific evidence as long as it doesn't include an intelligent Designer. Simply put, the superstition of Darwinian evolution has blinded your minds from scientific truth. As usual, we'll have to agree to disagree. At least it's good to know that when it's all said and done, I still consider you all fellow faithful Ron Paul supporters in the cause for liberty as I am. There, I've said my piece. Peace.




> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue postng forever just because...
> ...


Grow up ("evolve"), you ape.

----------


## sophocles07

I consider myself:



In this thread.

We WIN!  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

----------


## Mesogen

> Answer this: which evolved first? *I dare you.*
> 
> Case closed.


The stupid. It burns.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yeah, this thread probably needs to die. You evolutionists aren't interested in the facts if they point to the obvious that there is a God of this universe Who has created all things for Himself and for the benefit of His people. It has become very evident to me that evolutionists are just as religious as creationists in believing what they want about the scientific evidence as long as it doesn't include an intelligent Designer. Simply put, the superstition of Darwinian evolution has blinded your minds from scientific truth. As usual, we'll have to agree to disagree. At least it's good to know that when it's all said and done, I still consider you all fellow faithful Ron Paul supporters in the cause for liberty as I am. There, I've said my piece. 
> Peace.


Pax vobiscum, Theocrat.  http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/poetry/alexander-pope.html

----------


## Mesogen

Well, the way I see this argument shaping up goes like this:

Creationist: Life was designed by an intelligent designer.

Evolutionist: We have lots of evidence that life evolves due to mutation and natural selection.

Creationist: But were you there? Can you *prove* it? You don't really *know* anything without being there to see it. Even then, you never really *know.*

Evolutionist: That's not how science works. Can you *prove* the existence of the intelligent designer?

Creationist: I *know* the God of the Bible exists and is the designer of life because it says so in the Bible and that is the word of God (and he wouldn't lie). 

Evolutionist: Can't argue with that, I guess.

Creationist: Here, look at this paper plate and then look at the sun and tell me which one was designed.

----------


## sophocles07

Mesogen/Myself have posted the last two posts of intelligibility

As faras I see it

they end this thread.

----------


## Theocrat

> Mesogen/Myself have posted the last two posts of intelligibility
> 
> As faras I see it
> 
> they end this thread.


Without God, you couldn't make anything intelligible.

----------


## yongrel

This thread will never die.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

ID:  God created man as he is
Evolution:  We have evidence that man evolved from earlier species.
ID:  I hate knowledge
Evolution:  Please stop breeding

----------


## Theocrat

> Well, the way I see this argument shaping up goes like this:
> 
> Creationist: Life was designed by an intelligent designer.
> 
> Evolutionist: We have lots of evidence that life evolves due to mutation and natural selection.
> 
> Creationist: But were you there? Can you *prove* it? You don't really *know* anything without being there to see it. Even then, you never really *know.*
> 
> Evolutionist: That's not how science works. Can you *prove* the existence of the intelligent designer?
> ...


The problem with you evolutionists is that you treat science superfluously. It's as if the only way truth can be determined in this life is by the scientific method. Nothing could be so naive as that. There are many questions in this life that require more than scientific answers in order to make sense and have meaning to us as human beings, like the nature of reality, the difference between right and wrong, how to determine truth, etc.

You see, asking if there is a Designer and asking how the Designer created the universe are two different questions that have to be answered in different ways. The former is *philosophical* in nature, while the latter is *scientific*. When a creationist says God created the world, he's making a philosophical/religious statement. When he studies a living cell, observing how all of its parts intricately and uniquely work together so the cell can function, giving him proof of how it was designed, he is being scientific. Philosophy and science go together, like a hand-in-glove. One's own philosophy ("hand") determines how one performs and interprets the scientific data ("glove").

This is why some creationists on this thread have made philosophical arguments and challenges to the evolutionists because they rightly understand that scientific inquiry and intelligence are not independent of philosophical formulations assumed by all scientists. Creationists and evolutionists both agree that living cells have nuclei, that we find fossils in the ground of dead organisms from the past, and that the earth is the third planet from the sun. But when they inevitably ask how and why those things came to be, the creationist and the evolutionist will both come to different conclusions about the evidence, even if they both use the same scientific methodology. It then becomes evident that they're not only dealing with scientific utilization of raw data but also philosophical ramifications of assumed and expected results of that data. In this sense, creationists and evolutionists are both religious, and *there is no neutrality*. Therefore, the next time we have an argument about intelligent design versus macroevolution, realize that the discussion is not *"Science vs. Religion,"* but in truth, it is *"Religion vs. Religion."* Science is only the vehicle by which we seek to prove our philosophical assumptions about the origins and operations of the universe, as they relate to natural occurrences.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> It's as if the only way truth can be determined in this life is by the scientific method.


Yes, precisely. That is how every single modern technological invention was developed. That is how we gained our understanding of nature and the stars. Not by inflection, or prayer, but by science. Even morality can be studied under science; social norms that can be observed even among the supposedly godless animals.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes, precisely. That is how every single modern technological invention was developed. That is how we gained our understanding of nature and the stars. Not by inflection, or prayer, but by science. Even morality can be studied under science; social norms that can be observed even among the supposedly godless animals.


What scientific method did you use to prove that the scientific method is the only way to determine truth in our universe?

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> What scientific method did you use to prove that the scientific method is the only way to determine truth in our universe?


You're asking for negative proof. Until there is another method for determining "truth" (I don't like that word, too absolutist for Science), the scientific method is the only one.

----------


## wv@SC

> Yes, precisely. That is how every single modern technological invention was developed. That is how we gained our understanding of nature and the stars. Not by inflection, or prayer, but by science. Even morality can be studied under science; social norms that can be observed even among the supposedly godless animals.


Can you explain how morality is intelligible through a strictly scientific approach?

----------


## yongrel

> Can you explain how morality is intelligible through a strictly scientific approach?


Neurons, man. Neurons.

----------


## Theocrat

> You're asking for negative proof. *Until there is another method for determining "truth"* (I don't like that word, too absolutist for Science), *the scientific method is the only one.*


(emphasis mine)

I hope you've realized what you've just done. You just gave a negative proof for the scientific method.

----------


## yongrel

> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I hope you've realized what you've just done. You just gave a negative proof for the scientific method.


*facepalm*

No, not so much.

I am not giving "negative proof" for hot pockets when I say that there are no other delicious portable pastries. I am saying that there is no known alternative to hot pockets if one wants a delicious portable pastry.

Negative proof of a hot pocket would be "Hot Pockets are a delicious portable pastry because there is no proff that Hot Pockets are not a delicious portable pastry."

The Scientific Method is the only known method for arriving at a conclusion based on reasoning and observation, with a healthy dose of logic. There is no other method in existence for utilizing logic and reason in conjunction with experimentation and evaluation in order to achieve knowledge, so that means that the Scientific Method is your only option if that is the avenue you wish to pursue.

Perhaps we have discovered why you keep beating this dead horse: you do not know the meaning of the words you use.

----------


## wv@SC

> Neurons, man. Neurons.


So your telling me that our respective views of morality are subject to the signals of neurons from our biological brain?

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> Can you explain how morality is intelligible through a strictly scientific approach?


Empathy, neurons! We see others' pain and instinctively help them.

----------


## yongrel

> So your telling me that our respective views of morality are subject to the signals of neurons from our biological brain?


Yes.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> So your telling me that our respective views of morality are subject to the signals of neurons from our biological brain?


Everything we think and do is subject to the signals of the neurons from our biological brain. Were you under the impression there was something else?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> So your telling me that our respective views of morality are subject to the signals of neurons from our biological brain?


yes.

Your mind is nothing but electrical signals moving around in your brain

----------


## Theocrat

> *facepalm*
> 
> No, not so much.
> 
> I am not giving "negative proof" for hot pockets when I say that there are no other delicious portable pastries. I am saying that there is no known alternative to hot pockets if one wants a delicious portable pastry.


The example you gave is irrelevant because it's dealing with subjective preference. We're talking about objective methods for apprehension of what's true and what's real as it relates to science.




> The Scientific Method is the only known method for arriving at a conclusion based on reasoning and observation, with a healthy dose of logic. There is no other method in existence for utilizing logic and reason in conjunction with experimentation and evaluation in order to achieve knowledge, so that means that the Scientific Method is your only option if that is the avenue you wish to pursue.
> 
> Perhaps we have discovered why you keep beating this dead horse: you do not know the meaning of the words you use.


What scientific method was utilized to conclude that logic and reasoning were imperative to the scientific method, yongrel?

Your assumption is that logic and reason exist independently of themselves, but if that's so, then how can we know who's being logical and reasonable? What standard or judgment do you apply to rightly separate true logic and reason from false logic and reason? After all, we know people can use logic and reason in different ways to justify their actions or make sense of reality.

----------


## Theocrat

> So your telling me that our respective views of morality are subject to the signals of neurons from our biological brain?





> Empathy, neurons! We see others' pain and instinctively help them.





> Yes.





> Everything we think and do is subject to the signals of the neurons from our biological brain. Were you under the impression there was something else?





> yes.
> 
> Your mind is nothing but electrical signals moving around in your brain


Unbelievable. So, what's wrong with the neocons and liberals who act and make policy based on the neurons in their brains which they're subjected to? How can you force your morality (which is only based on neurons in your brain) by telling those "fanatical fundamentalists" they're wrong for condemning abortion, homosexuality, and pornography if they are only acting subject to the neurons of their brains which interpret their own morality? I guess President Bush is only doing what he feels is best for our nation in his unconstitutional policies because of those neurons in his brain which interpret his own morality of what's best for the world. I guess, too, you all don't believe in "free will" and human responsibility because people only act based on the way the neurons act in their brains.

You guys disgust me. Truly.

----------


## Truth Warrior

The universe is under no compulsion nor constraint to conform, comply nor be bound by the **** sapiens species' scientific method or logic. No moreso than it was constrained nor bound by the Neanderthal's thinking. 

To know that it is, is only just supreme species arrogance.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> Unbelievable. So, what's wrong with the neocons and liberals who act and make policy based on the neurons in their brains which they're 
> subjected to?


Nothing is wrong with them.




> How can you force your morality (which is only based on neurons in your brain) by telling those "fanatical fundamentalists" they're wrong for condemning abortion, homosexuality, and pornography if they are only acting subject to the neurons of their brains which interpret their own morality?


That doesn't make what they do right, that just explains it.




> I guess President Bush is only doing what he feels is best for our nation in his unconstitutional policies because of those neurons in his brain which interpret his own morality of what's best for the world.


That's one explanation.




> I guess, too, you all don't believe in "free will" and human responsibility because people only act based on the way the neurons act in their brains.


Correct! All we do is respond to external stimuli, and unconscious decisions are made for us before we know them. This is necessary because of the environment we evolved in, where we needed to respond to predators before we could make those decisions.

----------


## Mesogen

I'm curious to know what would be proposed as an alternative to a physical mind. If one's mind is not the result of electrochemical signals, etc. in the brain, then what is it?

What is doing the deciding, thinking, remembering, and reacting?

I'm curious what the alternative is.



On another note, I thought this experiment was damned interesting when it first came out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Neuroscience




> Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his or her wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that she had decided to move. Libet's findings suggest that decisions made by a subject are first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's belief that it occurred at the behest of her will was only due to her retrospective perspective on the event. The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention. Despite the differences in the exact numerical value, however, the main finding has held.

----------


## Kludge

STOP GOING ON-TOPIC! DAMN YOU ALL (Unless you're Christian or Jew, in which case that'd be appallingly offensive. So, if you are a Christian or a Jew, I retract my damnation of you and instead would like to "darn you", so to speak.)!

----------


## Hiki

> I'm curious to know what would be proposed as an alternative to a physical mind. If one's mind is not the result of electrochemical signals, etc. in the brain, then what is it?
> 
> What is doing the deciding, thinking, remembering, and reacting?
> 
> I'm curious what the alternative is.
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I thought this experiment was damned interesting when it first came out.
> ...


I myself believe that there is something more to our mind than electrochemical signals. I like to call it a "higher consciousness" lacking a better term. I think the philosophical term for my "belief" is called an emergent materialist. But I am an atheist.

----------


## Mesogen

> I myself believe that there is something more to our mind than electrochemical signals. I like to call it a "higher consciousness" lacking a better term. I think the philosophical term for my "belief" is called an emergent materialist. But I am an atheist.


But what IS it? Please describe it (or what it might be).

----------


## Truth Warrior

Brain ( physical ) is IN the body ( physical ), mind is NOT. It's metaphysical, and communicates with brain. Or so the "untestable scientific theory" goes.

----------


## torchbearer

> you know this debate will never end. it is time wasted.


Ok, I'm starting a betting pool.
How many post will this thread garner before it hits the basement.

I say 1525 post.

----------


## Mesogen

> Brain ( physical ) is IN the body ( physical ), mind is NOT. It's metaphysical, and communicates with brain. Or so the "untestable scientific theory" goes.


So the mind is somewhere else besides within the brain? 

Brain damage is usually accompanied by mind damage, so where is the mind if not in the brain? From where does it communicate with the brain?

Are you saying that the mind is somewhere outside this universe and is communicating with the brain, so when the brain is damaged, that the communications are interrupted? 

When a person is born mentally retarded, is there mind abnormal or their brain?

Is there a Bible verse or two that might explain where this incorporeal mind is and how it communicates with the corporeal brain?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So the mind is somewhere else besides within the brain? 
> 
> Brain damage is usually accompanied by mind damage, so where is the mind if not in the brain? From where does it communicate with the brain?
> 
> Are you saying that the mind is somewhere outside this universe and is communicating with the brain, so when the brain is damaged, that the communications are interrupted? 
> 
> When a person is born mentally retarded, is there mind abnormal or their brain?
> 
> Is there a Bible verse or two that might explain where this incorporeal mind is and how it communicates with the corporeal brain?


In the realms of the metaphysical. ( 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. dimension??? )

As I understand, brain communicates with mind. Brain damage is not mind damage. Brain damage sometimes interferes with the communication connection of the " brain/mind system".

I don't know.  How many dimensions does this Universe have?

I don't know. Being physical, I'd SWAG brain.

Not that I am aware of. Ask a Bible verse guru.

----------


## Mesogen

So somewhere off in the 5th dimension (up up and away in my beautiful balloon) there is some hippie sitting on a beach telling his friend that each of these grains of sand is really the mind of a person living in 3 dimensions that communicates with its brain unless its damaged. And then his friend tells him to shut up and quit bogarting the doobie.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So somewhere off in the 5th dimension (up up and away in my beautiful balloon) there is some hippie sitting on a beach telling his friend that each of these grains of sand is really the mind of a person living in 3 dimensions that communicates with its brain unless its damaged. And then his friend tells him to shut up and quit bogarting the doobie.


Yeah, I thought it just might be over your head.  

*Rock On, Dude!*

----------


## sophocles07

> Without God, you couldn't make anything intelligible


pumpkin pie

prove this




> Can you explain how morality is intelligible through a strictly scientific approach?


There is no reason to believe that morality could not have developed just as language did—through evolution.  Pinker and Chomsky have both pointed this out.  Theists want to mystify the concept of morality/ethics.  It’s not that mystical.




> So your telling me that our respective views of morality are subject to the signals of neurons from our biological brain?


Yes.  Anything to do with science seems objectionable to people like Theocrat.  “WUT!  PAYNE is jus’ yr BRAIN?  RIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!”

Get with it cloudhoppers.




> Brain ( physical ) is IN the body ( physical ), mind is NOT. It's metaphysical, and communicates with brain. Or so the "untestable scientific theory" goes.


This is absolute nonsense.

Your creationist underbelly beings to show.




> In the realms of the metaphysical. ( 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. dimension??? )


Is there some reason the other dimensions would not, too, be physical?




> As I understand, brain communicates with mind. Brain damage is not mind damage. Brain damage sometimes interferes with the communication connection of the " brain/mind system".


What is “it” and where did you get this understanding?

----------


## Hiki

> But what IS it? Please describe it (or what it might be).


I honestly don't know. It could be materialistic, some really low frequencies that we haven't noticed. I mean people sometimes get really weird experiences, things that science can't explain (dont ask me for examples, cant remember). But I do believe that it comes from the brain, and if the brain (matter) dies, then the "consciousness" (spiritual) dies too, hence the term "emergent materialist".

The Mayan Calendar comes north This 3-hour presentation really explains my "belief". Part two is in related videos.

----------


## Mesogen

> I honestly don't know. It could be materialistic, some really low frequencies that we haven't noticed. I mean people sometimes get really weird experiences, things that science can't explain (dont ask me for examples, cant remember). But I do believe that it comes from the brain, and if the brain (matter) dies, then the "consciousness" (spiritual) dies too, hence the term "emergent materialist".
> 
> The Mayan Calendar comes north This 3-hour presentation really explains my "belief". Part two is in related videos.


Just like to add that just because science hasn't explained something yet, it doesn't mean that the effect in question comes from the netherworld or involves ghosts or spirits.

----------


## Hiki

> Just like to add that just because science hasn't explained something yet, it doesn't mean that the effect in question comes from the netherworld or involves ghosts or spirits.


Yes I know, and I'm sure that science can explain the weird functions of the brain. But I'm not talking about ghosts or some "netherworld", you get the wrong idea. Watch the second part of that Mayan Calendar -presentation, it really explains the mind and consciousness thing I'm talking about.

----------


## DrYongrel



----------


## sophocles07

Sup?

MOTHAFUCKA!!!!

Huh?

Tha's right 


Note: above is Theocrat.

----------


## sophocles07

bump
































































h











a















h















a





























ahahahah






















































hhahahah

----------


## wv@SC

> 


Is this one of your proofs that Christianity is wrong?

Your first problem is that there is no indication that it is (or was) a real situation.  It's nothing more than a comic (perhaps drawn by someone that agrees with your worldview).  In spite of this, I'll give you the probability that something like this has happened before (or is happening).

But have you ever read about (or taken a course in) logic?  One logical fallacy is called "Argumentum ad hominem".  This fallacy condemns or rejects a belief or system of beliefs based on the actions of a person (or people) who claim to believe it.




> Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
> 
> The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
> 
> "You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
> 
> This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
> 
> "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Is this one of your proofs that Christianity is wrong?
> 
> Your first problem is that there is no indication that it is (or was) a real situation.  It's nothing more than a comic (perhaps drawn by someone that agrees with your worldview).  In spite of this, I'll give you the probability that something like this has happened before (or is happening).
> 
> But have you ever read about (or taken a course in) logic?  One logical fallacy is called "Argumentum ad hominem".  This fallacy condemns or rejects a belief or system of beliefs based on the actions of a person (or people) who claim to believe it.


_Oh no, hes got us atheists there!_

This page has been going on for over 80 pages.  We sort of stop taking it seriously around page 60.

----------


## wv@SC

> _Oh no, hes got us atheists there!_
> 
> This page has been going on for over 80 pages.  We sort of stop taking it seriously around page 60.


Is this a confession of your being illogical?

----------


## PatriotOne

I take exception to the word "intelligent" in intelligent design.  Obviously we were not designed by some all knowing God as professed in the Christian bible.  I submit into evidence exhibits A (Yongrel) and B (Asgard).  I rest my case .

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Is this a confession of your being illogical?


We seriously debating this topic for over 80 pages.  The last few pages have been mostly funny cartoons.

----------


## Theocrat

> Is this one of your proofs that Christianity is wrong?
> 
> Your first problem is that there is no indication that it is (or was) a real situation.  It's nothing more than a comic (perhaps drawn by someone that agrees with your worldview).  In spite of this, I'll give you the probability that something like this has happened before (or is happening).
> 
> But have you ever read about (or taken a course in) logic?  One logical fallacy is called "Argumentum ad hominem".  This fallacy condemns or rejects a belief or system of beliefs based on the actions of a person (or people) who claim to believe it.


You can't expect these wanna-be apes in this thread to take logic seriously, wv@SC. They can't even objectively account for the laws of logic, especially when many of them believe our minds are only subject to random neurological processes inside our brains. If that's the case, then the laws of logic become conventional, thus losing their law-like ability (universality) and success-generating reproducibility in standards and judgments of reasoning. This is due to the fact that we don't all have the same brains, so logic is only contingent upon the way those neurons function in our individual brains. It would then seem foolish for a materialist to rag on others for not being logical and cogent in their ideas and reasoning since the those people are only using logic as processed and understood by their own neurons just as the materialist does. It's very telling, though, that the materialist does believe in universal, invariant, and abstract entities as the laws of logic (which are themselves immaterial) when he makes appeals to them as standards of reasoning in matters of debate and discussion. Thus, the materialist is a living contradiction.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> many of them believe our minds are only subject to random neurological processes inside our brains.


Who said anything about "random"?

I notice creationists keep throwing around words like "random" and "accident".  This is not really accurate.  Things conform to set physical properties.  Hydrogen and Oxygen dont come together by "accident".  They are following natural functions.

----------


## sophocles07

> You can't expect these wanna-be apes in this thread to take logic seriously, wv@SC.

----------


## torchbearer

my pool bet still stands at 1525 post.
You can only repeat the same BS over and over before you too become insane.
Repeating the same dialogue over and over expecting that one day the result will be different is insanity.

----------


## Theocrat

> Who said anything about "random"?
> 
> I notice creationists keep throwing around words like "random" and "accident".  This is not really accurate.  Things conform to set physical properties.  Hydrogen and Oxygen dont come together by "accident".  They are following natural functions.


Are these physical properties always constant? How would you know that for sure?

Can you explain the evolution of chemicals? How did hydrogen evolve into all of the 103 chemicals we know of today? The composition and physical phenomena of water alone destroys any argument for your superstition of macroevolution.

----------


## Theocrat

> 


As always, you add some intelligence and maturity to this conversation.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> 


I think you just invented another logical fallacy; Argumentum ad Ridiculum.

----------


## torchbearer

Your God written bible also states this from the letters to timothy:




> 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Women shall never hold a position over a man... and for her sins of betrayal in genesis, she needs to shut up, dress painly... and remain bare foot and pregnant as penance for her sins against humanity.
Thus says the lord. 

This is the words of our God? We have strayed so far from his teachings.
Ok women. lay down and recieve your blessings from god.

----------


## Theocrat

> Your God written bible also states this from the letters to timothy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women shall never hold a position over a man... and for her sins of betrayal in genesis, she needs to shut up, dress painly... and remain bare foot and pregnant as penance for her sins against humanity.
> Thus says the lord. 
> 
> This is the words of our God? We have strayed so far from his teachings.
> Ok women. lay down and recieve your blessings from god.


Read Paul's Epistle to Titus.

----------


## torchbearer

> Read Paul's Epistle to Titus.


Do you believe Paul was inspired by God to write that letter to Timothy?
Do you believe american women are sinning against God. Since that is his words?

----------


## Theocrat

> Do you believe Paul was inspired by God to write that letter to Timothy?
> Do you believe american women are sinning against God. Since that is his words?


Have you read Paul's epistle to Titus yet?

----------


## torchbearer

> Have you read Paul's epistle to Titus yet?


Yep, but that doesn't provide me the answer to the question, do you believe that is God's inspired words in the letter to Timothy.
It just shows you, one avoid answering the question.
And two- point to your biblical "god's" schizophrenic nature of contridications and multiple personalities. 

You pick and choose what you want to believe is god's word. Just like all american "christians" do. You make lame excuses to cover up for the inadequacies of your fallible dogma.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yep, but that doesn't provide me the answer to the question, do you believe that is God's inspired words in the letter to Timothy.
> It just shows you, one avoid answering the question.
> And two- point to your biblical "god's" schizophrenic nature of contridications and multiple personalities. 
> 
> You pick and choose what you want to believe is god's word. Just like all american "christians" do. You make lame excuses to cover up for the inadequacies of your fallible dogma.


Of course I believe it's inspired by God. I'm not ashamed of that. Also, yes, I believe that a woman sins when she usurps the authority of her husband and the elders of her church. You fail to understand that marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church, His Bride. Ephesians 5:21-27 tells us that. As wv@SC so aptly pointed out in another thread where you asked this question, it's God's basis of morality and His standard of living. Unlike the world, our God encourages those He loves to submit themselves to other people they love. He's given offices in the family, government, and church in which the leaders are called to do the same. That's just the way God works.

If you have a problem with that, then that's on you, but you still have no objective, universal, and absolute basis to judge what God does. All you have is your personal feelings and subjective opinion, and frankly speaking, that is just dung in God's eyes. God was here first, so He makes the rules, not you and definitely not me.

What is your intent in asking about those passages of Scripture? Do you wish to become a Christian or something, or are you seeking to try to undermine divine truth?

----------


## sophocles07

> As always, you add some intelligence and maturity to this conversation.



Sup baby

Good job God


Oh well

I guess there dad was a Hindu.  Or maybe their great great great great grandfather, after giving semen necessary for birth to one descendent, turned out to be a homosexual.

Makes sense.

----------


## sophocles07

> Of course I believe it's inspired by God. I'm not ashamed of that.


Shame is a Classical virtue.  AIDOS. Shame.  The Greeks were right.




> Also, yes, I believe that a woman sins when she usurps the authority of her husband and the elders of her church.


What if her church elders molest children?




> If you have a problem with that, then that's on you, but you still have no objective, universal, and absolute basis to judge what God does.


1,000,000 th time: nor do you.




> All you have is your personal feelings and subjective opinion, and frankly speaking, that is just dung in God's eyes. God was here first, so He makes the rules, not you and definitely not me.


I’m glad our personal feelings are dung in God’s eyes.  That’s nice to know.  Love’s $#@!ing cool.

----------


## amy31416

> Of course I believe it's inspired by God. I'm not ashamed of that. Also, yes, I believe that a woman sins when she usurps the authority of her husband and the elders of her church. You fail to understand that marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church, His Bride. Ephesians 5:21-27 tells us that. As wv@SC so aptly pointed out in another thread where you asked this question, it's God's basis of morality and His standard of living. Unlike the world, our God encourages those He loves to submit themselves to other people they love. He's given offices in the family, government, and church in which the leaders are called to do the same. That's just the way God works.


So, a woman sins when she usurps the authority of her husband and the elders of her church, eh?

So, when dear husband is an abusive alcoholic and she has the police throw his ass in jail, she's sinning. When dear husband is a gambling addict and she freezes the accounts so he doesn't spend the retirement and the kids college fund, she is sinning. When she leaves and takes the kids after the husband has given her an STD from back-alley whores, she is sinning.

When she questions leaders of a church who are bilking money from older, gullible people, she's sinning. When she questions the elders in the church, as in the case of a few women in the FLDS, she's sinning.

That's just ridiculous.

----------


## sophocles07

^^AMY

The writers of the Bible were too busy setting up camelhide tents in the desert to deal with these problems; they had to get that $#@! DOWN QUICK and watch out for sandstorms. 

DUH (as Truth Warrior says like a 14 yr old every post)

----------


## Theocrat

> So, a woman sins when she usurps the authority of her husband and the elders of her church, eh?
> 
> So, when dear husband is an abusive alcoholic and she has the police throw his ass in jail, she's sinning. When dear husband is a gambling addict and she freezes the accounts so he doesn't spend the retirement and the kids college fund, she is sinning. When she leaves and takes the kids after the husband has given her an STD from back-alley whores, she is sinning.
> 
> When she questions leaders of a church who are bilking money from older, gullible people, she's sinning. When she questions the elders in the church, as in the case of a few women in the FLDS, she's sinning.
> 
> That's just ridiculous.


All of the objections you've given are strawmen because I never said that, and the Bible definitely doesn't teach that. Men are commanded to love their wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for it. Obviously, there are times when a woman can rebel against her husband, especially when her life and the life of her children are threatened by her husband. As a matter of fact, you'd be surprised to know that in the Old Testament, a man was fined for not taking care of his wife, and if he cheated on her, he was to be killed. God's commandments are equitable in their sanctions, too.

The point of those passages is to illustrate God sovereign and particular order within the families and structures of His dear Church in how they should relate to each other. As much as possible, the woman should submit to the authority of her husband and the elders of her church. That doesn't mean she should allow rank sin to go about if her husband or church elders perform it. She may appeal to other authorities which God has established to remedy an abusive husband or corrupt church leadership.

----------


## amy31416

> All of the objections you've given are strawmen because I never said that, and the Bible definitely doesn't teach that. Men are commanded to love their wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for it. Obviously, there are times when a woman can rebel against her husband, especially when her life and the life of her children are threatened by her husband. As a matter of fact, you'd be surprised to know that in the Old Testament, a man was fined for not taking care of his wife, and if he cheated on her, he was to be killed. God's commandments are equitable in their sanctions, too.
> 
> The point of those passages is to illustrate God sovereign and particular order within the families and structures of His dear Church in how they should relate to each other. As much as possible, the woman should submit to the authority of her husband and the elders of her church. That doesn't mean she should allow rank sin to go about if her husband or church elders perform it. She may appeal to other authorities which God has established to remedy an abusive husband or corrupt church leadership.


So does the bible state that women should submit as much as possible, with a listing of potential disclaimers? Or does it just say that she must submit or she's sinning?

What other authorities should she appeal to? What if they won't help? 

So you believe that men should be put to death for cheating? Who puts them to death? Can I?

----------


## Dr.3D

> So you believe that men should be put to death for cheating? Who puts them to death? Can I?


I only wish. 

Edit: oops... forgot what thread this was.

----------


## amy31416

> I only wish. 
> 
> Edit: oops... forgot what thread this was.

----------


## Mesogen

> ...Christ loved the Church and gave His life for it.


So he's dead?

----------


## sophocles07

> So he's dead?


Yea, it's not even that much of a $#@!ing sacrifice if you get to be resurrected and live eternally as lord of the entire universe.  If he had stayed dead, we could at least talk.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

The bible is full of so many morals man should adopt.   

*Bible On Slavery*

_ 	When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies 	immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, 	there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)_
 _A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)_ 
*
Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his 	household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? 	Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 	24:45-46)
* 
_Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all 	honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who 	have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they 	are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those 	who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these 	duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our 	Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is 	conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for 	disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, 	and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, 	imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)__ 

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, 	as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but 	as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6) 

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every 	respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and 	perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of 	God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10) 

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those 	who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you 	if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure 	when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when 	you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)


_

----------


## LibertyOfOne

_Bible On Women

__"And the daughter of any    priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father:    she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus    21:9)_
_"When men strive together    one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband    out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh    him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity    her." (Deuteronomy    25:11-12)_

_"Speak unto the children    of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then    she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for    her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus    12:2)_

_"But if she bear a maid    child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall    continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."    (Leviticus    12:5)_

_"But I would have you know,    that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;    and the head of Christ is God." (I    Corinthians 11:3)_

_"For the man is not of the    woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;    but the woman for the man." (I    Corinthians 11:8-9)_

*Jesus Will Kill Children*

_"Behold, I will cast her    into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except    they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all    the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and    I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation    2:22-23)_

_"Behold, here is my daughter    a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them,    and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile    a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine,    and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night    until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."    (Judges    19:24-25)_

_"Let the women learn in    silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp    authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then    Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I    Timothy 2:11-14)_

_"If a man be found lying    with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie    with her;" (Deuteronomy    22:22)_

_"Then ye shall bring them    both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that    they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man,    because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from    among you." (Deuteronomy    22:24)_

_"If a man find a damsel    that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with    her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's    father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath    humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."    (Deuteronomy    22:28-29)_

_"Wives, submit yourselves    unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the    wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the    body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to    their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians    5:22-24)_

_"Let your women keep silence    in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded    to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing,    let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in    the church." (I    Corinthians 14:34-35)_

_"Unto the woman he said,    I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt    bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule    over thee." (Genesis    3:16)_

_"Samaria shall become desolate;    for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants    shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea    13:16)_

_"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)_

_"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)_

_"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)_

_"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)_

_"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)_

_"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)_

_"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)_

----------


## LibertyOfOne

Is the bible a book we should gather morals from? No thanks. I don't condone slavery or think women should be considered property.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> Is the bible a book we should gather morals from? No thanks. I don't condone slavery or think women should be considered property.


What are you some sort of religious nut? How dare you condemn anyone for their beliefs, you Puritan! Next you will want to burn someone at the stake. Exactly what objective standard are you using to condemn those who believe differently than you; the electro-chemical reactions in your brain? You must be a homophobe as well, aren't you. You Bigot, you are so intolerant of other peoples beliefs. Morals are merely a psychological carry-over from your Christian upbringing, free yourself from such religious dogmas and join us consistent naturalists and declare yourself free from all moral constraints, only then will you be enlightened with the truth.

----------


## torchbearer

lmao. oh, the irony.
Defend the ruler's tool of manipulation to your own grave.

----------


## Theocrat

> The bible is full of so many morals man should adopt.   
> 
> *Bible On Slavery*
> 
> _ 	When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies 	immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, 	there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)_
>  _A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)_ 
> *
> Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his 	household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? 	Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 	24:45-46)
> * 
> ...





> _Bible On Women
> 
> __"And the daughter of any    priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father:    she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus    21:9)_
> _"When men strive together    one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband    out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh    him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity    her." (Deuteronomy    25:11-12)_
> 
> _"Speak unto the children    of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then    she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for    her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus    12:2)_
> 
> _"But if she bear a maid    child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall    continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."    (Leviticus    12:5)_
> 
> ...


By what *absolute*, *universal*, and *invariant* standard(s) do you judge these passages to be immoral, LibertyOfOne? Or should I just conclude that the *neurons in your brain* don't agree with these passages?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> By what *absolute*, *universal*, and *invariant* standard(s) do you judge these passages to be immoral, LibertyOfOne? Or should I just conclude that the *neurons in your brain* don't agree with these passages?


It's simple really. I own my body and no one else has a higher claim to it than me. That is self evident. Anyone who claims otherwise is to deny the self evident realization that man owns himself. Anyone who claims ownership of another man is denying reality and is therefor wrong.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> AObviously, there are times when a woman can rebel against her husband, especially when her life and the life of her children are threatened by her husband.


Where is this in the Bible? It's not obvious from its readings. Is the bible the literal word of god and an absolute "objective" (in your words) truth, or is it open to interpretation?

Similarly, is the Constitution of the United States open to interpretation?

----------


## Hiki

I seriously cant believe this 

Anytime we quote some nice little verses from the Bible, these guys start asking us "By what absolute moral standards do you judge these verses to be immoral?" like it gives them a hard-on. You avoid the question and point presented to you by implying that we don't have any basis for moral. We have already said in this thread and many other threads where we THINK we get our morals from, and besides it is irrelevant. We are now talking about the moral standards given by the Bible.

Now it is time for you to answer if you really subscribe to those morals presented by the all-knowing God, Creator of all, who gave us His Word in His Scripture.

----------


## sophocles07

> By what absolute, universal, and invariant standard(s) do you judge these passages to be immoral, LibertyOfOne? Or should I just conclude that the neurons in your brain don't agree with these passages?


Your concepts of “absolute, universal, and invariant” are never applicable; such concepts are ideals, they are never truly operable in ANY situation.  STOP asking this $#@!ing STUPID question, with the smug grin—lips dripping with the ooze of corncovered $#@!—of someone who _reeuhlee thanks_ thay got that thar truth.

----------


## FindLiberty

...or, let's all just stone each other to death and then let God sort it out?

This thread is revealing, scary and divisive.  Liberty is lost when
religion, morality (or whatever else) is imposed upon others.

*I don't think we just crawled out from under a rock on the sea
floor*, but that KJV Bible does not completely do it for me either...*
So therefore, I fall in the ID camp and reject the "science/luck" theory.
Maybe we were dropped off here, or we sprouted from seeds cast about
throughout the universe?  Why does this matter to those planning WW3?

Something is very wrong when you see a political wonk start
waving a Bible around to gather followers (voters).  _Look
away my friend!_

But it's time to look in the mirror where a Libertarian atheist or
deitist starts hammering on somebody about their (goofy?) faith
in a particular book, movie or rock. _Put down that hammer_
(unless its used for self-defense, then pick up a few stones too)!


_*Sometimes I feel so low that when I look up, I can see the slimey
trails left by tiny snails that live way down at the bottom of the ocean.  
Those slimey trails appear as shooting stars, way up in the sky, to me! 
[I can't remember how that one goes exactly, but that's the general idea...]_

----------


## Ozwest

Religion has contributed to art and music, charities, human fellowship and togetherness. It offers solace to the weak and afflicted, and hope to the dying.

But, in my opinion, Religion gets people to believe in something untrue. It stops people thinking in a rational and objective way, dividing people, causing wars, unequally categorizing women and gays, obstructing scientific research, and forcing people to rely on outside authority, rather than being self-reliant.

Religion is un-democratic, and an enemy of basic human rights.

An un-biased examination of history and current events, may point towards glimpses of  Religious good, but the bad far out-weighs the good...

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> It's simple really. I own my body and no one else has a higher claim to it than me. That is self evident. Anyone who claims otherwise is to deny the self evident realization that man owns himself. Anyone who claims ownership of another man is denying reality and is therefore wrong.


I am surprised that you are in a Ron Paul forum and you do not realize that you are a slave to the state? We have almost 50% of our income confiscated by the state and you say you own your own body. Just try and stop paying your taxes and you will discover that you do not own your own body, the state does and they will take your body and throw it in jail, while in jail you may lul yourself to sleep repeating the phrase, "I own my body, I own my body..." but you will still be enslaved by your masters.

You are also enslaved by your Christian upbringing since you are still morally outraged by people who do not believe the way you do. Moral judgments are an illusory trick that your mind plays on you to keep you enslaved to a Christian way of thinking. Free your mind and cease all value and moral judgments and you shall be truly free.

Fear is the mother of morality. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual. - Friedrich Nietzsche

"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." ...Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."...Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
...Jonathan Swift, 1738

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> This thread is revealing, scary and divisive.  Liberty is lost when religion, morality (or whatever else) is imposed upon others.


LibertyOfOne, you need to take the advice of FindLiberty and not impose your morality on other people. As FindLiberty said, by doing so, you are being scary and divisive when you try to impose your morality on others.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> But, in my opinion, Religion gets people to believe in something untrue. It stops people thinking in a rational and objective way, dividing people, causing wars, unequally categorizing women and gays, obstructing scientific research, and forcing people to rely on outside authority, rather than being self-reliant.
> 
> Religion is un-democratic, and an enemy of basic human rights.
> 
> An un-biased examination of history and current events, may point towards glimpses of Religious good, but the bad far out-weighs the good...


Ozwest, you use the terms "good" and "bad" but what do these terms really mean? You must secretly believe in God, since you keep making these moral judgments. You need to accept the fact that if one cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell something, then it doesnt exist, or at least you should not try to make anyone believe that these things exist if you cannot demonstrate them through the senses.

Now come on, put up or shut up, prove to me that the concepts good or bad exist in the real world or quit using these terms.

----------


## Ozwest

> Ozwest, you use the terms "good" and "bad" but what do these terms really mean? You must secretly believe in God, since you keep making these moral judgments. You need to accept the fact that if one cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell something, then it doesnt exist, or at least you should not try to make anyone believe that these things exist if you cannot demonstrate them through the senses.
> 
> Now come on, put up or shut up, prove to me that the concepts good or bad exist in the real world or quit using these terms.


I am an atheist. I have no secrets.

I believe in Religious freedom, and defend the rights of others to choose.

But, post# 980 stands...

----------


## Ozwest

Why play semantics PaulDisciple?

I say what I mean, I mean what I say.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> I am an atheist. I have no secrets.
> 
> I believe in Religious freedom, and defend the rights of others to choose.
> 
> But, post# 980 stands...


But you draw your line somewhere don’t you. Let’s say that I come from a cannibalistic tribe and believe that it is OK to eat people. You would certainly object that this would be wrong because I am violating the rights of the people I eat, wouldn’t you? That is a moral judgment and who are you to condemn my beliefs. So in this case, you would only believe in Religious freedom as long as it fits into the restraints that you have imagined in that grey matter in your head. And let’s say that these are cannibals that are strict empiricists and they tell you that rights do not exist and they ask you to show them a right that they can sense with one of their 5 senses, what would you use to prove to them that these rights actually exist in nature and that they are not a figment of your imagination or is it just your personal opinion? Morals that are reduced to mere personal opinion can no longer be considered morals and should be abandoned.

So my challenge to you applies to everything that you appeal to that I cannot sense with one of my five senses. Prove to me that things like Religious freedom and human rights exist or quit using these carry-overs from your hidden religious beliefs. I fear that you have not gotten rid of the last vestiges of your deep religious conviction in the existence of God until you admit that all moral judgments are equally valid or invalid however you wish to think of them.

----------


## yongrel



----------


## Ozwest

> But you draw your line somewhere dont you. Lets say that I come from a cannibalistic tribe and believe that it is OK to eat people. You would certainly object that this would be wrong because I am violating the rights of the people I eat, wouldnt you? That is a moral judgment and who are you to condemn my beliefs. So in this case, you would only believe in Religious freedom as long as it fits into the restraints that you have imagined in that grey matter in your head. And lets say that these are cannibals that are strict empiricists and they tell you that rights do not exist and they ask you to show them a right that they can sense with one of their 5 senses, what would you use to prove to them that these rights actually exist in nature and that they are not a figment of your imagination or is it just your personal opinion? Morals that are reduced to mere personal opinion can no longer be considered morals and should be abandoned.
> 
> So my challenge to you applies to everything that you appeal to that I cannot sense with one of my five senses. Prove to me that things like Religious freedom and human rights exist or quit using these carry-overs from your hidden religious beliefs. I fear that you have not gotten rid of the last vestiges of your deep religious conviction in the existence of God until you admit that all moral judgments are equally valid or invalid however you wish to think of them.


Wake up! I am an atheist.

My moral guidance is based on my experiences as a human being.

I was raised in a christian environment. Haven't most of us?

I am not a outer space replica. I am a human being, imperfect, but capable of making my own decisions.

Being an atheist sets me free.

I respect the choices of others.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> Wake up! I am an atheist.
> 
> My moral guidance is based on my experiences as a human being.
> 
> I was raised in a christian environment. Haven't most of us?
> 
> I am not a outer space replica. I am a human being, imperfect, but capable of making my own decisions.
> 
> Being an atheist sets me free.
> ...


So you respect the choice of a cannibal to eat other human beings. Youre one of the few consistent atheists that I have met, I congratulate you.

----------


## Hiki

As said, a lot of morals are based on cultural things.

When they stone people to death in Iran for stupid reasons do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I go there and tell them it's wrong to do it and they should stop it? No.
Perhaps, if I lived in Iran I would think that stoning people is ok. If I was born into a primitive cannibal tribe in Africa, I would think that eating people is fine. That's how it goes.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> As said, a lot of morals are based on cultural things.
> 
> When they stone people to death in Iran for stupid reasons do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I go there and tell them it's wrong to do it and they should stop it? No.
> Perhaps, if I lived in Iran I would think that stoning people is ok. If I was born into a primitive cannibal tribe in Africa, I would think that eating people is fine. That's how it goes.


So whatever the majority opinion in a particular culture believes is right and wrong is right and wrong? So there is no such thing as an objective right and wrong that applies to all cultures at all times. If this is the case why even use the terms right and wrong, why don't you just call it what it is, your culturally shaped personal opinion.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

I'm glad that it seems like we are finally getting somewhere in this debate.

----------


## torchbearer

> So whatever the majority opinion in a particular culture believes is right and wrong is right and wrong? So there is no such thing as an objective right and wrong that applies to all cultures at all times. If this is the case why even use the terms right and wrong, why don't you just call it what it is, your culturally shaped personal opinion.


You are starting to figure it out. Re-read what you just wrote.
Now apply it yo your own social settings.
Why do you believe so strongly in the things you do believe?

----------


## Ozwest

> So you respect the choice of a cannibal to eat other human beings. Youre one of the few consistent atheists that I have met, I congratulate you.


That's an interesting analogy, considering I was born and raised in New Guinea.

Are you suggesting that morality, human decency, honesty, chasteness, and a abheration of cannibalism are qualities available only to christians?

Mmmm...

----------


## yongrel

> So whatever the majority opinion in a particular culture believes is right and wrong is right and wrong? So there is no such thing as an objective right and wrong that applies to all cultures at all times. If this is the case why even use the terms right and wrong, why don't you just call it what it is, your culturally shaped personal opinion.


Because "right" and "wrong" are easier to say. Fewer syllables.

But yes, morality is relative. This should be self-evident in today's global community, as we all encounter a variety of cultures every day.

As cultures change and evolve, so do their mores and morals. It's inevitable. Different societies in different situations value different things.

From an anthropological standpoint, there are cultural universals that present themselves in every society, such as kinship, spirituality, economics, etc. However, these universals can take such radically different forms that they become contradictory between cultures.

To argue in favor of moral absolutism is to argue from a position of ethnocentrism.

----------


## Hiki

> Because "right" and "wrong" are easier to say. Fewer syllables.
> 
> But yes, morality is relative. This should be self-evident in today's global community, as we all encounter a variety of cultures every day.
> 
> As cultures change and evolve, so do their mores and morals. It's inevitable. Different societies in different situations value different things.
> 
> From an anthropological standpoint, there are cultural universals that present themselves in every society, such as kinship, spirituality, economics, etc. However, these universals can take such radically different forms that they become contradictory between cultures.
> 
> To argue in favor of moral absolutism is to argue from a position of ethnocentrism.


Exactly, period.

Also remember that if you had been born into the Middle-East you would be a muslim. If you had been born into a tribe in Africa you would believe the great Ju-Ju up the mountain. If you had been born in ancient Greece, you would believe in Zeus. If you had been born in ancient Denmark you would believe in Thor. If you had been born in ancient Finland you would believe in Sotka and Ukko Ylijumala. 
Religion, also, is a cultural thing.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> So you respect the choice of a cannibal to eat other human beings. Youre one of the few consistent atheists that I have met, I congratulate you.


Ah.  Ill answer this one.

We as Americans have no right to tell people living outside our borders what they should and should not do.  We should lead by example and encourage them to stop eating each other.  

If you are proposing that we send troops to the jungles of New Guinea to stop a cannibal tribe from eating each other, shouldnt you be driving around with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker right now?

----------


## Ozwest

> Ah.  Ill answer this one.
> 
> We as Americans have no right to tell people living outside our borders what they should and should not do.  We should lead by example and encourage them to stop eating each other.  
> 
> If you are proposing that we send troops to the jungles of New Guinea to stop a cannibal tribe from eating each other, shouldnt you be driving around with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker right now?


Fricking Hilarious!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Exactly, period.
> 
> Also remember that if you had been born into the Middle-East you would be a muslim. If you had been born into a tribe in Africa you would believe the great Ju-Ju up the mountain. If you had been born in ancient Greece, you would believe in Zeus. If you had been born in ancient Denmark you would believe in Thor. If you had been born in ancient Finland you would believe in Sotka and Ukko Ylijumala. 
> Religion, also, is a cultural thing.



I have been watching "Living with the Kombai" on the Discovery Channel.  Im thinking about converting to believing in Refafu.

And its so much easier only having to remember 3 elements.  Fire, Water, Air.  Some cultures try to throw Earth in there with the elements, but if you think about it, thats just silly.

----------


## Hiki

> I have been watching "Living with the Kombai" on the Discovery Channel.  Im thinking about converting to believing in Refafu.
> 
> And its so much easier only having to remember 3 elements.  Fire, Water, Air.  Some cultures try to throw Earth in there with the elements, but if you think about it, thats just silly.


Life is so easy for them. Buddhism also seems to be a pretty nice religion.

----------


## Ozwest

> I have been watching "Living with the Kombai" on the Discovery Channel.  Im thinking about converting to believing in Refafu.
> 
> And its so much easier only having to remember 3 elements.  Fire, Water, Air.  Some cultures try to throw Earth in there with the elements, but if you think about it, thats just silly.



Refafu?

O'h yeah I'm one of those.

I am sooo enlightened, in my atheistic way.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> Why do you believe so strongly in the things you do believe?


People believe what they believe because they are made in Gods image. You are correct that cultures play a role in the sense that they will encourage or discourage obedience to Gods law to the extent that they acknowledge Gods sovereignty over His creation. It is a blessing to live in a culture that honors Gods laws and a curse to live in a culture that doesnt.




> Are you suggesting that morality, human decency, honesty, chasteness, and a abheration of cannibalism are qualities available only to christians?


I am saying that using moral judgments only make sense in a Christian view of reality. As soon as an atheist says that his view is more than just his personal feelings but should apply to anyone outside himself, he is being inconsistent with an atheistic view of reality. Why OUGHT someone that doesnt have your scruples submit to your personal opinion of right and wrong?




> To argue in favor of moral absolutism is to argue from a position of ethnocentrism.


You are right, if and only if the Christian God does not exist. My point is to argue any morals even within a particular culture is imposing the morality of the majority on the minority. This is just like Ron Pauls argument against democracy, a pure democracy is such that it violates the inalienable rights of the individual and this assumes that inalienable rights are just that, inalienable. Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away without incurring the wrath of a sovereign God that has the power to punish violators of these rights even after the death of the person(s) violating these rights. If someone can violate these rights and get away with it, the inalienable aspect of these rights become meaningless and therefore the concept of might makes right would be a more accurate description of this view.




> Ah.  Ill answer this one.
> 
> We as Americans have no right to tell people living outside our borders what they should and should not do.  We should lead by example and encourage them to stop eating each other.  
> 
> If you are proposing that we send troops to the jungles of New Guinea to stop a cannibal tribe from eating each other, shouldnt you be driving around with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker right now?


My point is where do we get the right to tell people living inside our borders what to do. Are you saying that we should impose the morality of the majority on the minority? If the majority changes its mind and starts criminalizing what used to be right and approving of what used to be wrong that right and wrong changes place? This is a very schizophrenic way to determine right and wrong.

----------


## Ozwest

> People believe what they believe because they are made in Gods image. You are correct that cultures play a role in the sense that they will encourage or discourage obedience to Gods law to the extent that they acknowledge Gods sovereignty over His creation. It is a blessing to live in a culture that honors Gods laws and a curse to live in a culture that doesnt.
> 
> 
> I am saying that using moral judgments only make sense in a Christian view of reality. As soon as an atheist says that his view is more than just his personal feelings but should apply to anyone outside himself, he is being inconsistent with an atheistic view of reality. Why OUGHT someone that doesnt have your scruples submit to your personal opinion of right and wrong?
> 
> 
> You are right, if and only if the Christian God does not exist. My point is to argue any morals even within a particular culture is imposing the morality of the majority on the minority. This is just like Ron Pauls argument against democracy, a pure democracy is such that it violates the inalienable rights of the individual and this assumes that inalienable rights are just that, inalienable. Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away without incurring the wrath of a sovereign God that has the power to punish violators of these rights even after the death of the person(s) violating these rights. If someone can violate these rights and get away with it, the inalienable aspect of these rights become meaningless and therefore the concept of might makes right would be a more accurate description of this view.
> 
> 
> My point is where do we get the right to tell people living inside our borders what to do. Are you saying that we should impose the morality of the majority on the minority? If the majority changes its mind and starts criminalizing what used to be right and approving of what used to be wrong that right and wrong changes place? This is a very schizophrenic way to determine right and wrong.


Why don't you chill out?

Other nations are not perfect, far from it.

But live and let be.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I am surprised that you are in a Ron Paul forum and you do not realize that you are a slave to the state? We have almost 50% of our income confiscated by the state and you say you own your own body. Just try and stop paying your taxes and you will discover that you do not own your own body, the state does and they will take your body and throw it in jail, while in jail you may lul yourself to sleep repeating the phrase, "I own my body, I own my body..." but you will still be enslaved by your masters.
> 
> You are also enslaved by your Christian upbringing since you are still morally outraged by people who do not believe the way you do. Moral judgments are an illusory trick that your mind plays on you to keep you enslaved to a Christian way of thinking. Free your mind and cease all value and moral judgments and you shall be truly free.
> 
> Fear is the mother of morality. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual. - Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
> "No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." ...Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
> 
> "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."...Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 
> ...


That has nothing in relation to what I've said. Way to go.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> People believe what they believe because they are made in Gods image. You are correct that cultures play a role in the sense that they will encourage or discourage obedience to Gods law to the extent that they acknowledge Gods sovereignty over His creation. It is a blessing to live in a culture that honors Gods laws and a curse to live in a culture that doesnt.
> 
> 
> I am saying that using moral judgments only make sense in a Christian view of reality. As soon as an atheist says that his view is more than just his personal feelings but should apply to anyone outside himself, he is being inconsistent with an atheistic view of reality. Why OUGHT someone that doesnt have your scruples submit to your personal opinion of right and wrong?
> 
> 
> You are right, if and only if the Christian God does not exist. My point is to argue any morals even within a particular culture is imposing the morality of the majority on the minority. This is just like Ron Pauls argument against democracy, a pure democracy is such that it violates the inalienable rights of the individual and this assumes that inalienable rights are just that, inalienable. Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away without incurring the wrath of a sovereign God that has the power to punish violators of these rights even after the death of the person(s) violating these rights. If someone can violate these rights and get away with it, the inalienable aspect of these rights become meaningless and therefore the concept of might makes right would be a more accurate description of this view.
> 
> 
> My point is where do we get the right to tell people living inside our borders what to do. Are you saying that we should impose the morality of the majority on the minority? If the majority changes its mind and starts criminalizing what used to be right and approving of what used to be wrong that right and wrong changes place? This is a very schizophrenic way to determine right and wrong.


I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else.  A lot of Christians seem to disagree with that.  These are the "moral values" voters.  They want to impose their morals on everyone else.

----------


## Ozwest

> I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else.  A lot of Christians seem to disagree with that.  These are the "moral values" voters.  They want to impose their morals on everyone else.


There are "Christians" all over the world.

Unfortunately, the most devout and holy christians are living in America.

God bless you.

And you're doing a great job!

Thanks.

----------


## Theocrat

> I seriously cant believe this 
> 
> Anytime we quote some nice little verses from the Bible, these guys start asking us "By what absolute moral standards do you judge these verses to be immoral?" like it gives them a hard-on. You avoid the question and point presented to you by implying that we don't have any basis for moral. We have already said in this thread and many other threads where we THINK we get our morals from, and besides it is irrelevant. We are now talking about the moral standards given by the Bible.
> 
> Now it is time for you to answer if you really subscribe to those morals presented by the all-knowing God, Creator of all, who gave us His Word in His Scripture.


The reason I keep asking that philosophical question is because those of you who continue to post quotes from the Bible (completely out of their context and without any hermeneutic qualifications) seem to have some philosophical problem with the moral law and codes recorded in Scripture.

This, of course, is a standard tactic with "atheists" and Bible critics. Your intent is usually not to gain some understanding of the Biblical texts from an objective view, but rather, it's to somehow indict God that He's being unfair or acting like a megalomaniac or something to that effect. No matter what answer is given to you it won't be a suitable one, and even if it's answered in a satisfactory manner, you'll just "steamroll" more questions and passages which usually have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I find this tactic to be immature and utterly ignorant.

Since it's evident you have a problem with God's conditioning of slavery and His role for women in society, I want to know where the problem lies, and by what standard do you judge God's morality in how He chooses to govern a society. Is that standard universal or conventional? Is the standard based on absolute truth, or is it just your own personal feelings on the subject? I'm most certain that your answers would be in some range of the latter of these two questions, and if that's the case, then all you've shared is a piece of autobiography, which does not negate the truth or falsity of the Biblical claims on slavery and women.

Also, another problem you have is trying to understand the Bible through 21st Century postmodern ethics which have become very relativistic and lackadaisical. That's just not how you read God's word. You don't come to it with your own understanding and assumptions about morality, but you allow the Bible to speak on its own authority (which is an impossibility for those who are spiritually dead, without the Spirit of God). If you can overcome your own presuppositions of human autonomy, then perhaps you'll be in the right position to understand the Biblical truths of why God allows slavery and His role for women in society.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> That has nothing in relation to what I've said. Way to go.


You said you own your own body, I was responding to that statement.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> You said you own your own body, I was responding to that statement.


It's irrelevant to what I've said. I know I own it and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. Be it the state or some fundamentalist.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> The reason I keep asking that philosophical question is because those of you who continue to post quotes from the Bible (completely out of their context and without any hermeneutic qualifications) seem to have some philosophical problem with the moral law and codes recorded in Scripture.
> 
> This, of course, is a standard tactic with "atheists" and Bible critics. Your intent is usually not to gain some understanding of the Biblical texts from an objective view, but rather, it's to somehow indict God that He's being unfair or acting like a megalomaniac or something to that effect. No matter what answer is given to you it won't be a suitable one, and even if it's answered in a satisfactory manner, you'll just "steamroll" more questions and passages which usually have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I find this tactic to be immature and utterly ignorant.
> 
> Since it's evident you have a problem with God's conditioning of slavery and His role for women in society, I want to know where the problem lies, and by what standard do you judge God's morality in how He chooses to govern a society. Is that standard universal or conventional? Is the standard based on absolute truth, or is it just your own personal feelings on the subject? I'm most certain that your answers would be in some range of the latter of these two questions, and if that's the case, then all you've shared is a piece of autobiography, which does not negate the truth or falsity of the Biblical claims on slavery and women.
> 
> Also, another problem you have is trying to understand the Bible through 21st Century postmodern ethics which have become very relativistic and lackadaisical. That's just not how you read God's word. You don't come to it with your own understanding and assumptions about morality, but you allow the Bible to speak on its own authority (which is an impossibility for those who are spiritually dead, without the Spirit of God). If you can overcome your own presuppositions of human autonomy, then perhaps you'll be in the right position to understand the Biblical truths of why God allows slavery and His role for women in society.


It does not matter when it was written. It's still wrong. Do you seriously think we should take something seriously that condones slavery and stoning children? Moral relativism is nonsense. That is the tactic you are drawing from here.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else.  A lot of Christians seem to disagree with that.  These are the "moral values" voters.  They want to impose their morals on everyone else.


If it is just a matter of what you or I think, why debate?

I think you're wrong but I would not use what I think be my argument.

Why should we let you get to decide what people can and cannot do?

Why should we allow you to impose your morals on us?

----------


## Theocrat

> It's irrelevant to what I've said. I know I own it and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. Be it the state or some fundamentalist.


You don't own your body, LibertyOfOne. One day your body will be snatched away by death. If you have such an ownership over your body, can you stop death from taking it? In truth, your body was given to you by God, and He expects you to treat in the fashion which pleases Him, or else it will be cast into fire.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> You don't own your body, LibertyOfOne. One day your body will be snatched away by death. If you have such an ownership over your body, can you stop death from taking it? In truth, your body was given to you by God, and He expects you to treat in the fashion which pleases Him, or else it will be cast into fire.


Not only does the bible condone slavery of another man, but also slavery of mankind it's self.

----------


## Ozwest

> It does not matter when it was written. It's still wrong. Do you seriously think we should take something seriously that condones slavery and stoning children? Moral relativism is nonsense. That is the tactic you are drawing from here.


Would you stop being righteous pricks?

It would be a-lot more helpful if you would trade and talk to the world.

You are the only democracy that doesn't.

And... What now?

----------


## Theocrat

> Do you seriously think we should take something seriously that condones slavery and stoning children?


That's just my point. Why shouldn't I take seriously and believe in a Book which condones slavery and stoning children? Is there a problem with that? Are you trying to judge me or force your morality on me, LibertyOfOne?




> Moral relativism is nonsense. That is the tactic you are drawing from here.


Yes, moral relativism is nonsense. Now, where do morals come from, and are they absolute, since you don't believe in moral relativism?

----------


## Ozwest

Are you going to keep spreading Democracy?

Gee... Thanks.

Can hardly wait.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> That's just my point. Why shouldn't I take seriously and believe in a Book which condones slavery and stoning children? Is there a problem with that? Are you trying to judge me or force your morality on me, LibertyOfOne?


Where have I advocated force? 





> Yes, moral relativism is nonsense. Now, where do morals come from, and are they absolute, since you don't believe in moral relativism?


Logic and reason.

----------


## Theocrat

> Are you going to keep spreading Democracy?
> 
> Gee... Thanks.
> 
> Can hardly wait.


I don't believe in democracy. I'm more interested in spreading theocracy, but that's a topic for a whole new stone-throwing, Christian-bashing, "atheist"-hijacking thread.

----------


## Theocrat

> Where have I advocated force?


You haven't answered my question, LibertyOfOne. Try again.




> Logic and reason.


That's not an answer. Where do logic and reason come from, are they absolute, and whose logic and reasoning should we adhere to?

----------


## Hiki

> That's just my point. Why shouldn't I take seriously and believe in a Book which condones slavery and stoning children? Is there a problem with that?


You gotta be $#@!ing kidding me.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> You haven't answered my question, LibertyOfOne. Try again.


I never advocated force. Which is what you asked me. 




> That's not an answer. Where do logic and reason come from, are they absolute, and whose logic and reasoning should we adhere to?


I already laid the primer for that pages ago.

----------


## Theocrat

> I never advocated force. Which is what you asked me.


My question was this:




> That's just my point. *Why shouldn't I take seriously and believe in a Book which condones slavery and stoning children? Is there a problem with that?* Are you trying to judge me or force your morality on me, LibertyOfOne?


(emphasis mine)




> I already laid the primer for that pages ago.


What if I told you that logic and reason do not justify themselves because they have to be made intelligible by some objective standard and thus, they are judged by the standards of God's thinking?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> That's just my point. *Why shouldn't I take seriously and believe in a Book which condones slavery and stoning children? Is there a problem with that?* Are you trying to judge me or force your morality on me, LibertyOfOne?


I already said why. 




> It's simple really. I own my body and no one else has a higher claim to it than me. That is self evident. Anyone who claims otherwise is to deny the self evident realization that man owns himself. Anyone who claims ownership of another man is denying reality and is therefor wrong.

----------


## Ozwest

> I don't believe in democracy. I'm more interested in spreading theocracy, but that's a topic for a whole new stone-throwing, Christian-bashing, "atheist"-hijacking thread.


You, the Christians, and the Mullahs.

Perfect.

----------


## Theocrat

> I already said why.





> It's simple really. I own my body and no one else has a higher claim to it than me. That is self evident. Anyone who claims otherwise is to deny the self evident realization that man owns himself. Anyone who claims ownership of another man is denying reality and is therefor wrong.


I've already proven that you don't own your body, so your first statement is false. It cannot be axiomatic because death inevitably overrides your ownership claim to your body. Indeed, a person can claim ownership over someone or something else if that person brought it into existence. God created man and the universe, therefore, He owns everything and reality is based on His specific revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (creation and human conscience).

----------


## Ozwest

> I've already proven that you don't own your body, so your first statement is false. It cannot be axiomatic because death inevitably overrides your ownership claim to your body. Indeed, a person can claim ownership over someone or something else if that person brought it into existence. God created man and the universe, therefore, He owns everything and reality is based on His specific revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (creation and human conscience).


You don't own your own body?

And you are a Libertarian...

Not.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> I've already proven that you don't own your body, so your first statement is false. It cannot be axiomatic because death inevitably overrides your ownership claim to your body. Indeed, a person can claim ownership over someone or something else if that person brought it into existence. God created man and the universe, therefore, He owns everything and reality is based on His specific revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (creation and human conscience).


You didn't prove anything. You used the bible to justify the bible. That is what we call circular reasoning. Death does not absolve my current ownership. That is just nonsense on your part. Again who is controlling me again? Who controls my actions? Who controls my thoughts? You? Anyone else? God? 

Thought not.

----------


## Hiki

This is $#@!ing ridiculous already.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> This is $#@!ing ridiculous already.


It's all in good fun. No one here is serious. Of course that it my impression. I can't speak for the others that are present.

----------


## Hiki

> It's all in good fun. No one here is serious. Of course that it my impression. I can't speak for the others that are present.


Given the history of theocrats posts, I think he is dead serious.

Although I find it weird that in a western country in the 21st Century there actually is someone who favors stoning rebellious children, slavery and oppression of women.

----------


## Theocrat

> You don't own your own body?
> 
> And you are a Libertarian...
> 
> Not.


I am a libertarian, not a libertine (unlike many people in this thread). As a libertarian, I would say that I have more ownership over my body than the government does, but ultimately, God owns my body since He created it for His own purposes. Therefore, I keep my body into subjection unto Him, acknowledging that it is only God Who has given me rights to life, liberty, and property.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Given the history of theocrats posts, I think he is dead serious.


He could be an amazing satirist :O

----------


## Theocrat

> You didn't prove anything. You used the bible to justify the bible. That is what we call circular reasoning. Death does not absolve my current ownership. That is just nonsense on your part. Again who is controlling me again? Who controls my actions? Who controls my thoughts? You? Anyone else? God? 
> 
> Thought not.


What Bible verse did I use? I think I missed that one...

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> What Bible verse did I use? I think I missed that one...


The basic premise is from the Bible or if you will religion as a whole.

----------


## Theocrat

> He could be an amazing satirist :O


Read this, if you question my intentions.

----------


## Theocrat

> The basic premise is from the Bible or if you will religion as a whole.


WHAT VERSE, LibertyOfOne?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> WHAT VERSE, LibertyOfOne?


You made the claim that god owns my body. It was reasonable for me to assume you got that from the bible. Why else would you say it?

----------


## Theocrat

> You made the claim that god owns my body. It was reasonable for me to assume you got that from the bible. Why else would you say it?


And how is that a circular argument?

----------


## Ozwest

> I am a libertarian, not a libertine (unlike many people in this thread). As a libertarian, I would say that I have more ownership over my body than the government does, but ultimately, God owns my body since He created it for His own purposes. Therefore, I keep my body into subjection unto Him, acknowledging that it is only God Who has given me rights to life, liberty, and property.


You don't own your body...

Religion prevents you from thinking in a rational and objective way.
You are not self-reliant, but rather a mouthpiece of falsehoods.

Libertarians do not divide people because they are gay or women. They treat people equally.

They do not obstruct scientific research, impose irrational views, and impose themselves upon others.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> And how is that a circular argument?


You used the claim that god owns your body in order to justify the bad things in the bible.

----------


## Theocrat

> You don't own your body...
> 
> Religion prevents you from thinking in a rational and objective way.
> You are not self-reliant, but rather a mouthpiece of falsehoods.
> 
> Libertarians do not divide people because they are gay or women. They treat people equally.
> 
> They do not obstruct scientific research, impose irrational views, and impose themselves upon others.


Where does liberty come from?

----------


## Theocrat

> You used the claim that god owns your body in order to justify the bad things in the bible.


(lol) What bad things in the Bible? I never claimed any bad things in the Bible. That's your claim, based on your sinful, limited, subjective, and autocratic knowledge of what morality is.

----------


## Ozwest

> Where does liberty come from?


*From self reliance.*

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> (lol) What bad things in the Bible? I never claimed any bad things in the Bible. That's your claim, based on your sinful, limited, subjective, and autocratic knowledge of what morality is.


Should the government reinstate slavery?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Should the government reinstate slavery?


When did they ever abandon it?  They just made slaves of everyone.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> When did they ever abandon it?  They just made slaves of everyone.


Trying to evade it by posing another context, fine. 

Theocrat, should the government force people to work on a cotton plantation?

----------


## Ozwest

> When did they ever abandon it?  They just made slaves of everyone.


This is true.

----------


## Ozwest

In the larger context, how many man/woman hours do you need to pay your mortgage?

Compare that to your parents.

No time to raise the kids?

That's all-right, the government will look after them for you.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> No time to raise the kids?
> 
> That's all-right, the government will look after them for you.


What's wrong with this? I mean you have a sense of wanting to make an impression upon your child, for selfish reasons of immortality, but that may not necessarily be good for society or the child.

----------


## torchbearer

This is still my all time favorites of God's divine wisdom displayed in the new testament.
For all the defenders of God's words as literal truth in the bible... I hope you are living the "right" path according to your god.

1 Timothy, chapter 2:

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 

 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 

 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 

 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 

 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 

 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


Amen-Ra.



There are a few more really good ones God dishes out in his divine inspiration of Paul... but this one frames the whole mindset of our benevolent god perfectly.
Something all christians should be proud of...

----------


## AdamT

Intelligent design - more less humans engineered by extraterrestrials.

----------


## torchbearer

> Intelligent design - more less humans engineered by extraterrestrials.


Have you seen the Jordan Maxwell seminar?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29460246678761

He said something about the ancient Egyptians believing our gods/ancestors came from the star system Sirius.
It's just as possible as creation or evolution.

----------


## torchbearer

> Have you seen the Jordan Maxwell seminar?
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29460246678761
> 
> He said something about the ancient Egyptians believing our gods/ancestors came from the star system Sirius.
> It's just as possible as creation or evolution.


Also- his lecture puts a news spin on Battlestar Gallactica.

----------


## Cowlesy

> C'mon guys.


I knew there was a reason this thread was 1,04x posts long, and I had yet to click on it let alone post anything into it.  Just another topic that should have nothing to do with politics, but unfortunately finds its way into every politician's and political wonk's list of things to quibble about.

----------


## NaT805

Intelligent design is what creationism evolved into.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I'm going to clean up this thread from the point where I entered the conversation.  

This whole thing has been ridiculous.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Lords of Kobol, hear my prayer.  Please, make it stop.

----------


## Theocrat

> *From self reliance.*


I guess Adolf Hitler's self-reliance is what led to Germany being free of those pesky Jews.  By the way, self-reliance is a wrong answer for where liberty comes from. Try again, O libertine.




> Lords of Kobol, hear my prayer.  Please, make it stop.


I don't think the "Lords of Kobol" can hear the *neurons* in your brain which cause you to pray. Why do you want the *neurons* in other people's brains to stop making them post their ideas, beliefs, questions, and objections on this thread? You hypocrite.

----------


## sophocles07

> People believe what they believe because they are made in God’s image.


HAHAHAH

Oh my god you’re corny




> This, of course, is a standard tactic with "atheists" and Bible critics. Your intent is usually not to gain some understanding of the Biblical texts from an objective view, but rather, it's to somehow indict God that He's being unfair or acting like a megalomaniac or something to that effect. No matter what answer is given to you it won't be a suitable one, and even if it's answered in a satisfactory manner, you'll just "steamroll" more questions and passages which usually have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I find this tactic to be immature and utterly ignorant.


This is my tactic:

To show that the God (concept of God, etc) of the Bible is not something to use for everyday morals/ethics, civil order, etc.  

Then, once demystified, enjoy the LITERARY TEXT the Bible really is, just as I enjoy Greek literature.




> the Biblical truths of why God allows slavery and His role for women in society.


Right.

Right right right right righ t t rirght




> You don't own your body, LibertyOfOne. One day your body will be snatched away by death. If you have such an ownership over your body, can you stop death from taking it? In truth, your body was given to you by God, and He expects you to treat in the fashion which pleases Him, or else it will be cast into fire.


I own some peanuts.  Someone can steal them.  Death is a thief.  That has nothing to do with whether I temporarily “own” (metaphor) my body.




> That's just my point. Why shouldn't I take seriously and believe in a Book which condones slavery and stoning children? Is there a problem with that? Are you trying to judge me or force your morality on me, LibertyOfOne?


Yes.

You’re $#@!ing crazy.




> Where do logic and reason come from, are they absolute, and whose logic and reasoning should we adhere to?


These are both evolved traits.  Can you give me an example of “two logics” to choose from?  It’s always the same.




> God owns my body since He created it for His own purposes.


You’ve got the weirdest ego god I’ve ever seen!




> Where does liberty come from?


ya buttcheeks




> I don't think the "Lords of Kobol" can hear the neurons in your brain which cause you to pray. Why do you want the neurons in other people's brains to stop making them post their ideas, beliefs, questions, and objections on this thread? You hypocrite.


Your reaction to scientific problems ...  you’ve watched too many children’s daytime cartoons, man.

----------


## Mesogen

Here is absolute proof of intelligent design:

Laminin. It's a protein shaped like a cross! (Well, when you lay it out like that, otherwise it just flops around, but it's cross-shaped dammit!)



you want more PROOF?

Here is the calcivirus:

http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/calici.htm



The little star of david on each virus particle is god's way of saying that jews are a virus on this planet.

Isn't god just wonderful?

----------


## Hiki

Heavenly Father!!!

All Bow Down To Him!

----------


## sophocles07

God probably has very saggy old man balls

----------


## Kade

> Where does liberty come from?


From the blood of my grandfathers, the soapbox of my fathers, and the ongoing and  continued fight to take from the collective body a sense of what I am, and what I should be in this world. Liberty is my right to individual choice, and it comes from my action and passion to demand that right. 

Next question?

----------


## Theocrat

> From the blood of my grandfathers, the soapbox of my fathers, and the ongoing and  continued fight to take from the collective body a sense of what I am, and what I should be in this world. Liberty is my right to individual choice, and it comes from my action and passion to demand that right. 
> 
> Next question?


Wrong answer, Kade. Try again.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> From the blood of my grandfathers, the soapbox of my fathers, and the ongoing and  continued fight to take from the collective body a sense of what I am, and what I should be in this world. Liberty is my right to individual choice, and it comes from my action and passion to demand that right. 
> 
> Next question?


I think that your answer to Theocrats question highlights the difference between the concept of liberty between the Christian and non-Christian. For the Christian liberty is granted and ensured by God and offenders of liberty will ultimately pay for their crimes against liberty. For the non-Christian, might makes right and the concept of liberty is reduced down to an animal-like survival of the fittest mentality where liberty is temporary and only lasts as long as the life that fights to preserve their liberty.

You may try to make fun of Christians, calling our beliefs "wishful thinking" for believing in a God that ensures that violations of human liberty will not go unpunished but without the Christian concept of liberty, liberty looses its meaning and you're left with using a term that only makes sense if you presuppose the Christian concept of the term. IOW, non-Christians like to borrow concepts from the Christian without having to admit what would have to be true (God's existence) in order for those concepts to have any significance other than they are electro-chemical reactions in their brain.

----------


## sophocles07

> For the non-Christian, might makes right and the concept of liberty is reduced down to an animal-like survival of the fittest mentality where liberty is temporary and only lasts as long as the life that fights to preserve their liberty.


This is a generalization not applicable to every ‘non-Christian.’  I’m sure Buddhists don’t view it this way; nor did the non-Christian William Carlos Williams.  Demosthenes’ view of things certainly did not fit under your rather idiotic caricature. 




> You may try to make fun of Christians, calling our beliefs "wishful thinking" for believing in a God that ensures that violations of human liberty will not go unpunished but without the Christian concept of liberty, liberty looses its meaning and you're left with using a term that only makes sense if you presuppose the Christian concept of the term.


I don’t understand what you mean by your last nineteen words as they are arranged.  The concept of “liberty” did not originate with Christian theology—I’m not even sure it even applies in that system; Christianity has nothing to do with “liberty”, it’s about SYSTEM (note: liberty, from the Latin, meaning “free”—being sent to Hell for injustices against man and God has no bearing on the Human world...why do anything to stop ‘violations of human liberty’ in this world if you know it, in the end, will all be handled by Father Okeanus-Santa after death?).  So the “presupposition” of the “Christian concept of liberty” is not necessary, and not even relevant.  




> IOW, non-Christians like to borrow concepts from the Christian without having to admit what would have to be true (God's existence) in order for those concepts to have any significance other than they are electro-chemical reactions in their brain.


God’s existence is not necessary for human concepts, invented/discovered by humans, used only in human contexts, in human action, to have significance.  Those electro-chemical reactions—that’s a description; it’s not the content of what it is.  Example: the feeling of love for your child is a feeling, a fact.  If put under the microscope, the description of the feeling would be “electro-chemical reactions in your brain” (simplified).  Merely because the feeling can be described in terms of mechanical scientific language does not call for the reduction of the feeling itself to insignificance.  The factual presence of the feeling in your daily life would of necessity call for its importance.  God has nothing to do with it, and your (and Theocrat’s) whiny, reductive “they jus’ chemicals in yer brain, how $#@!ty” stinks of a condescending ignorance.

----------


## Kade

> IOW, non-Christians like to borrow concepts from the Christian without having to admit what would have to be true (God's existence) in order for those concepts to have any significance other than they are electro-chemical reactions in their brain.


What exactly have non-Christians borrowed that wasn't already stolen?

----------


## PaulineDisciple

> This is a generalization not applicable to every non-Christian.  Im sure Buddhists dont view it this way; nor did the non-Christian William Carlos Williams.  Demosthenes view of things certainly did not fit under your rather idiotic caricature.


Well unless you want to elaborate on how a Buddhist or whomever would view liberty I will restrict my critique to people who do not believe in a personal all-powerful God as the one described in the Bible. To give you an idea of how I would respond to other theistic religions, I would say that Judaism, Islam and Christian cults fall under the umbrella of Christian heresies.




> I dont understand what you mean by your last nineteen words as they are arranged.  The concept of liberty did not originate with Christian theologyIm not even sure it even applies in that system; Christianity has nothing to do with liberty, its about SYSTEM (note: liberty, from the Latin, meaning freebeing sent to Hell for injustices against man and God has no bearing on the Human world...why do anything to stop violations of human liberty in this world if you know it, in the end, will all be handled by Father Okeanus-Santa after death?).  So the presupposition of the Christian concept of liberty is not necessary, and not even relevant. .


After re-reading what I wrote, I agree, I could have worded it better.

When we think of liberty or freedom we are talking in general about rights like the right to keep the fruit of our labor, the right to own property, the freedom to go where we want and do what we want without interference.  When we talk about rights, we like to think that rights are something that is owed to us based on our being a part of the human race.  But the questions arise as to why are these kinds of things owed to us and who obligates us to obey these rules.

Here is a sampling of quotes that support the traditional definition of unalienable rights:




> The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
> Thomas Jefferson ("Rights of British America," 1774)
> 
> And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
> Thomas Jefferson ("Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782)
> 
> The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. Alexander Hamilton (An essay, "The Farmer Refuted," 1775) (Note: entire passage in capital letters in the original.)
> If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. - Samuel Adams
> Resolved, that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights ["founded in the law of God and of Nature"] in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights.
> ...


Here is where you can read further on the subject:

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/Americ...stick/pr3.html

My point being is that anyone that redefines unalienable rights to mean rights that can and do get taken away by any man or group of men, they are breaking with our founders and with the traditional definition of the term.  This is what I meant when I said, you're left with using a term that only makes sense if you presuppose the Christian concept of the term.




> being sent to Hell for injustices against man and God has no bearing on the Human world...why do anything to stop violations of human liberty in this world if you know it, in the end, will all be handled by Father Okeanus-Santa after death?).


God will punish violations of human liberty as well as those who do nothing to stop violations of human liberty if they have the power to do so, so it does have bearing on the human world. And who is Father Okeanus-Santa?  Have you had some kind of mystical experience where he revealed himself to you?




> Gods existence is not necessary for human concepts, invented/discovered by humans, used only in human contexts, in human action, to have significance.  Those electro-chemical reactionsthats a description; its not the content of what it is.  Example: the feeling of love for your child is a feeling, a fact.  If put under the microscope, the description of the feeling would be electro-chemical reactions in your brain (simplified).  Merely because the feeling can be described in terms of mechanical scientific language does not call for the reduction of the feeling itself to insignificance.  The factual presence of the feeling in your daily life would of necessity call for its importance.  God has nothing to do with it, and your (and Theocrats) whiny, reductive they jus chemicals in your brain, how $#@!ty stinks of a condescending ignorance.


My point is that when we use words that convey concepts that transcend nature, you are presupposing that there are things that exist that transcend nature. This is what I meant when I said non-Christians like to borrow concepts that only make sense if you presuppose a Christian view of reality.  For example: lets say that an atheistic scientist witnesses a brutal murder of an innocent child by a common street thug.  When he recounts the event he describes how this man took out a long knife and stabbed the child multiple times.  He can go into a lot of detail as to the physical laws that were in play during the event, as to the angle of the knife as it entered the childs body, the organs that it penetrated and he can even describe the changes that his body had in reaction to seeing this event but as soon as he declares that what he say was wrong he is appealing to a concept that transcends the physical laws that scientists have been able to empirically prove through experimentation.  If the scientist makes such a moral outcry he is betraying the fact that he actually does believe that the crime he saw was objectively wrong and was not just his own personal feelings about the event.  You may expect a person to show you the common courtesy of agreeing that this crime was in fact wrong since they may have the same feelings toward what happened but a good philosopher would not accept that simply thinking something is wrong imputes that transcendental property to that event. You said, Those electro-chemical reactionsthats a description; its not the content of what it is. and this is exactly what I am talking about, if you appeal to the content as being something that exists outside of the electro-chemical reactions themselves isnt the burden of proof on you to show that this content actually exists and that it is not a figment of your imagination.  I know you expect the common courtesy of people just granting you that things like right and wrong actually existing but without the existence of a transcendent God giving meaning to these terms what exactly do they mean, that when most people witness certain events that they have biological reactions that give them the sensation that what they saw was wrong?  So wrong is defined as our subjective feelings toward certain things.  This is what I mean when I say that without Gods existence it reduces concepts such as right and wrong to something that most humans find unacceptable.  When we say wrong we expect people to accept that we are not just talking about our subjective feelings about something but that that something is absolutely, objectively and invariably is wrong.  A logically consistent atheist would have to accept the ethical philosophy of Nihilism and a really consistent atheist would be Nihilistic in their metaphysics, epistemology as well as their ethics, kind of like a radically skeptical Nihilist.  The kind of belief system that would drive most people insane.

Since Kant, good philosophers have been dealing with the concept known as the preconditions of intelligibility which asks the question, what would have to be true in order for things, like concepts, that we use as humans that we take for granted without needing evidence to prove them.  To which, David Hume conceded that we have no reason to believe in induction or the uniformity of nature.  Bertrand Russell also acknowledged that we just have to accept these things on their own intrinsic evidence.  Which is another way to say that they are self-verifying, which makes it circular reasoning.  Platos solution to this problem was that outside this world there existed a realm of forms and when asked for proof that such a realm existed, he reverted to telling a story.  And so goes the story of the history of philosophy with out the Christian God.  A history that wants things like love, beauty, morals and liberty to really exist but cannot come up with a world and life view that makes such things intelligible.  A history of suppressing the truth that exists in each and every human.  A history that cannot make sense of things that we all take for granted.  A history of rebellion against the God who made us and gives us our rights that transcend nature.  Therefore it is my contention that the existence of the Christian God is the only belief system that is able to provide the preconditions of intelligibility of all of the things that we experience as human beings.

If it is man that grants rights, it makes no sense to say that man cannot take these rights away, it makes no sense to call them unalienable.  If it is a transcendent God that grants our rights, it makes sense to say that no man or group of men can take these rights away.

I hope and pray that if you do not know God, that he will open your eyes to the truth and that you would accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior so that you can live a life as God intended for you to live and that you would think the way that God intended for you to think.

----------


## Hiki

> I hope and pray that if you do not know God, that he will open your eyes to the truth and that you would accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior so that you can live a life as God intended for you to live and that you would think the way that God intended for you to think.


Nah, I'll choose freewill and live as I like and think for myself.

----------


## sophocles07

> Well unless you want to elaborate on how a Buddhist or whomever would view liberty I will restrict my critique to people who do not believe in a personal all-powerful God as the one described in the Bible.


Well, Buddhists wouldn’t view might as right.  Nor would most atheists/agnostics.

Could you re-fresh my memory on how the Old Testament God practices a liberty-based rule?




> When we think of liberty or freedom we are talking in general about rights like the right to keep the fruit of our labor, the right to own property, the freedom to go where we want and do what we want without interference. When we talk about rights, we like to think that rights are something that is owed to us based on our being a part of the human race. But the questions arise as to why are these kinds of things “owed” to us and who “obligates” us to obey these rules.
> 
> ...[quotes]...
> 
> My point being is that anyone that redefines unalienable rights to mean rights that can and do get taken away by any man or group of men, they are breaking with our founders and with the traditional definition of the term. This is what I meant when I said, “you're left with using a term that only makes sense if you presuppose the Christian concept of the term”.


I, though, don’t take this as specifically Christian.  Greeks and Romans both had similar concepts.  There are piles and piles of legal documents from both cultures that attest to this (not to mention the writers from both periods).




> God will punish violations of human liberty as well as those who do nothing to stop violations of human liberty if they have the power to do so, so it does have bearing on the human world. And who is Father Okeanus-Santa? Have you had some kind of mystical experience where he revealed himself to you?


Okeanus is the Greek river that encircles the world in their mythology.




> God will punish violations of human liberty as well as those who do nothing to stop violations of human liberty if they have the power to do so, so it does have bearing on the human world. And who is Father Okeanus-Santa? Have you had some kind of mystical experience where he revealed himself to you?


Ah, so you take it as a threat?

This seems like a psychological situation rather than a spiritual one.




> My point is that when we use words that convey concepts that transcend nature, you are presupposing that there are things that exist that transcend nature. This is what I meant when I said non-Christians like to borrow concepts that only make sense if you presuppose a Christian view of reality. For example: let’s say that an atheistic scientist witnesses a brutal murder of an innocent child by a common street thug. When he recounts the event he describes how this man took out a long knife and stabbed the child multiple times. He can go into a lot of detail as to the physical laws that were in play during the event, as to the angle of the knife as it entered the child’s body, the organs that it penetrated and he can even describe the changes that his body had in reaction to seeing this event but as soon as he declares that what he say was “wrong” he is appealing to a concept that transcends the physical laws that scientists have been able to empirically prove through experimentation.


I do not agree that the concept of “wrong” is inherently one that is supposed to “transcend nature.”  




> If the scientist makes such a moral outcry he is betraying the fact that he actually does believe that the crime he saw was objectively wrong and was not just his own personal feelings about the event.


I don’t believe he’s just expressing personal feelings.  They are personal and universal (and his expression of them will of course be colored by whatever culture he lives in, what form of ritual he accepts, etc.).




> You said, “Those electro-chemical reactions—that’s a description; it’s not the content of what it is.” and this is exactly what I am talking about, if you appeal to the content as being something that exists outside of the electro-chemical reactions themselves isn’t the burden of proof on you to show that this “content” actually exists and that it is not a figment of your imagination.


I don’t mean it exists “outside” the electro-chemical reactions.  I mean that one FEELS it to be, because one does not understand it as it happens as “just” electro-chemical reactions.  It’s like pain; when someone slams a hammer on your toes, it is, literally, the reactions of nerves, etc., not something outside the physical reaction.  I think humans have a tendency to abstract their feelings—a tendency, if you look at it, of 19th century Romantic poetry, for instance—and “invent them” into other things.  When I say it’s not the “content”—maybe I should have phrased it better.  It IS the content insofar as THAT IS what it is, but that one understands it as it happens, perceives it as something connected with other things.  Memory, for instance.  When one loves something, you can have the emotion itself and then the remembrance of past instances of the same emotion.  This happens with pain also—though in a different way.  This process of abstract thought—ability to realize the temporal situation—is perhaps the biggest reason humans tend to abstract their emotions from the literal situation—a hammer on the toe or the face of your child or mother or whomever.  It’s an instinct that creates poetry, religion, etc.  I don’t, however, think it presupposes a transcendental concept.  




> I know you expect the common courtesy of people just granting you that things like right and wrong actually existing but without the existence of a transcendent God giving meaning to these terms what exactly do they mean, that when most people witness certain events that they have biological reactions that give them the sensation that what they saw was wrong?


It’s a sensation, but I wouldn’t limit it to that.  It involves memory, abstract thought (involving the capacity for empathy, which is really just realizing, “that could be me”, etc.), and other things.  

I think humans have regularly come up with different abstractions to “give meaning” to something which does not require a god.  Plato came up with his “Ideas”; Christians with God; the Greeks had this to some extent (I mean the non-Platonic, Homeric-line of Ancient Greeks) but it was much more realistic (here I share Nietzsche’s view—reading Euripides’ view of reality v. the Bible, there is no contest of “realism”, though I think the _Book of Job_ the most existentially realistic of any book).  

But, despite all of these inventions, I don’t find them “necessary” to explain morality.  Morality no more necessitates a godhead than does a watermelon.  They differ only in type of physical thing.




> So wrong is defined as our subjective feelings toward certain things.


Explained above.




> This is what I mean when I say that without God’s existence it reduces concepts such as right and wrong to something that most humans find unacceptable. When we say wrong we expect people to accept that we are not just talking about our subjective feelings about something but that that something is absolutely, objectively and invariably is wrong.


So you would claim absolute truth merely to appease “most humans” into “being good” (again, if that’s true, men are impressing an ethical standard, not a god).




> A logically consistent atheist would have to accept the ethical philosophy of Nihilism and a really consistent atheist would be Nihilistic in their metaphysics, epistemology as well as their ethics, kind of like a radically skeptical Nihilist. The kind of belief system that would drive most people insane.


I disagree (obviously).




> Since Kant, good philosophers have been dealing with the concept known as the “preconditions of intelligibility” which asks the question, what would have to be true in order for things, like concepts, that we use as humans that we take for granted without needing evidence to prove them. To which, David Hume conceded that we have no reason to believe in induction or the uniformity of nature. Bertrand Russell also acknowledged that we just have to accept these things on their own intrinsic evidence. Which is another way to say that they are self-verifying, which makes it circular reasoning. Plato’s solution to this problem was that outside this world there existed a realm of forms and when asked for proof that such a realm existed, he reverted to telling a story. And so goes the story of the history of philosophy with out the Christian God.


You seem to be forgetting that when one asks a Christian for a proof of such a realm as Heaven or of God, they “revert to telling a story.”  It’s all, more or less, poetry.  Imagination.  I like it if you don’t try to form governments on it.




> A history that wants things like love, beauty, morals and liberty to really exist but cannot come up with a world and life view that makes such things intelligible. A history of suppressing the truth that exists in each and every human. A history that cannot make sense of things that we all take for granted. A history of rebellion against the God who made us and gives us our rights that transcend nature. Therefore it is my contention that the existence of the Christian God is the only belief system that is able to provide the preconditions of intelligibility of all of the things that we experience as human beings.


You’re gettin’ a little ranty, Pauline.  Gettin’ that Miltonic fury!




> If it is man that grants rights, it makes no sense to say that man cannot take these rights away, it makes no sense to call them unalienable. If it is a transcendent God that grants our rights, it makes sense to say that no man or group of men can take these rights away.


I think you’re missing something I’m saying: I do not mean that RIGHTS are evolutionary traits.  I think morality is, and that using rationality one can extend this to government.  Not stuff like telling women they can’t show skin, or have anal sex, or whatever.  That’s what religion usually ends up in.  DON’T EAT PORK!  And then they forget why they initially made the law (I think Paul Johnson tells us it was initially a pig famine that prompted the diet law), and it just becomes irrational blind acceptance of “ethical laws.”

EDIT: Pig plague (so dietary law to avoid people dying).




> I hope and pray that if you do not know God, that he will open your eyes to the truth and that you would accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior so that you can live a life as God intended for you to live and that you would think the way that God intended for you to think.


See you can’t even talk about this stuff without 10+ metaphors!

----------


## Timothy

I agree with the OP. The question doesn't even make sense. In particular the "intelligent" part. How on earth would we measure whether something happening in this universe was clever or dumb?

Like... oh, that super nova, that was a clever thing, some more iron to produce cars from. The teleological aspect of it is hilarious in its egocentrism.

Obviously we make that best of what we've got. Obviously we bring order into the world by using patterns of explanation that go along our way of thinking. That is our achievement and to take it as a proof for the intelligence of some designer... well, it's simply not his intelligence but ours.

The whole debate over God's intelligence or foresight (which comes down to the same thing) has been futile from its first conception, since it doesn't change a thing for us whether God knew this would happen or not. That only becomes relevant if you make assumptions about God's intentions. I wouldn't go further though than to assume that God intends us to exist. From that alone foresight on his part has no consequences, as long as he doesn't want us to exist at least so and so long, that is. And even if he wanted that... you end up with questions like "Could God make a hammer so heavy that he can't lift it?", which is a paradox concerning the combination of omnipotence and foresight, of course. And not exactly new.

In short, the personalization of God has many pitfalls and should probably be avoided (yes, yes... a controversial thing to say.)

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

I don't know how people can believe in ID without any proof...but be my guest. I believe in the paranormal, but that's about it. Can I explain it? No. but at least I don't make assumptions and conclusions  based on nothing

----------


## Timothy

Well, there are some things that are a little odd, of course.

1. The moon's distance from the earth is more or less exactly the one that is needed to make it appear as big as the sun from the earth's surface.

2. Water has some very nice properties. It is heaviest at +4C, it climbs up in trees due to capillarity and it forms snow, which is a good insulator.

So, from that the inclination to assume that all this is designed by some kind of craftsman. I personally think it is a little different, but o.k.

I don't know whether anyone can avoid to make conclusions based on nothing other than feelings. Probably not.

----------


## Ozwest

> I guess Adolf Hitler's self-reliance is what led to Germany being free of those pesky Jews.  By the way, self-reliance is a wrong answer for where liberty comes from. Try again, O libertine.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the "Lords of Kobol" can hear the *neurons* in your brain which cause you to pray. Why do you want the *neurons* in other people's brains to stop making them post their ideas, beliefs, questions, and objections on this thread? You hypocrite.


That is so far out of context, I don't know where to begin.

You are grasping at straws...

----------


## Truth Warrior

We are told that evolution ( macro ) is a proven scientific theory. One of the hallmarks of hard science and of the scientific method itself, is the ability to make predictions.

Have the proponents of evolution ( macro ) made accurate predictions unambiguously referable to their theory and to no other cause?

----------


## Ozwest

My great - great - great - great - great - great - great - - grandfather used to roam with T - Rex.

The Bible tells me so...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> My great - great - great - great - great - great - great - - grandfather used to roam with T - Rex.
> 
> The Bible tells me so...


  I'll take that as a "no" answer to my question.

----------


## Ozwest

> I'll take that as a "no" answer to my question.


I prefer to call it an answer with " intelligent design."

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I prefer to call it an answer with " intelligent design."


Well I knew it hadn't evolved.

----------


## Ozwest

> Well I knew it hadn't evolved.


The "truth," is telling people what they do not want to hear.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The "truth," is telling people what they do not want to hear.


I've heard that and have also run into that "faith wall" an awful lot of times here on this very thread, on both sides.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> I've heard that and have also run into that "faith wall" an awful lot of times here on this very thread, on both sides.


The only people who use the "faith on both sides" rhetoric are the faithful, that is the creationists. Science demands no faith; it rejects faith because science is falsifiable. Creationists want to level the playing field because they cannot deny what they are peddling is faith, not science, so they attempt to discredit science instead of improving their own hypotheses.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The only people who use the "faith on both sides" rhetoric are the faithful, that is the creationists. Science demands no faith; it rejects faith because science is falsifiable.


False and nonsense.

Read the entire thread for my very clear and consistent non-ID/non-creationist, anti-evolution as "science" positions.

I'll reasonably assume from your post, that you too are a member of the evolution "cult".

----------


## Kade

> False and nonsense.
> 
> Read the entire thread for for my very clear and consistent non-ID/non-creationist, anti-evolution as "science" positions.
> 
> I'll reasonably assume from your post, that you too are a member of the evolution "cult".


Opiate of the asses.

----------


## Ozwest

Google " Richard Dawkins ," and get some sense int your heads.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Opiate of the asses.


 Indeed!

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> Read the entire thread for for my very clear and consistent non-ID/non-creationist, anti-evolution as "science" positions.


Why did you put "science" in scare quotes? Are you asserting that the science that brought us evolution is different than the science that brought us the airplane, or the computer? If you are, you are mistaken.




> I'll reasonably assume from your post, that you too are a member of the evolution "cult".


"evolution cult"? What is this? Where is its statement of principles?

----------


## Ozwest

Science is bunkum!

Why not the rest of the world prove you wrong?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why did you put "science" in scare quotes? Are you asserting that the science that brought us evolution is different than the science that brought us the airplane, or the computer? If you are, you are mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> "evolution cult"? What is this? Where is its statement of principles?


I believe that I explained to you what I thought would be necessary for your comprehension and understanding.  

Don't want or care enough to do that?  Well then, it's OK by me!

----------


## Kade

> Indeed!


At least you admit to it.

----------


## sophocles07

Truth Warrior, what is your age?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> At least you admit to it.


  That you're an ass, of course I admit it. DUH!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Google " Richard Dawkins ," and get some sense int your heads.


I've read Dawkins' "opinions".

----------


## Kade

> Truth Warrior, what is your age?


Age is irrelevant, I'm more interested in whether or not he needs special help, I have powerful friends at the Burton Blatt Institute.

----------


## Kade

> I've read Dawkins' "opinions".


I call bull$#@!. You have read Dr. Dawkins like I've read the Left Behind Series.

----------


## sophocles07

> Age is irrelevant, I'm more interested in whether or not he needs special help, I have powerful friends at the Burton Blatt Institute.


Well, if he's 12-16 (which I think he probably is), we can discount his rantings and assume he's "too young to know."  If he's over that, we can begin thinking about his mental condition.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> I've read Dawkins' "opinions".


Because being a biological scientist does not give him any more weight than a pastor from your local church, does it?

----------


## Kade

> Well, if he's 12-16 (which I think he probably is), we can discount his rantings and assume he's "too young to know."  If he's over that, we can begin thinking about his mental condition.


You might be right. I am too well accustomed to this type of behavior from fundamentalists, and have been tricked into thinking they were kids before.... 

The psychology behind it is rather fascinating, many of the older evangelical crowds who go out of their way to ignore compounding evidence against their world view show classic signs of child regression, or delayed infant state. The majority of religious people simply don't care either way, they will believe what they want because they don't want to think about it... which to me is perfectly acceptable. Those that WANT to know, and promote these ideas in public, are asking for a level of scrutiny that will ultimately come into stark contrast with their world view.

Here we have someone going out of their way, meaning they do care, who simply gets it wrong. This is a whole other ballpark of behavior. They strongly desire to maintain the child-like security of these beliefs, for one reason or another. 

My thesis was loosely based on this sort of behavioral response. Throughout this thread, and you have seen it first hand, Truth Warrior and Theocrat have been handed the kitchen sink, and yet refuse to budge. 

You and I, like other rational people, are willing to have our minds change when confronted with conflicting evidence, it is what makes this life exciting, and what makes discovery worthwhile. We are part of the process that progresses humanity in thought and lifestyle and social interactions.

Others will have an absolute statement of reality, and they will not move from it. All other things will bend to the will of that belief, regardless of tremendous mound of opposition that confronts them.

----------


## sophocles07

> You might be right. I am too well accustomed to this type of behavior from fundamentalists, and have been tricked into thinking they were kids before.... 
> 
> The psychology behind it is rather fascinating, many of the older evangelical crowds who go out of their way to ignore compounding evidence against their world view show classic signs of child regression, or delayed infant state. The majority of religious people simply don't care either way, they will believe what they want because they don't want to think about it... which to me is perfectly acceptable. Those that WANT to know, and promote these ideas in public, are asking for a level of scrutiny that will ultimately come into stark contrast with their world view.
> 
> Here we have someone going out of there way, meaning they do care, who simply gets it wrong. This is a whole other ballpark of behavior. They strongly desire to maintain the child-like security of these beliefs, for one reason or another. 
> 
> My thesis was loosely based on this sort of behavioral response. Throughout this thread, and you have seen it first hand, Truth Warrior and Theocrat have been handed the kitchen sink, and yet refuse to budge. 
> 
> You and I, like other rational people, are willing to have our minds change when confronted with conflicting evidence, it is what makes this life exciting, and what makes discovery worthwhile. We are part of the process that progresses humanity in thought and lifestyle and social interactions.
> ...


100%  c o r r e c t

----------


## Ozwest

I keep hearing the sounds of "Deliverence."

Time to turn up Pink Floyd, and roll up a scoobie.

Salvation!

----------


## Hiki

> I keep hearing the sounds of "Deliverence."
> 
> Time to turn up Pink Floyd, and roll up a scoobie.
> 
> Salvation!


Let's Shine some Crazy Diamond

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You might be right. I am too well accustomed to this type of behavior from fundamentalists, and have been tricked into thinking they were kids before.... 
> 
> The psychology behind it is rather fascinating, many of the older evangelical crowds who go out of their way to ignore compounding evidence against their world view show classic signs of child regression, or delayed infant state. The majority of religious people simply don't care either way, they will believe what they want because they don't want to think about it... which to me is perfectly acceptable. Those that WANT to know, and promote these ideas in public, are asking for a level of scrutiny that will ultimately come into stark contrast with their world view.
> 
> Here we have someone going out of their way, meaning they do care, who simply gets it wrong. This is a whole other ballpark of behavior. They strongly desire to maintain the child-like security of these beliefs, for one reason or another. 
> 
> My thesis was loosely based on this sort of behavioral response. Throughout this thread, and you have seen it first hand, Truth Warrior and Theocrat have been handed the kitchen sink, and yet refuse to budge. 
> 
> You and I, like other rational people, are willing to have our minds change when confronted with conflicting evidence, it is what makes this life exciting, and what makes discovery worthwhile. We are part of the process that progresses humanity in thought and lifestyle and social interactions.
> ...


*BULL$#@!**googolplex.*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> We are told that evolution ( macro ) is a proven scientific theory. One of the hallmarks of hard science and of the scientific method itself, is the ability to make predictions.
> 
> Have the proponents of evolution ( macro ) made accurate predictions unambiguously referable to their theory and to no other cause?


Yes

----------


## Kade

> We are told that evolution ( macro ) is a proven scientific theory. One of the hallmarks of hard science and of the scientific method itself, is the ability to make predictions.
> 
> Have the proponents of evolution ( macro ) made accurate predictions unambiguously referable to their theory and to no other cause?


Again, there is no difference between macro and micro... but, to answer this simply: 

Yes. We have made accurate predictions unambiguously referable to the theory of evolution. When you find a legitimate hard piece of evidence that negates evolution, you can get back to me.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Again, there is no difference between macro and micro... but, to answer this simply: 
> 
> Yes. We have made accurate predictions unambiguously referable to the theory of evolution. When you find a legitimate hard piece of evidence that negates evolution, you can get back to me.


Or sooner. DUH!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution

The burden of proof is on the prosecution and on the evolutionists. DUH!

----------


## sophocles07

And the 12 year old once again references dictionary.com

Astounding.

----------


## Kade

> Or sooner. DUH!
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution
> 
> The burden of proof is on the prosecution and on the evolutionists. DUH!


You truly are an unlettered moron. I have one word for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=taxonomic

If you don't understand what this implies, read your own links again.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You truly are an unlettered moron. I have one word for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=taxonomic
> *Nice rebuttal there, Counselor.*
> If you don't understand what this implies, read your own links again.


I'll stick with mine. 

It's no surprise nor any wonder at all. that lawyers are held in such well deserved low public esteem.

----------


## Theocrat

> Again, there is no difference between macro and micro... but, to answer this simply: 
> 
> Yes. We have made accurate predictions unambiguously referable to the theory of evolution. When you find a legitimate hard piece of evidence that negates evolution, you can get back to me.


What empirical data (observed and tested) do you have that humans evolved from a monkey? Correlating genetic similarities between apes and humans doesn't count to prove common descent just as correlation of wings on a dragonfly and the wings of a dove don't count as proof.

----------


## Kade

> What empirical data (observed and tested) do you have that humans evolved from a monkey? Correlating genetic similarities between apes and humans doesn't count to prove common descent just as correlation of wings on a dragonfly and the wings of a dove don't count as proof.


Why don't genetic similarities count?

The problem here is not that you seem to think genetic similarities is throw away evidence, but that you are wildly uninformed about what it means to have a common ancestor. 

I think this could be better explained by one of my own mentor's Dr. Kenneth Miller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

It's a very short clip, and it's very insightful. Please watch it.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> What empirical data (observed and tested) do you have that humans evolved from a monkey? Correlating genetic similarities between apes and humans doesn't count to prove common descent just as correlation of wings on a dragonfly and the wings of a dove don't count as proof.


It does when you show a link in the formation of human chromosome number 2. Not only that but the human genome has the same ERV's as primates. They show DNA insertion from viruses at the same injection points. Here again you show your ignorance because no evolutionist is claiming humans evolved from a modern monkey or ape for that matter. Your ignorance is astounding. 

ERVs http://www.godtube.com/view_video.ph...93d0e8ea67f466

Why the flagellum is not support for intelligent design.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.ph...1625a5e81eef6e

Human chromosome 2.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.ph...95cd5ca83c2775

----------


## Theocrat

> Why don't genetic similarities count?
> 
> The problem here is not that you seem to think genetic similarities is throw away evidence, but that you are wildly uninformed about what it means to have a common ancestor. 
> 
> I think this could be better explained by one of my own mentor's Dr. Kenneth Miller:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
> 
> It's a very short clip, and it's very insightful. Please watch it.


No, there's two different ways to interpret genetic similarity. It doesn't prove common ancestry; it proves a common Designer. Did you see a human evolve from an ape? Do we observe today apes producing humans? I don't think so. Stop forcing your superstition inside of natural sciences.

Here's a clip I want you to watch.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Because being a biological scientist does not give him any more weight than a pastor from your local church, does it?


 Not being a church goer nor having any pastor, how would I know?
Dawkins is one of the "cult" shepherds, however.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> No, there's two different ways to interpret genetic similarity. It doesn't prove common ancestry; it proves a common Designer. Did you see a human evolve from an ape? Do we observe today apes producing humans? I don't think so. Stop forcing your superstition inside of natural sciences.
> 
> Here's a clip I want you to watch.


It does not matter what evidence those evil scientists come up with. You will just cover your ears and cling to your religion.

----------


## Theocrat

> I think this could be better explained by one of my own mentor's Dr. Kenneth Miller:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
> 
> It's a very short clip, and it's very insightful. Please watch it.


His whole hypothesis of the fusion of Chromosome #2 is predicated on the belief that it just happened that way. He did not *empirically observe* that, so how could he know for sure? He just hypothesized that's what happened. Once again, that's not science. That's faith.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> No, there's two different ways to interpret genetic similarity. It doesn't prove common ancestry; it proves a common Designer. Did you see a human evolve from an ape? Do we observe today apes producing humans? I don't think so. Stop forcing your superstition inside of natural sciences.
> 
> Here's a clip I want you to watch.


Oh noes not Hovind! 

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cr...arth/763895760

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It does not matter what evidence those evil scientists come up with. You will just cover your ears and cling to your religion.


 As do you, so it seems.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> His whole hypothesis of fusion of Chromosome #2 is predicated on the belief that it happened that way. He did not *empirically observe* that, so how could he know for sure? He just hypothesized that's what happened. Once again, that's not science. That's faith.


No. He made a prediction based on evolutionary theory. It turns out evolution is right. Who would have thunk it?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> As do you, so it seems.


All the creationists have provided is misrepresentations of evidence, lies, and down right stupidity.

----------


## Theocrat

> No. He made a prediction based on evolutionary theory. It's turns out evolution is right. Who would have thunk it?


Did Miller see the fusion of Chromosome #2, LibertyOfOne?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No. He made a prediction based on evolutionary theory. It's turns out evolution is right. Who would have thunk it?


SWAGs do work out sometimes. So do coin flips, BTW.   Do it again ..................... in the lab.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Did Miller see the fusion of Chromosome #2, LibertyOfOne?


Gee with that type of idiocy I wonder how crimes are solved when there are no witnesses.

----------


## Theocrat

> Gee with that type of idiocy I wonder how crimes are solved when there are no witnesses.


Natural science and criminal justice are two different things, LibertyOfOne. Now, answer my question.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> SWAGs do work out sometimes.  So do coin flips, BTW.


It's not a simple flip of a coin as you make it out to be. If that were the case the theory of evolution would have to turned up heads 100% of the time. Please do tell me how the theory manged a century of scientific scrutiny if it was just dumb luck? Let me guess a conspiracy!!!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Natural science and criminal justice are two different things, LibertyOfOne. Now, answer my question.


It's a dumb question. It's like saying we don't know the earth has an iron core because we have never seen it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Gee with that type of idiocy I wonder how crimes are solved when there are no witnesses.


 With great difficulty based on the conclusive evidence only. Circumstance just doesn't cut it. Except for the "cultists", that is.

----------


## sophocles07

That Truth Warrior continually uses the following two emoticons

 

is quite annoying.

----------


## Theocrat

> It's a dumb question. It's like saying we don't know the earth has an iron core because we have never seen it.


Wait a minute. I thought natural science was based on things and happenings which are *observed* in nature. That is how natural science works, right? *Was the fusion of the chromosomes observed by any scientist, LibertyOfOne?* Your dodging of the question reveals the answer to this question, and it is indeed in the negative, as I thought.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That Truth Warrior continually uses the following two emoticons
> 
>  
> 
> is quite annoying.


*GOOD!*

----------


## sophocles07

> GOOD!

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> With great difficulty based on the conclusive evidence only. Circumstance just doesn't cut it. Except for the "cultists", that is.


Is DNA evidence considered only conclusive when it comes to evidence of a crime, but not when it involves evolution? You have a paradox there that you need to iron out.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It's not a simple flip of a coin as you make it out to be. If that were the case the theory of evolution would have to turned up heads 100% of the time. Please do tell me how the theory manged a century of scientific scrutiny if it was just dumb luck? Let me guess a conspiracy!!!


Find a chimp, fuse the chromosomes and create a **** sapeins .......... in the lab.

----------


## Theocrat

> Find a chimp, fuse the chromosomes and create a **** sapeins .......... in the lab.


In the lab!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Is DNA evidence considered only conclusive when it comes to evidence of a crime, but not when it involves evolution? You have a paradox there that you need to iron out.


  The standards of REAL science are much higher than in court ................... as you really SHOULD know.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Find a chimp, fuse the chromosomes and create a **** sapeins .......... in the lab.


No, it would not work. You would need the DNA from the direct ancestor of the humans. Using a cousin in the family tree would not make for the same results. Not only that but DNA changes over time due to mutation. The DNA base of 6 million years ago to today is going to be some what different.

----------


## Theocrat

> The standards of REAL science are much higher than in court ................... as you really SHOULD know.


The neurons in LibertyOfOne's brain can't allow him to differentiate between *natural science* and *criminal justice* in how they both differ in obtaining evidences for their claims.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No, it would not work. You would need the DNA from the direct ancestor of the humans. Using a cousin in the family tree would not make for the same results. Not only that but DNA changes over time due to mutation.


 How inconvenient for your side.  Hey, it's only a 1% difference. Right? 
Damned right it wouldn't work.

----------


## Kade

> Wait a minute. I thought natural science was based on things and happenings which are *observed* in nature. That is how natural science works, right? *Was the fusion of the chromosomes observed by any scientist, LibertyOfOne?* Your dodging of the question reveals the answer to this question, and it is indeed in the negative, as I thought.


I hate to travel down into your sewer to argue on your terms, but the bible fails miserably as an indicator.


For instance, right off the top of my head:

Deuteronomy 7:1  When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

That didn't happen. 

Let's see... Leviticus is fun...

11:13  And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,	
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;	
11:15 Every raven after his kind;	
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,	
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,	
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,	
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and* the bat*.


WHAT?!



"Theocrat, do I look like a bird to you?"

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> How inconvenient for your side.  Hey, it's only a 1% difference. Right? 
> Damned right it wouldn't work.


Yeah because Darwin made up the theory anticipating this very event.

----------


## Theocrat

> No, it would not work. You would need the DNA from the direct ancestor of the humans. Using a cousin in the family tree would not make for the same results. Not only that but DNA changes over time due to mutation. The DNA base of 6 million years ago to today is going to be some what different.


Yeah. This is just a variation of the classic tale of the "Frog Prince." Instead of a kiss, the frog turns into a prince by millions and millions of years. Your macroevolution superstition really is a fairy tale.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yeah because Darwin made up the theory anticipating this very event.


  IF it's science, repeat it.

----------


## Theocrat

> I hate to travel down into your sewer to argue on your terms, but the bible fails miserably as an indicator.
> 
> 
> For instance, right off the top of my head:
> 
> Deuteronomy 7:1  When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
> 
> That didn't happen. 
> 
> ...


Irrelevant. Did *you* observe the fusion of Chromosome #2, Kade?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yeah. This is just a variation of the classic tale of the "Frog Prince." Instead of a kiss, the frog turns into a prince by millions and millions of years. Your macroevolution superstition really is a fairy tale.


I didn't know that the "Frog Prince" had DNA evidence and fossils to back up the story. I know that your fantasy prone mind that Apples = Oranges.

----------


## Kade

> Irrelevant. Did *you* observe the fusion of Chromosome #2, Kade?


No, but he did:

----------


## Theocrat

> I didn't know that the "Frog Prince" had DNA evidence and fossils to back up the story. I know that your fantasy prone mind that Apples = Oranges.


It doesn't, and neither does your fairy tale.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Irrelevant. Did *you* observe the fusion of Chromosome #2, Kade?


Did you observe your great great great grand mother having sex?

----------


## Theocrat

> No, but he did:


Yongrel hasn't observed it, either, I bet.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yongrel hasn't observed it, either, I bet.


If only he had a time machine.

----------


## Kade

> Yongrel hasn't observed it, either, I bet.


Let's look into your bat problem.

Does the bible tell us which came first in the "bird" bat, echolocation or the ability to fly?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Did you observe your great great great grand mother having sex?


Non sequiter.  She was **** sapiens, he is **** sapiens. DUH!

----------


## Kade

> Non sequiter.  She was **** sapiens, he is **** sapiens. DUH!


Stick to the issue at hand, echolocation or flight first?

----------


## Theocrat

> Did you observe your great great great grand mother having sex?


We're not talking about reproduction within the same kinds of creatures, like humans. I was looking for an answer to an empirical claim of chromosomal fusion, and there isn't one. Macroevolution is a farce, and it fails. You've all made a monkey out of Dr. Kenneth Miller. He's just as faith-based as any other scientist, creationist or not.

----------


## Kade

> We're not talking about reproduction within the same kinds of creatures, like humans. I was looking for an answer to an empirical claim of chromosomal fusion, and there isn't one. Macroevolution is a farce, and it fails. You've all made a monkey out of Dr. Kenneth Miller. He's just as faith-based as any other scientist, creationist or not.


Theocrat, the bible should be able to predict for us some important biological facts... please, use your book to inform us about which came first in the "bird" known as bat... echolocation or flight. And please source.

He's waiting.

----------


## Theocrat

> Non sequiter.  She was **** sapiens, he is **** sapiens. DUH!


Thank you, Truth Warrior.




> Let's look into your bat problem.
> 
> Does the bible tell us which came first in the "bird" bat, echolocation or the ability to fly?


Yes, God created them both inherent in the bat at the same time.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, the bible should be able to predict for us some important biological facts... please, use your book to inform us about which came first in the "bird" known as bat... echolocation or flight. And please source.
> 
> He's waiting.


Please stop posting photos of yongrel. Thank you.

----------


## Kade

> Yes, God created them both inherent in the bat at the same time.


Proof?
Evidence?
Citation?

What is this? 



Why does it lack the Cochlea for echolocation?!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Thank you, Truth Warrior.


You're welcome, Sir.

----------


## Theocrat

> Proof?
> Evidence?
> Citation?


Genesis 1:20-22 says, "And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and *fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.*' And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, *after their kind*, and *every winged fowl after his kind*; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let *fowl multiply in the earth*.'"




> What is this? 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it lack the Cochlea for echolocation?!


It looks like a fossil bat. How can you tell it's missing a cochlea?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> All the creationists have provided is misrepresentations of evidence, lies, and down right stupidity.


The creationists speak for themselves, for about the umpteenth time.  

*I DON'T SPEAK FOR THEM.*  Are you just slow or what?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Non sequiter.  She was **** sapiens, he is **** sapiens. DUH!


You totally missed my point.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> We're not talking about reproduction within the same kinds of creatures, like humans. I was looking for an answer to an empirical claim of chromosomal fusion, and there isn't one. Macroevolution is a farce, and it fails. You've all made a monkey out of Dr. Kenneth Miller. He's just as faith-based as any other scientist, creationist or not.


That was not what I was getting at. You were posing a question with the major unstated premise that we didn't observe the fusion of chromosome number 2 therefor it didn't happen. I posed a similar question to show that someone does not need to observe an event to know that it happened.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> The creationists speak for themselves, for about the umpteenth time.  
> 
> *I DON'T SPEAK FOR THEM.*  Are you just slow or what?


You make the same failed argument as the creationists.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You totally missed my point.


Yeah, it was a really really, *DULL* one.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You make the same failed argument as the creationists.


  Yeah we *BOTH* understand the evolution "fairy tale" from differing points of view.  

Your point?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Yeah, it was a really really, *DULL* one.


It showed Theocrat's major premise was ill advised. If you can't see the relevancy than you haven't been paying attention.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It showed Theocrat's major premise was ill advised. If you can't see the relevancy than you haven't been paying attention.


No more so than your's.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

I like how Truth Warrior tries to avoid the debate by claiming he isnt a creationist, but just joining in with them in poking at evolution.


Where do you stand Truth Warrior?  Evolution or Creation?  Or if somehow you have found an alternate path to todays life, explain your position.

----------


## Theocrat

> That was not what I was getting at. You were posing a question with the major unstated premise that we didn't observe the fusion of chromosome number 2 therefor it didn't happen.


Natural science works based on observation of natural or material phenomena in the universe. Since the fusion of Chromosome #2 is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, I simply wanted to know if that hypothesis was based first on observation. From the many responses and, really, evading of the issue I've noticed in this thread, I know that this supposed fusion was not empirically observed, just taken for granted because some credentialed scientist said so.

That's faith on two fronts. It's faith in the information presented that it indeed happened (even though no one observed it), and it's faith in the one who said it based on his position and authority. That's pretty much the M.O. of all macroevolutionists, and thus, I feel comfortable in saying that macroevolution is based on superstitious faith.




> I posed a similar question to show that someone does not need to observe an event to know that it happened.


Then don't use that argument against us Christian theists when we seek to expound on the existence of God.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I like how Truth Warrior tries to avoid the debate by claiming he isnt a creationist, but just joining in with them in poking at evolution.
> 
> 
> Where do you stand Truth Warrior? Evolution or Creation? Or if somehow you have found an alternate path to todays life, explain your position.


*NO!*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> *NO!*


ANSWER THE QUESTION!  WHERE DO YOU STAND?  YOU MUST EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION ON THE ARGUMENT!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHERE DO YOU STAND? YOU MUST EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION ON THE ARGUMENT!


Kiss my ass!

----------


## Theocrat

> ANSWER THE QUESTION!  WHERE DO YOU STAND?  YOU MUST EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION ON THE ARGUMENT!


Truth Warrior, don't give in to the neurons! DON'T GIVE IN TO THE NEURONS!!!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Its like he is saying, "I dont deny the Holocaust, Im just joining in with the deniers to poke at those who believe it really happened."

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Natural science works based on observation of natural or material phenomena in the universe. Since the fusion of Chromosome #2 is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, I simply wanted to know if that hypothesis was based first on observation. From the many responses and, really, evading of the issue I've noticed in this thread, I know that this supposed fusion was not empirically observed, just taken for granted because some credentialed scientist said so.
> 
> That's faith on two fronts. It's faith in the information presented that it indeed happened (even though no one observed it), and it's faith in the one who said it based on his position and authority. That's pretty much the M.O. of all macroevolutionists, and thus, I feel comfortable in saying that macroevolution is based on superstitious faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't use that argument against us Christian theists when we seek to expound on the existence of God.


We never ask to say if you observed god making things. We just ask for evidence. Now could you care to explain without the use of invoking something non science outside the natural world why we find telomeres where they shouldn't be?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Truth Warrior, don't give in to the neurons! DON'T GIVE IN TO THE NEURONS!!!


 No problem! 

Hell, with his well established track record, he wouldn't understand it if I did.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> This message is hidden because Truth Warrior is on your ignore list.


Much better.  Now you and Theocrat are right next to each other in my ignore list.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Its like he is saying, "I dont deny the Holocaust, Im just joining in with the deniers to poke at those who believe it really happened."


 Another "gem" from cheek hair.

----------


## Theocrat

> We never ask to say if you observed god making things. We just ask for evidence. Now could you care to explain without the use of invoking something non science outside the natural world why we find telomeres where they shouldn't be?


Where's your evidence of "finding telomeres where they shouldn't be?" You still haven't proven the fusion of Chromosome #2!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Much better. Now you and Theocrat are right next to each other in my ignore list.


  Ahhhh, thank you.  Sincerely.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Where's your evidence of "finding telomeres where they shouldn't be?" You still haven't proven the fusion of Chromosome #2!


Are you denying that telomeres are found at the ends of chromosomes? What other natural explanation other than fusion can you come with? Crickets

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Truth Warrior, Im not looking at any more of your posts until you answer my previos question.  Where do you stand on the argument?  You cant deny both creationism and evolution.  You really have to pick a side and offer evidence.

When Truth Warrior decides to answer he question, someone let me know.

----------


## Theocrat

> Are you denying that telomeres are found at the ends of chromosomes? What other natural explanation other than fusion can you come with? Crickets


Uh, how about they were *designed* that way?

----------


## Theocrat

> Much better.  Now you and Theocrat are right next to each other in my ignore list.


That explains why he hasn't posted against me in a while. Here all this time I thought the neurons in his brain were blocking him from seeing my posts.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Uh, how about they were *designed* that way?


Not a natural expiation that can be tested by science. You fail.

----------


## Theocrat

> Not a natural expiation that can be tested by science. You fail.


That's right. It's assumed. All we ever observe are DNA segments with telomeres at the ends, and that's why I can say God created them that way. To presume on the contrary goes against natural science.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> That's right. It's assumed. All we ever observe are DNA segments with telomeres at the ends, and that's why I can say God created them that way. To presume on the contrary goes against natural science.


Invoking the super natural like you just did is not science. Duh!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> That explains why he hasn't posted against me in a while. Here all this time I thought the neurons in his brain were blocking him from seeing my posts.


Against my better judgment, I viewed this post.

I ignore anyone who does not want to debate in a civilized manner.  You are an obvious troll.  Im fairly certain your whole account is bogus.

Truth Warrior refuses to answer direct questions.  

Others, such as Dr. 3D, make attempts at answers.  I find them to be highly irrational and illogical, but at least Dr. 3D is not afraid to enter the conversation.

Truth Warrior, on the other hand, makes no attempts at a conversation.  If you ask him a direct question that challenges his bull$#@!, he resorts to _"kiss my ass"_

That is why Truth Warrior and Theocrat are on my ignore list.  I would encourage others to add them as well.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Truth Warrior, Im not looking at any more of your posts until you answer my previos question. Where do you stand on the argument? You cant deny both creationism and evolution. You really have to pick a side and offer evidence.
> 
> When Truth Warrior decides to answer he question, someone let me know.


 *Promise?* 

Hold your breath until you turn blue and pass out too, please. 

Then do it again.

----------


## Theocrat

> Invoking the super natural like you just did is not science. Duh!


All scientists have assumptions about the nature of matter and the universe when they obtain natural science, whether it's supernaturalism or naturalism in origin. Just like you assume telomeres shouldn't be on the ends of DNA segments, I assume that they were designed that way. But neither of us would disagree that DNA consists of chromosomal sequences. That's observed empirically.

----------


## Theocrat

> Against my better judgment, I viewed this post.
> 
> I ignore anyone who does not want to debate in a civilized manner.  You are an obvious troll.  Im fairly certain your whole account is bogus.
> 
> Truth Warrior refuses to answer direct questions.  
> 
> Others, such as Dr. 3D, make attempts at answers.  I find them to be highly irrational and illogical, but at least Dr. 3D is not afraid to enter the conversation.
> 
> Truth Warrior, on the other hand, makes no attempts at a conversation.  If you ask him a direct question that challenges his bull$#@!, he resorts to _"kiss my ass"_
> ...


I'm a troll? You're the one whose username is "Mitt Romneys sideburns." If anyone is a troll, it's you. Or maybe you're just a troubled soul.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Not a natural expiation that can be tested by science. You fail.


 *IT'S A RELIGION NIMNOD.* Just like your's. Geeze!

----------


## sophocles07

> No, but he did:


This bat’s got me laughing.




> Kiss my ass!



Jesus Christ I dislike you.

----------


## Hiki

> Jesus Christ I dislike you.


How can you, you cold materialistic atheist, know what "liking" is about? After all, you only judge it by your *neurons* and *chemical reactions* without any *absolute* moral *standards*.

----------


## Kludge

> How can you, you cold materialistic atheist, know what "liking" is about? After all, you only judge it by your *neurons* and *chemical reactions* without any *absolute* moral *standards*.


I dislike the use of bold text. Because I now have reason to believe you will continue to use bold text throughout your posts, I dislike you (for argument's sake).

----------


## Hiki

> I dislike the use of bold text. Because I now have reason to believe you will continue to use bold text throughout your posts, I dislike you (for argument's sake).


If you knew the post history of a certain nickname here, you would instantly know who I was "imitating".

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I prefer to call it an answer with " intelligent design."


And what has ID proponents proved? Yeah, nothing. Yet you still adhere to it.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> *IT'S A RELIGION NIMNOD.  Just like your's. Geeze!*


He gave a religious "explanation" when I asked for a naturalistic one. What is the matter? You're a nimnod too!

Go back to AOL where you belong.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> How can you, you cold materialistic atheist, know what "liking" is about? After all, you only judge it by your *neurons* and *chemical reactions* without any *absolute* moral *standards*.


We atheists eat dead babies for breakfast. At least that is what Theocrat would like you to believe.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> He gave a religious "explanation" when I asked for a naturalistic one. What is the matter? You're a nimnod too!
> 
> Go back to AOL where you belong.


Well, if you asked a creationist a naturalistic question he just may give you a religious answer.

You wish!

----------


## Theocrat

> We atheists eat dead babies for breakfast. At least that is what Theocrat would like you to believe.


What evidence do you have which would support such a notion from me? Please provide a post where I even hinted this.

By the way, how's the empirical evidence coming for the supposed fusion of Chromosome #2?

----------


## Kludge

[retracted]

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Jesus Christ I dislike you.


Who cares? 

Not me. 

You're just about as significant and relevant as a gnat fart. Not quite, but just about.  

Not even significant enough to warrant "dislike". 

Just sad, pathetic, and a total waste of space, fresh air and bandwidth!

----------


## sophocles07

> You're just about as significant and relevant as a gnat fart. Not quite, but just about.


Can gnats fart?  PROOVE IT!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Can gnats fart? PROOVE IT!


*DYODR!*

----------


## sophocles07

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...AAOEUQn&show=7

----------


## Hiki

yes they do
they are like humans too
they eat crap
if they dont get caught in a trap
their anus holes
is loaded with stools
then out comes a gas
that has a small mass

----------


## sophocles07

^^johnny doggerel leaves his mark

----------


## Mesogen

> IF it's science, repeat it.


Like intelligently designing all of life?

Come on. Repeat it.

In the lab.




> We are told that evolution ( macro ) is a proven scientific theory.


There is no such thing as a "proven" scientific theory.

----------


## Kludge

> *DYODR!*






Don't You Order that Dirty Rangoon!

----------


## Mesogen

> Uh, how about they were *designed* that way?


So the Intelligent Designer designed just about all other human chromosomes with telomere sequences at the ends, but on #2 decided to put some in the middle. Then He/She/It decided to also make it look like there were chimp-looking chromosomes that had fused together just to throw us off? 

Is the Intelligent Designer trying to fool us? 

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm




> Now these telomeric and pretelomeric sequences are normally found only on chromosome ends. However, in human chromosome 2, there is strong evidence for chromosome fusing in that there is a pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence in that order in the middle of the chromosome.


Care to postulate why the Intelligent Designer designed the chromosome to look EXACTLY the way it would look if two chromosomes had fused?

----------


## Theocrat

> Like intelligently designing all of life?
> 
> Come on. Repeat it.


Intelligent design gets repeated all the time. Whenever two kinds of creatures come together to procreate, intelligent design is a part of the process in bringing new life into the world.

Can macroevolution even be repeated? I think not. There's is nothing in nature which would suggest that humans come from apes (not observed), manatees come from water-entry elephants (not observed), or birds coming from reptiles (not observed, unless you believe in the myth of punctuated equilibrium). Macroevolution is total speculation, and a shotty, irrational attempt to explain how life came to be without a Designer because some people just don't want there to be a Designer.




> In the lab.


In the lab! (I'm sorry. I just like saying that for some reason. )




> There is no such thing as a "proven" scientific theory.


Exactly. That's because scientific hypotheses (theories) are unproven.

----------


## Theocrat

> So the Intelligent Designer designed just about all other human chromosomes with telomere sequences at the ends, but on #2 decided to put some in the middle. Then He/She/It decided to also make it look like there were chimp-looking chromosomes that had fused together just to throw us off? 
> 
> Is the Intelligent Designer trying to fool us? 
> 
> http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Care to postulate why the Intelligent Designer designed the chromosome to look EXACTLY the way it would look if two chromosomes had fused?


Dude, the burden of proof is on *you* to prove that Chromosome 2 actually fused! Since it was not observed, I just don't understand how you can call that a scientific explanation for common ancestry between apes and humans. The macroevolutionists are making that claim based on their own personal opinion of what it looks like, to them.

Is God trying to fool anyone? Absolutely not. Genetic similarities are what God chose to use in making His creatures. The best way I can account for explaining this is how many cars use the same parts from the same manufacturer. The lug nuts of a Chevy will fit a Pontiac, but does that imply that they both evolved from a Micro Machine in a junkyard for millions of years? Of course not. The specifications of lug nuts were created to fit on multiple cars for a reason (maybe to save production time and costs). God has a reason for the genetic similarities in His creatures (maybe it's His signature or something, I speculate), but that does not have to mean that the similarities prove common descent.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Like intelligently designing all of life?
> *Nope! ( That is way beyond my pay grade or abilities. I'm still just trying to figure out RNA and DNA. BTW, do you happen to know which one came first? )*
> 
> Come on. Repeat it.
> *I never claimed that I could. Nor even that my pet theory would.*
> 
> In the lab.
> *Yep, that's just a very basic requirement for any REAL science. It's called experiment, evidence, reproducibility and proof. ( Scientific method 101 ).*
> 
> ...


You really do need to catch up here, you're *WAAAAAAY* behind the curve.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Don't You Order that Dirty Rangoon!


*Do Your Own Damned Research.*

----------


## amy31416

> Exactly. That's because scientific hypotheses (theories) are unproven.


What is a hypothesis? 

A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.

Example: When Gregor Mendel in 1865 studied the pattern of single trait inheritance of garden peas he formed a hypothesis on the manner of how these traits were inherited. The hypothesis he formed based on his observations included the following:
In the organism there is a pair of factors that controls the appearance of a given characteristic. 
The organism inherits these factors from its parents, one from each.
Each is transmitted from generation to generation as a discrete, unchanging unit.
When the gametes are formed, the factors separate and are distributed as units to each gamete. (This statement is also known as Mendel's rule of segregation.)
If an organism has two unlike factors for a characteristic, one may be expressed to the total exclusion of the other. 

What is a scientific theory?

To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.

A theory is: 
Internally consistent and compatible with the evidence
Firmly grounded in and based upon evidence
Tested against a wide range of phenomena
Demonstrably effective in problem-solving

In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. The procedures and processes for testing a theory are well-defined within each scientific discipline.

Example: Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 pea plants which brought forth two theories of how character traits are inherited. Ironically, when Mendel's paper was published on 1866, it had little impact. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the enormity of his ideas was realized.

What is a scientific law?

A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.

Example: In the early 20th century, after repeated tests and rejection of all competing theories Mendel's Laws of Heredity were accepted by the general scientific community.
The law of segregation, which states that the alleles governing a trait are separated during the creation of gametes (meiosis).
The law of independent assortment, which states that the genes controlling different traits are distributed separately from each other during meiosis.

Lots of historical and scientific information about Gregor Mendel and his work can be found at the Mendel Museum.

Example 2: In the late 17th Century, Nicholas Steno established some natural laws relating to geology.
The law of original horizontality - this states that when sediments are deposited in water, they will sink through it and deposit as horizontal layers as the result of gravity (unless acted on by other forces).
The law of stratigraphic succession - this states that in a given sequence of sediments, the oldest will be at the bottom and the youngest at the top. It does not provide ages for those sediments, simply the sequence of their deposition.

For more on Nicholas Steno, try this book - a most interesting read:

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

----------


## Mesogen

> Intelligent design gets repeated all the time. Whenever two kinds of creatures come together to procreate, intelligent design is a part of the process in bringing new life into the world.


So when two jellyfish sexually reproduce, they are intelligently designing life...

Wow.




> Can macroevolution even be repeated? I think not.


What do you mean? 
Can evidence that it occurs be observed? Is that what you are asking?




> There's is nothing in nature which would suggest that humans come from apes


You know, except all the evidence that suggests that very thing.
And it's arbitrary what you label as apes anyway. By certain classification systems, humans are apes.





> manatees come from water-entry elephants (not observed), or birds coming from reptiles (not observed, unless you believe in the myth of punctuated equilibrium). Macroevolution is total speculation, and a shotty, irrational attempt to explain how life came to be without a Designer because some people just don't want there to be a Designer.


Sure, if you presuppose a designer, then any evidence you come across has to fit into that assumption, but if you don't presuppose a designer, then you must look for evidence of its/his/her existence. If there is no evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer, then any model containing it does not fit the evidence. 





> Exactly. That's because scientific hypotheses (theories) are unproven.


Hypotheses are not theories and theories are not proven. 
Theories are explanatory models based on facts collected through testing hypotheses. You can improve a model with new evidence, but you can never prove the model, since it is only a model.

----------


## Mesogen

> Dude, the burden of proof is on *you* to prove that Chromosome 2 actually fused! Since it was not observed, I just don't understand how you can call that a scientific explanation for common ancestry between apes and humans. The macroevolutionists are making that claim based on their own personal opinion of what it looks like, to them.


So they have been adequately fooled? 




> Is God trying to fool anyone? Absolutely not. Genetic similarities are what God chose to use in making His creatures.


It's the genetic dissimilarities that are "fooling" people into believing that the chromosome is the result of fusion. It's the telomere sequences in the middle of the chromosome that are unusual and in need of explanation. 

And where in the Bible does it say that God chose similar DNA sequences when designing similar species?




> The best way I can account for explaining this is how many cars use the same parts from the same manufacturer. The lug nuts of a Chevy will fit a Pontiac, but does that imply that they both evolved from a Micro Machine in a junkyard for millions of years? Of course not. The specifications of lug nuts were created to fit on multiple cars for a reason (maybe to save production time and costs).


Yeah. God was on a budget.




> God has a reason for the genetic similarities in His creatures (maybe it's His signature or something, I speculate), but that does not have to mean that the similarities prove common descent.


similarities + a host of other evidence = substantiation of common descent

Now, dude, the burden of 'proof' for an intelligent designer is on you.

----------


## Mesogen

> Nope! ( That is way beyond my pay grade or abilities. I'm still just trying to figure out RNA and DNA. BTW, do you happen to know which one came first? )


Of course. God created RNA on Day 2 and DNA on Day 3. Says so right here in this book. And nothing in the book is wrong. Says so right here in the book.





> I never claimed that I could. Nor even that my pet theory would.


Ok, and no one claims that they can create speciation ("macroevolution") in a lab. 
Even though it's been observed in a lab.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...ca6515103&pi=2




> Abstract:  Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (flagellate). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 1020 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.






> Yep, that's just a very basic requirement for any REAL science. It's called experiment, evidence, reproducibility and proof. ( Scientific method 101 ).


Yes. All except for the proof part.




> Go ahead just try to find any of my creationism OR ID defense posts, anywhere in this thread, if you dare. ( You don't. )


Well, then you alluded to a pet theory of yours. Care to share anything about it?





> Yeah, I've tried to argue that one that way too about the "Theory of Evolution", however the "true believer evolutionism cultists" just don't seem to buy into it. Go figure!
> 
> Turn in your cult membership card, please. 
> 
> That startling "insight" just may have come as some really BIG surprise to Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You just may want to bounce that one off Richard Dawkins too, to check out first though.
> You really do need to catch up here, you're WAAAAAAY behind the curve.

----------


## Theocrat

> What is a hypothesis? 
> 
> A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.
> 
> Example: When Gregor Mendel in 1865 studied the pattern of single trait inheritance of garden peas he formed a hypothesis on the manner of how these traits were inherited. The hypothesis he formed based on his observations included the following:
> In the organism there is a pair of factors that controls the appearance of a given characteristic. 
> The organism inherits these factors from its parents, one from each.
> Each is transmitted from generation to generation as a discrete, unchanging unit.
> When the gametes are formed, the factors separate and are distributed as units to each gamete. (This statement is also known as Mendel's rule of segregation.)
> ...


I would disagree with you on your definition of a scientific theory. Based on the definition you gave, it's just a scientific law. A theory is not something which is reproducible in scientific data and analysis. Like Mesogen has said, it just provides an explanantion or model of some natural phenomenon based on interpretation of what the raw evidence suggests. The keywords here are *interpretation of evidence*.

Macroevolution is just an explanation of how life came to be based on dead things in the dirt, assumptions about the nature of genetic similarities amongst organisms, and a host of other subjective observations which ultimately presuppose the nonexistence of a Creator God. Macroevolution is not scientific because the processes it postulates to occur in organisms is not observed, not tested, and definitely not reproducible. Therefore, macroevolution remains an unproven hypothesis (theory).

Creationism has assumptions, too. It's just that the evidence comports better with the assumptions of creationism than with evolution. The Bible teaches that animals bring forth *after their kind*, which means that cats will only produce catkinds, dogs will only produce dogkinds, apes will only produce apekinds,  humans will only produce humankinds, and so forth. That is all we ever observe in the natural world. We do not observe any thing which would suggest that apes will bring forth non-apes or birds bringing forth non-birds, which is the assumption of macroevolution. That's all I'm saying.

----------


## sophocles07

> Macroevolution is just an explanation of how life came to be based on dead things in the dirt


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH  AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH  AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA  HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA  HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH  AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

----------


## Theocrat

> So they have been adequately fooled?


No, macroevolutionists are suppressing the obvious.

All I want to know is if the fusion of Chromosome #2 has been observed! Hypotheses are based on observations, so how could a scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller make the claim that this particular chromosome was fused if he never saw the fusion?! What makes his assumption any more scientific than the assumption of a creationist who says the chromosome was designed that way?




> It's the genetic dissimilarities that are "fooling" people into believing that the chromosome is the result of fusion. It's the telomere sequences in the middle of the chromosome that are unusual and in need of explanation. 
> 
> And where in the Bible does it say that God chose similar DNA sequences when designing similar species?


No, the fools are those who look at the evidence and assume contrary to the obvious of what that evidence suggests.

The Bible doesn't say that explicitly, but it is inferred from the premise that organisms bring forth after their kind, which ultimately were designed by God Himself. 




> Yeah. God was on a budget.


Ha. Ha.




> similarities + a host of other evidence = substantiation of common descent
> 
> Now, dude, the burden of 'proof' for an intelligent designer is on you.


The *proof* of the intelligent Designer has already been given. It's just that you aren't *persuaded* of the evidence based on your own naturalistic presuppositions. Remember, there's a difference between *proof* (which is objective) and *persuasion* (which is subjective).

----------


## amy31416

> I would disagree with you on your definition of a scientific theory. Based on the definition you gave, it's just a scientific law. A theory is not something which is reproducible in scientific data and analysis. Like Mesogen has said, it just provides an explanantion or model of some natural phenomenon based on interpretation of what the raw evidence suggests. The keywords here are *interpretation of evidence*.
> 
> Macroevolution is just an explanation of how life came to be based on dead things in the dirt, assumptions about the nature of genetic similarities amongst organisms, and a host of other subjective observations which ultimately presuppose the nonexistence of a Creator God. Macroevolution is not scientific because the processes it postulates to occur in organisms is not observed, not tested, and definitely not reproducible. Therefore, macroevolution remains an unproven hypothesis (theory).
> 
> Creationism has assumptions, too. It's just that the evidence comports better with the assumptions of creationism than with evolution. The Bible teaches that animals bring forth *after their kind*, which means that cats will only produce catkinds, dogs will only produce dogkinds, apes will only produce apekinds,  humans will only produce humankinds, and so forth. That is all we ever observe in the natural world. We do not observe any thing which would suggest that apes will bring forth non-apes or birds bringing forth non-birds, which is the assumption of macroevolution. That's all I'm saying.


Just trying to help you out chief, you keep making the mistake of confusing hypothesis with theory--common mistake for non-scientists. Oh, and it's not my definition, it's the scientific communities definition. Ya wanna talk science, ya gotta learn the language.

----------


## Theocrat

> Just trying to help you out chief, you keep making the mistake of confusing hypothesis with theory--common mistake for non-scientists. Oh, and it's not my definition, it's the scientific communities definition. Ya wanna talk science, ya gotta learn the language.


I get you. It's just like how in the German community back in the 1920s and 1930s the term "Jew" referred to "an inferior species." Whatever the community agrees upon automatically makes it right intrinsically...  

The possession of natural science does not belong to the elite who wear white coats. After all, the world is not theirs; it's the Lord's.

----------


## Mesogen

> Macroevolution is just an explanation of how life came to be based on dead things in the dirt,


No. Right now there are no good explanations about the origins of life. There just isn't enough evidence to go on. 




> Creationism has assumptions, too.


And that's all it has.




> It's just that the evidence comports better with the assumptions of creationism than with evolution.


Then how does creationism explain human chromosome #2? God works in mysterious ways? 




> The Bible teaches that animals bring forth *after their kind*, which means that cats will only produce catkinds, dogs will only produce dogkinds, apes will only produce apekinds,  humans will only produce humankinds, and so forth.


Unless human kinds and ape kinds are the same kinds.

What we call "cat" is over 40 species of related animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae#Extant_species
(including felis lolus)

I guess lions are sitting there thinking "What? We didn't evolve from cats. That's crazy. Aslan designed us in his image."

So, anyway, were there 40 species of cat on the ark? 




> That is all we ever observe in the natural world. We do not observe any thing which would suggest that apes will bring forth non-apes or birds bringing forth non-birds, which is the assumption of macroevolution. That's all I'm saying.


Whoa. You mean there isn't a complete change in body form in a single generation? Wow. All those scientists saying that it did have been wrong all along. 




> No, macroevolutionists are suppressing the obvious.
> 
> All I want to know is if the fusion of Chromosome #2 has been observed!


No one said it was observed occurring in real time. 

Like someone else asked, did you observe your parents having sex to conceive you? 




> Hypotheses are based on observations, so how could a scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller make the claim that this particular chromosome was fused if he never saw the fusion?! What makes his assumption any more scientific than the assumption of a creationist who says the chromosome was designed that way?


There is other evidence to take into account. Does the creationist take ALL other evidence into account? Or does he just say "Welp. God did it that way for some reason." 

Just saying "God did it" is no explanation. 




> No, the fools are those who look at the evidence and assume contrary to the obvious of what that evidence suggests.


They think the Earth is round? Fools! It's obviously not!




> The Bible doesn't say that explicitly, but it is inferred from the premise that organisms bring forth after their kind, which ultimately were designed by God Himself.


Each and every species? As in each and every species of insect, worm, protist, bacterium, etc? 

How does that account for all the extinct species we see in the fossil record?

Why don't we see modern species fossils in fossil beds along side fossils of long extinct species? Like, why don't we see a housecat fossil in the same strata as a trilobite fossil? 




> The *proof* of the intelligent Designer has already been given. It's just that you aren't *persuaded* of the evidence based on your own naturalistic presuppositions. Remember, there's a difference between *proof* (which is objective) and *persuasion* (which is subjective).


What is it? What's the proof?

----------


## Truth Warrior

*A proposed problem statement:*

Creationism seems to be the existing and long dominant world paradigm explanation for life on Earth. The "king of the hill", as it were. 

Darwin's evolution theory ( and newer extensions ) is the current primary king challenger, and hence the "new kid on the block". 

The scientific burden of proving the "new kid" theory, and thus overthrowing the dominant king paradigm, lies ONLY with the theory proponents and advocates, and NEVER with the theory critics and skeptics. This burden of proof situation prevails not only in science, but is also on the affirmative in debate, and is on the prosecution in court, BTW. Any and all claims to the contrary are merely bogus and phony smoke and mirrors and "spin" and BULL$#@! attempted bullying strategy and tactics!!!! ( By their fruits, ye shall know them. )

The "new kid" theory has, in fact, been partially proven in that both natural selection and genetic changes WITHIN species, have been repeatedly observed and confirmed. This is micro, it's really just the "new kid" small potatoes though. Most of my creationist acquaintances usually and easily accept, grant and concede micro. 

The big enchilada, however, is macro, the origins of "new" species. What are the specific purely physical mechanisms and purely physical processes at work here, ONLY? Micro + time, is just not a very satisfactory SCIENTIFIC explanation. Time, apparently, just being the accumulation of the nonlethal species' random chance genetic mutations over very long periods. When the "fairy tale" of evolution is spoken of, it's always about macro only, as far as I know. Therefore, the big enchilada turns out to be merely a "fairy tale for adults". 

There also appears to be some very HUGE and intransigent problems with the origins of that very first, "Mother" of all species. What is/was it? A one celled "something or other" seems like a very reasonable SWAG.

It's back to the drawing boards and to the science labs there, for all of you faithful "new kid" cult true believer folks!

As far as I know and can tell, life ALWAYS comes into being from life and NEVER comes into being from non-life.

( I'd better check all of the above out with Theocrat, and get his approval or not, for what I have written here. I certainly wouldn't want to ever mis characterize the situations. )

----------


## amy31416

> I get you. It's just like how in the German community back in the 1920s and 1930s the term "Jew" referred to "an inferior species." Whatever the community agrees upon automatically makes it right intrinsically...  
> 
> The possession of natural science does not belong to the elite who wear white coats. After all, the world is not theirs; it's the Lord's.


What in the world are you talking about? You were once again using the incorrect definition of theory while talking about science. 

The scientific community has long agreed on the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law, with slight variations for each specific discipline. I'm sorry, but you can't change the definitions to suit your argument.

The word "theory" is used differently in science than it is outside of science. Outside of science the word theory has come to mean "guess" as in, "I have a theory about how she met her maker, let's go gumshoe, and see if her husband has an alibi." It's a guess, perhaps an educated one, perhaps not.

That is not how the term is used in science. Given that evolution is a science and is considered a scientific theory, that means more than an educated guess. In science, an educated guess is a hypothesis and there is structure to it. 

Given that Creationism/ID is an untestable hypothesis, it can never become a theory and is thus not eligible to be a competing theory of evolution. You can't base any equations on it, do any experiments or predict any outcomes, there is also no tangible evidence for it. Religion class, philosophy--sure, not science though. 

Believe whatever you want, I don't care to tell anyone what to believe, but I'm sorry ID/Creationism is not science and never will be.

----------


## sophocles07

> It's just like how in the German community back in the 1920s and 1930s the term "Jew" referred to "an inferior species."


Yeah man, it's *just like* that.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Of course. God created RNA on Day 2 and DNA on Day 3. Says so right here in this book. And nothing in the book is wrong. Says so right here in the book.
> *What book? I haven't seen that RNA/DNA book. What was the RNA doing until day 3?*
> 
> Ok, and no one claims that they can create speciation ("macroevolution") in a lab. 
> *Correct, and why not?*
> Even though it's been observed in a lab.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/...ca6515103&pi=2
> *As a result of SOME ID? Just curious. ( I haven't read the link yet. )*
> 
> ...

----------


## Theocrat

> No. Right now there are no good explanations about the origins of life. There just isn't enough evidence to go on.


Here's one of the embarrassments I find in the evolution community on the issue of origins because years ago evolutionists delved heavily into explaining this subject as a crucial part of their theory. It was believed that paleontology provided sufficient evidence for human origins via the fossil record, until it became obvious that there were just too many transitional gaps between the fossils to support evolutionary gradualism. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge then came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which came from Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory) to explain the lack of transitions between fossils, realizing that evolutionary gradualism provided no cogent explanation for explaining life origins, due to lack of evidence. 

Since then, the evolution community has now distanced itself away from the issue of the origins of life because they simply don't have any scientific or consistent way to explain it. This, to me, reveals one of the "nails in the coffin" of the evolution theory because there still is no evidence to prove the implications that evolution took place beginning with non-living matter, and evolutionists know this and are terrified of it. Of course, there are still some in the evolution community who aren't afraid to tackle the issue of origins to explain evolutionary history. Some believe in the theory of panspermia in which organisms from another planet planted the first seeds on our planet to allow evolution to occur. Others believe that life first formed and evolved on the backs of crystals. Both of these explanations, of course, are simply ridiculous.




> And that's all it has.


Creationism has evidences which affirm that its assumptions are indeed true, unlike macroevolution.




> Then how does creationism explain human chromosome #2? God works in mysterious ways?


What exactly needs to be explained about Chromosome #2 for the creationist? It is the evolutionists who have made the claim that it is fused from some primitive history of primates, such as apes, and they have done so without any empirical observation. Once again, the burden of proof is on them to prove empirically the supposed fusion of Chromosome #2, not the creationist.




> Unless human kinds and ape kinds are the same kinds.
> 
> What we call "cat" is over 40 species of related animals.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae#Extant_species
> (including felis lolus)
> 
> I guess lions are sitting there thinking "What? We didn't evolve from cats. That's crazy. Aslan designed us in his image."
> 
> So, anyway, were there 40 species of cat on the ark?


A "kind" is a created organism which has the ability and capability to reproduce offspring. Humans and apes do not share that in common, so therefore, I would say that they are not the same kind of creatures.

There was only one cat-kind aboard Noah's Ark, male and female, to be sure. Yes, there are variations within the cat-kind, but those variations are limited and based on information which is already available in the genetic makeup of the cat-kind.




> Whoa. You mean there isn't a complete change in body form in a single generation? Wow. All those scientists saying that it did have been wrong all along.


As I've said above, the changes in the kinds of creatures are limited. You will never find a feline producing a non-feline, although you will find variations in felines, such as white ones, black ones, hairy ones, large, small, etc.




> No one said it was observed occurring in real time. 
> 
> Like someone else asked, did you observe your parents having sex to conceive you?


No, I didn't observe my parents having sex to conceive me, but through observation of procreation of humans and by inductive inference, I can logically conclude that I was produced from my parents. They're _**** sapiens_, and so am I.

The fusion of Chromosome 2, on the other hand, was not observed by anyone, so how then could it be induced from the evidence within the DNA sequence that it even happened in the first place?




> There is other evidence to take into account. Does the creationist take ALL other evidence into account? Or does he just say "Welp. God did it that way for some reason." 
> 
> Just saying "God did it" is no explanation.


Just saying that Chromosome 2 fused is not an explanation supported by any empirical observation. It is just speculation based on faith that humans evolved from something non-human.




> Each and every species? As in each and every species of insect, worm, protist, bacterium, etc? 
> 
> How does that account for all the extinct species we see in the fossil record?
> 
> Why don't we see modern species fossils in fossil beds along side fossils of long extinct species? Like, why don't we see a housecat fossil in the same strata as a trilobite fossil?


The Bible doesn't use the word "species," but it does use the word "kind," and that's why I used it in my explanation. The term "species" is still a word that is debatable in certain scientific circles, so I try to steer away from it.

I don't except the geological record as a valid way to explain origins of living organisms, so your questions about the positioning of various fossils therein is just a moot point to me.




> What is it? What's the proof?


The proof is in the intrinsic complexity, structure, and order of the creature itself, based on observation and common sense, the same way in which a person views Mt. Rushmore and instantly deduces that it was created by an intelligent mind with purpose in mind.

----------


## Theocrat

> The scientific community has long agreed on the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law, with slight variations for each specific discipline. I'm sorry, but you can't change the definitions to suit your argument.


I was speaking to the point that a theory is closer to a hypothesis than it is a scientific law. This is a point of contention, I know, but the definition you gave of a scientific theory best fit that of a scientific law. It is my belief that the terms "theory" and "law" have been arbitrarily used interchangeably in certain scientific circles, usually when it's convenient for the scientist to make a case for their own scientific beliefs, as it is with macroevolution.




> The word "theory" is used differently in science than it is outside of science. Outside of science the word theory has come to mean "guess" as in, "I have a theory about how she met her maker, let's go gumshoe, and see if her husband has an alibi." It's a guess, perhaps an educated one, perhaps not.


Well, not all evolutionists would agree with you here, amy31416. A recent example is from LibertyOfOne, where he engaged me to consider the evidence for macroevolution as a theory in the same way one would look for evidence in criminal justice. Once again, a "theory," as used in natural science, is just an explanation or model utilized to explain or interpret evidence from raw data in nature. It has assumptions tied in with it, dependent upon what type of evidence the person using the theory is expecting to see as it fits in with those assumptions.




> That is not how the term is used in science. Given that evolution is a science and is considered a scientific theory, that means more than an educated guess. In science, an educated guess is a hypothesis and there is structure to it.


Evolution is *not scientific!* Just as creationism, it is a systematic way of understanding the evidence which is objectively available and empirically observed in the natural world. Just as the evolutionist would look at fossils and conclude that they show gradual evolution of organisms over lots of time, the creationist looks at those same fossils and concludes that they show a mixture of organisms who were destroyed by a massive flood. They both, looking at the same evidence, come to different conclusions of what nature is showing, and those conclusions are based on different and opposing assumptions about our Earth's history. In this sense, they both are acting on faith.




> Given that Creationism/ID is an untestable hypothesis, it can never become a theory and is thus not eligible to be a competing theory of evolution. You can't base any equations on it, do any experiments or predict any outcomes, there is also no tangible evidence for it. Religion class, philosophy--sure, not science though.


I can say this same thing against macroevolution, amy31416.




> Believe whatever you want, I don't care to tell anyone what to believe, but I'm sorry ID/Creationism is not science and never will be.


The fact of the matter is creationism has always been a factor of the natural sciences throughout history. Gentlemen such as Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Georges Cuvier, Charles Babbage, Lord Rayleigh, Lord Kelvin, John Ambrose Fleming, John Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Henry Fabre, William Herschel, and a host of other Bible-believing creationists were very active and successful contributors in the advancement of the natural sciences. You have no idea what you're talking about, amy31416, and your humanistic propaganda that creationism has no place in science is utter ignorance and simply false. Without a creationist outlook of nature, natural science would not even be possible because of the uniformity of nature which allows the use of inductive inference to make scientific predictions plausible and reproducible.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> It is my belief


*
F A I L
*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *F A I L*


*I D I O T !*

----------


## Kludge

> *I D I O T !*


*I   k n o w   y o u   a r e ,  b u t   w h a t   a m   I ?*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *I k n o w y o u a r e , b u t w h a t a m I ?*


PEEWEE HERMAN?

----------


## Hiki



----------


## sophocles07

> The Bible doesn't use the word "species," but it does use the word "kind," and that's why I used it in my explanation. The term "species" is still a word that is debatable in certain scientific circles, so I try to steer away from it.


Can you give me a quote that you have in mind so I can go look at the original and see what the non-English version says?  

Or, if you already know, tell me the original word.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

Theocrat,

Are you aware of vestigial organs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

"Humans

Human vestigiality is related to human evolution, and includes a variety of characters occurring in the human species. Many of these are also vestigial in other primates and related animals. The *vermiform appendix* is perhaps the most commonly used example of vestigiality in humans. While many functions for the appendix have been hypothesized, none has been empirically demonstrated.[citation needed] Other structures that still are considered vestigial include the *coccyx*, or tailbone (a remnant of a lost tail); the *plica semilunaris* on the inside corner of the eye (a remnant of the nictitating membrane); and, as pictured, *muscles in the ear* and other parts of the body.[citation needed]

Humans also bear some vestigial behaviors and reflexes. The formation of *goose bumps in humans under stress* is a vestigial reflex;[13] its function in human ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators. Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. This reflex formation of goosebumps when cold is not vestigial in humans, but the reflex to form them under stress is. Infants are also able to support their own weight while hanging from a rod,[14] responding to certain tacticle stimuli. An ancestral primate would have had sufficient body hair for an infant to cling to, allowing its mother to escape from danger, such as climbing up a tree in the presence of a predator.

There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is *L-gulonolactone oxidase*, a gene, that is functional in most other mammals, which produces an enzyme that can make vitamin C. A mutation inactivated the gene in an ancestor of the current group of primates, and it now remains in the human genome as a vestigial sequence called a pseudogene.[15]"

God has some explaining to do. 

Since your writing suggests that you are quite ready to speak on God's behalf, perhaps you can fill us non-believers in as to why vestigiality exists at all.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


"Captain, sorry but your nap time is over.  BTW, the Borg cube is rapidly approaching."

----------


## amy31416

> I was speaking to the point that a theory is closer to a hypothesis than it is a scientific law. This is a point of contention, I know, but the definition you gave of a scientific theory best fit that of a scientific law. It is my belief that the terms "theory" and "law" have been arbitrarily used interchangeably in certain scientific circles, usually when it's convenient for the scientist to make a case for their own scientific beliefs, as it is with macroevolution.


That's not true. A theory is not closer to hypothesis than a scientific law, you actually have it backwards. For a hypothesis to become a theory, it has to meet stringent requirements for proof, reproducibility, observation, predictability and confirmation by other scientists. Evolution is a biological theory, not the same as say a theory in physics such as relativity--perhaps what you don't like about the theory of evolution is that it evolves more frequently than other theories like those in physics. Truth is, biology is much more complex and you can't just give it a number like 9.8 m/s^2. 

I'm an analytical chemist by degree, but I've done research in biochemistry and done a lot of benchtop microbiology for the hell of it. While this is not work specifically in evolution, what I learned from classes in biology and from working in this science is that, especially relative to physics and chemistry--biology is _messy._ Given the same conditions and environment, growing bacteria will give you somewhat different results every time you grow new colonies. 

I recall being in a class quite a while ago and learning about evolution--also how competing theories (Lamarck, if I recall correctly was one) were thrown out via the scientific method. Also, how Darwin's original theory was refined over time with evidence and gave way to the modern theory of evolution. This theory is constantly refined as new evidence is found and will always be. The theory of evolution is a dynamic theory relative to theories in chemistry and physics, that is the nature of the beast called biology. 

Unfortunately for you and others who ascribe to the philosophy that is ID/creationism--there is no place in science for that, and there never will be no matter how much you are threatened by the theory of evolution. If scientists ascribed to the "magic" theories like ID, chemists would still be alchemists looking for the Philosopher's Stone or trying to turn iron into gold. Astronomers would be astrologists. Physicists would be trying to show that God holds us on the surface of Earth via his breath instead of gravity. Can you understand that?

If you want to truly challenge yourself, take some courses in evolution. I've taken a philosophy course that brought up intelligent design--it didn't affect my path in science one iota because they're completely different things. 

Here is a link to free biology courses on the 'net: http://www.free-ed.net/free-ed/Scien...gy/default.asp

Look around the site, there's also courses on physics, chemistry, engineering, anatomy, economics and many other topics--they don't have a course yet on evolution, but I'll see if I can find anything else out there.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I've done research in biochemistry and done a lot of benchtop microbiology for the hell of it.


I think I found the problem right here.

You see, the ID'ers like Truth Warrior and Theocrat dont believe in "research" and "learning".

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I think I found the problem right here.
> 
> You see, the ID'ers like Truth Warrior and Theocrat dont believe in "research" and "learning".

----------


## Mesogen

> Here's one of the embarrassments I find in the evolution community on the issue of origins because years ago evolutionists delved heavily into explaining this subject as a crucial part of their theory.


When was this? 
Can you show me an example of abiogenesis theory being crucial to evolutionary theory? 




> It was believed that paleontology provided sufficient evidence for human origins via the fossil record, until it became obvious that there were just too many transitional gaps between the fossils to support evolutionary gradualism. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge then came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which came from Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory) to explain the lack of transitions between fossils, realizing that evolutionary gradualism provided no cogent explanation for explaining life origins, due to lack of evidence.


There is gradual change in some cases and in others there is abrupt change.

And you keep conflating origin of life theories with other evolutionary theories.




> Creationism has evidences which affirm that its assumptions are indeed true, unlike macroevolution.


Like what?




> What exactly needs to be explained about Chromosome #2 for the creationist?


How it got to be the way it is...

Why does it have a telomeric sequence in the middle?




> It is the evolutionists who have made the claim that it is fused from some primitive history of primates, such as apes, and they have done so without any empirical observation. Once again, the burden of proof is on them to prove empirically the supposed fusion of Chromosome #2, not the creationist.


That's what I'm getting at. Science doesn't say "We don't need to explain that." 
Science asks how it can explain things. Science looks for an explanation for everything. Often it can't find an explanation, but often it can. 

It never says "Well, we don't need to explain how that got that way." 




> A "kind" is a created organism which has the ability and capability to reproduce offspring. Humans and apes do not share that in common, so therefore, I would say that they are not the same kind of creatures.
> 
> There was only one cat-kind aboard Noah's Ark, male and female, to be sure. Yes, there are variations within the cat-kind, but those variations are limited and based on information which is already available in the genetic makeup of the cat-kind.


Uh, so you are saying that a lion can mate with a house cat and produce offspring?




> As I've said above, the changes in the kinds of creatures are limited. You will never find a feline producing a non-feline, although you will find variations in felines, such as white ones, black ones, hairy ones, large, small, etc.


...Ones that can mate with tigers and produce offspring and those that can't...

I want to get this straight. 

God created one kind of cat that later, over time, became many types of cat that can no longer interbreed (new species). Am I getting that straight?

You realize what I'm getting at, right? 

The one kind of cat became many species of cat. 

By what mechanism do you suppose this happened?





> Since then, the evolution community has now distanced itself away from the issue of the origins of life because they simply don't have any scientific or consistent way to explain it.


Distanced themselves? In what way? They never said they know how life originated. General, vague notions have been proposed, but no one ever said they had the answer. 




> This, to me, reveals one of the "nails in the coffin" of the evolution theory because there still is no evidence to prove the implications that evolution took place beginning with non-living matter, and evolutionists know this and are terrified of it.


terrified, uh, yeah 




> Of course, there are still some in the evolution community who aren't afraid to tackle the issue of origins to explain evolutionary history. Some believe in the theory of panspermia in which organisms from another planet planted the first seeds on our planet to allow evolution to occur. Others believe that life first formed and evolved on the backs of crystals. Both of these explanations, of course, are simply ridiculous.


Moving the origin of life off Earth doesn't explain the origin of life. 
And life (part of it) originating in clays and such isn't so far fetched as it seems.






> A "kind" is a created organism which has the ability and capability to reproduce offspring. Humans and apes do not share that in common, so therefore, I would say that they are not the same kind of creatures.


So are a housecat and a lion the same kind? 






> No, I didn't observe my parents having sex to conceive me, but through observation of procreation of humans and by inductive inference, I can logically conclude that I was produced from my parents. They're _**** sapiens_, and so am I.
> 
> The fusion of Chromosome 2, on the other hand, was not observed by anyone, so how then could it be induced from the evidence within the DNA sequence that it even happened in the first place?


Because telomeric sequences aren't found in the middle of chromosomes unless the chromosomes had fused somehow.





> Just saying that Chromosome 2 fused is not an explanation supported by any empirical observation. It is just speculation based on faith that humans evolved from something non-human.


Yeah. Maybe you were conceived by in vitro fertilization. Or you were adopted.





> I don't except (sic) the geological record as a valid way to explain origins of living organisms, so your questions about the positioning of various fossils therein is just a moot point to me.


Wow.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Mesogen --




> Can you show me an example of abiogenesis theory being crucial to evolutionary theory?


Nope!  Your theory, your burden. 

What were the evolutionary origins of the *FIRST* Earth life species?  And what precisely was it and when?

----------


## Ozwest

Gullible...

Easily deceived or duped. Blind faith.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Gullible...
> 
> Easily deceived or duped. Blind faith.


Applicable and cuts both ways.

----------


## Kludge

One, Two, Three, Four

Don't make me see this thread no more!

Five, Six, Seven, Eight

It sucks and makes us infight-ate.

----------


## Ozwest

Believe what you want to believe. To each their own.

But to argue objective Science with subjective Spirituality is not a proper debate.

I prefer crossing my T's, and dotting my I's.

Please do not expect atheists to take you at your word. 

I'm an objective thinker.

----------


## Ozwest

I hate outside authority, and would prefer to be self-reliant.

I prefer to treat women and gays equally

Division of people causes conflict and wars.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> One, Two, Three, Four
> 
> Don't make me see this thread no more!
> 
> Five, Six, Seven, Eight
> 
> It sucks and makes us infight-ate.


Isn't clicking on it and posting, your choice? Different choices often yield different results. 

Thanks for the bump.

----------


## Kludge

> Isn't clicking on it and posting, your choice?  Different choices often yield different results.


Lies! You're forcing me to by posting! What we need is moderation to stop this crap! Authority! God save the Queen - and The Empire!

For the PEOPLE! AAAAAAAAAAaaaaAAAh!

----------


## Ozwest

> Isn't clicking on it and posting, your choice? Different choices often yield different results. 
> 
> Thanks for the bump.


Yeah...

Like elected representatives.

Thank God, for the Christian Right.

Righteous pr...s!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Believe what you want to believe. To each their own.
> 
> But to argue objective Science with subjective Spirituality is not a proper debate.
> 
> I prefer crossing my T's, and dotting my I's.
> 
> Please do not expect atheists to take you at your word. 
> 
> I'm an objective thinker.


I have been arguing objective Science, and just keep running into the evolution "cult" mind.  Your objective evidence of the contrary is what exactly?  Post #s preferred.  What does atheism have to do with it? I thought that you wanted to talk objective science.

----------


## Kludge

> I have been arguing objective Science, and just keep running into the evolution "cult" mind.  Your objective evidence of the contrary is what exactly?  Post #s preferred.  What does atheism have to do with it? I thought that you wanted to talk objective science.


You're going on-topic again

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I hate outside authority, and would prefer to be self-reliant.
> 
> I prefer to treat women and gays equally
> 
> Division of people causes conflict and wars.


I ignore outside authority and am largely self reliant.

I usually treat people equally.

So what's with the women and gays people divisions? 

War is a racket!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You're going on-topic again


Correct!

I'm being dragged. Thanks for the new thread bump.

----------


## Ozwest

> I have been arguing objective Science, and just keep running into the evolution "cult" mind.  Your objective evidence of the contrary is what exactly?  Post #s preferred.  What does atheism have to do with it? I thought that you wanted to talk objective science.


I will give your dues, for at least seeming less brainwashed than others on this thread.

But...

Arguing that religion precedes science , is akin to a Salem outcome.

Confess, or I'll drown you. After confession, I'll drown you anyway.

God would grow you gills if you weren't a witch!

----------


## Kludge

I got a chuckle out of stupidity and politics merging to form Republicans...

----------


## Ozwest

> I ignore outside authority and am largely self reliant.
> 
> I usually treat people equally.
> 
> War is a racket!


I'd prefer a secular government in America.

Ummm...

You guys keep electing $#@!s, based on "trumped up" religious morality.

I guess that involves taking over the middle east, and accepting a weird definition of "religious freedom..." American style.

----------


## Kludge



----------


## Truth Warrior

> I will give your dues, for at least seeming less brainwashed than others on this thread.
> 
> But...
> 
> Arguing that religion precedes science , is akin to a Salem outcome.
> 
> Confess, or I'll drown you. After confession, I'll drown you anyway.
> 
> God would grow you gills if you weren't a witch!


Where have I argued religion precedes science?  Objective EVIDENCE. Post #!

Well, if you think about, it does.  Which is older, religion or science?

What outside authorities are you believing "blindly" or are using to trigger this bogus diatribe?

----------


## Kludge



----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'd prefer a secular government in America.
> 
> Ummm...
> 
> You guys keep electing $#@!s, based on "trumped up" religious morality.
> 
> I guess that involves taking over the middle east, and accepting a weird definition of "religious freedom..." American style.


I'd prefer NO government in America.

I've NEVER elected anybody.  My guys are libertarians.

You've obviously confused me with the "statists".  Of which you appear to be one, also. 

Ummmmm........ 

How's that objective evidence coming along?

----------


## Kludge



----------


## Truth Warrior

> I got a chuckle out of stupidity and politics merging to form Republicans...


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Kludge

Click fraud is a crime.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Ozwest

> Where have I argued religion precedes science?  Objective EVIDENCE. Post #!
> 
> Well, if you think about, it does.  Which is older, religion or science?
> 
> What outside authorities are you believing "blindly" or are using to trigger this bogus diatribe?


Depends on your definition of religion. Doesn't it?

Pyramids were built. Coliseums erected.

I dis-respect authority.

You blindly follow a mumbo-jumbo of writings written centuries after the birth of Christ.

Edited in Rome by self serving charlatans, and interpreted by self serving priests/ministers.

Give me a break.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Kludge



----------


## Truth Warrior

> Click fraud is a crime.


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Kludge



----------


## Kludge



----------


## Truth Warrior

> Depends on your definition of religion. Doesn't it?
> 
> Pyramids were built. Coliseums erected.
> 
> I dis-respect authority.
> 
> You blindly follow a mumbo-jumbo of writings written centuries after the birth of Christ.
> 
> Edited in Rome by self serving charlatans, and interpreted by self serving priests/ministers.
> ...


Were the Neanderthals religious?  How about **** Erectus, religious or science?

Hey, what happened to hate (authority wise ), objectively? 

Again your objective evidence please, or is it just more of this phony BULL$#@! garbage?

Which leg would you prefer?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Thanks guys, that was fun!

----------


## Kludge



----------


## Ozwest

> Were the Neanderthals religious?  How about **** Erectus, religious or science?
> 
> Hey, what happened to hate (authority wise ), objectively? 
> 
> Again your objective evidence please, or is it just more of this phony BULL$#@! garbage?
> 
> Which leg would you prefer?


Early man was absorbed by his own specific "religious beliefs," from the moment he opened his eyes in the morning, till he slept.

Have you no archaeological experience?

Perhaps, if you did, you would understand religion, and have some context.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


Yep, finally figured it out. Slowing down just a bit, in my senior years.

Good one! 

Oh BTW, Thanks for the "new" off topic, thread bump.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Early man was absorbed by his own specific "religious beliefs," from the moment he opened his eyes in the morning, till he slept.
> 
> Have you no archaeological experience?
> 
> Perhaps, if you did, you would understand religion, and have some context.


Yep, religion precedes science .......... whoever said it first in this thread. 

( Post # 1281, BTW.  For your future reference. )

----------


## Ozwest

Aborigines in Australia believe rivers were formed by giant serpents.

Sounds like the parting of the Red Sea...

----------


## Ozwest

> Yep, religion precedes science .......... whoever said it first in this thread. 
> 
> ( Post # 1281, BTW.  For your future reference. )


Am I debating a rational man?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Am I debating a rational man?


Debating involves BOTH asking and ANSWERING questions? I used to be a debate judge.

Rational? I'd say often.  

Our species is merely "capable of reason", most usually choose otherwise and often.

----------


## Ozwest

> Debating involve BOTH asking and ANSWERING questions?  I used to be a debate judge.
> 
> Rational?  I'd say often.  
> 
> Our species is merely "capable of reason", most usually choose otherwise and often.


In the eye of the be-holder. 

I'm tired of institutionalized "blind faith" making the decisions.

I will not be led down the garden path...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Aborigines in Australia believe rivers were formed by giant serpents.
> 
> Sounds like the parting of the Red Sea...


The use of hallucinogenic substances goes way back too.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> In the eye of the be-holder. 
> 
> I'm tired of institutionalized "blind faith" making the decisions.
> 
> I will not be led down the garden path...


Just about everything "institutionalized" tends to really give me the "creeps".

BTW and FYI, I highly recommend Butler Shafer's book, "Calculated Chaos", on this subject.

----------


## Ozwest

> The use of hallucinogenic substances goes way back too.


I heard that Moses was "off his face" when he brought the 10 commandments down, and was a real killjoy.

Incidentally, I believe that story.

It makes sense...

----------


## Ozwest

> I heard that Moses was "off his face" when he brought the 10 commandments down, and was a real killjoy.
> 
> Incidentally, I believe that story.
> 
> It makes sense...


I would base my life on that, and...

Jonah and the Whale.

----------


## Ozwest

The virgin Mary.

Thank God for Catholic girls!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I heard that Moses was "off his face" when he brought the 10 commandments down, and was a real killjoy.
> 
> Incidentally, I believe that story.
> 
> It makes sense...


Religion and politics,  same thing, divide and conquer, power and control. ( short version ). 

Sorry, not really up to speed, on the current druggy lingo.

----------


## wv@SC

> In the eye of the be-holder. 
> 
> I'm tired of institutionalized "blind faith" making the decisions.
> 
> I will not be led down the garden path...


So you don't believe in evolution?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So you don't believe in evolution?


 
"Believe in evolution", ( ya just gotta love it, can't really make this kind of "stuff" up.  )

----------


## Ozwest

> So you don't believe in evolution?


Yes, I believe in Evolution.

I am an independent thinker.

Science needs supervision.

Religious zealots need supervision.

Federal government... Needs a good ass-kicking.

----------


## wv@SC

> Yes, I believe in Evolution.
> 
> I am an independent thinker.
> 
> Science needs supervision.
> 
> Religious zealots need supervision.
> 
> Federal government... Needs a good ass-kicking.


So you believe in blind faith, just not "institutionalized" blind faith?

----------


## Ozwest

> So you believe in blind faith, just not "institutionalized" blind faith?


Oh" " contrare. "  

I believe in rational and objective behavior.

Is electing Bush and Cheney for two terms rational and objective?

Or is it blind faith?

----------


## Ozwest

> Religion and politics,  same thing, divide and conquer, power and control. ( short version ). 
> 
> Sorry, not really up to speed, on the current druggy lingo.


Druggy lingo? 

Being 49 years old, I shouldn't have to educate you.

Now I'm really pissed off!

Where's my stash?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Oh" " contrare. " 
> 
> I believe in rational and objective behavior.
> 
> Is electing Bush and Cheney for two terms rational and objective?
> 
> Or is it blind faith?


 Bot pychosis.  "herd mentality" and collectivist "group-think".

----------


## Ozwest

> Bot pychosis.  "herd mentality" and collectivist "group-think".


Lot's of countries with governments like that.

But...

You guys are the big kahuna. 

And you are $#@!ing dangerous.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Druggy lingo? 
> 
> Being 49 years old, I shouldn't have to educate you.
> 
> Now I'm really pissed off!
> 
> Where's my stash?


I'm older, cut me some slack here.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Lot's of countries with governments like that.
> 
> But...
> 
> You guys are the big kahuna. 
> 
> And you are $#@!ing dangerous.


 Not my guys. 

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them. I don't have a government, other than myself.

----------


## Ozwest

> I'm older, cut me some slack here.


Where's that tupperware behind the canned vegetables?

I will seek solace in my stash.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Where's that tupperware behind the canned vegetables?
> 
> I will seek solace in my stash.


Originally Posted by *Ozwest*  
_I heard that Moses was "off his face" when he brought the 10 commandments down, and was a real killjoy._


"off his face"   Druggy lingo?

----------


## Ozwest

You guys elected representatives, on the premise of getting you out of Iraq two and a half years ago.

What the $#@! is going on?

Democracy? Republic?

More like malingerers.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You guys elected representatives, on the premise of getting you out of Iraq two and a half years ago.
> 
> What the $#@! is going on?
> 
> Democracy? Republic?
> 
> More like malingerers.


Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them. I don't have a government, other than myself.

----------


## Ozwest

> Originally Posted by *Ozwest*  
> _I heard that Moses was "off his face" when he brought the 10 commandments down, and was a real killjoy._
> 
> 
> "off his face"   Druggy lingo?


Drugs is good.

Responsibly.

In the privacy of my own home.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Drugs is good.
> 
> Responsibly.
> 
> In the privacy of my own home.


  I'll take that as an answer of "stoned".

----------


## Ozwest

> I'll take that as an answer of "stoned".


I'm not stoned yet, but your tempting me.

If I step outside my house and interfere with others, I will accept culpability. but in the privacy of my own home, I will be as debauched as I choose to be.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm not stoned yet, but your tempting me.
> 
> If I step outside my house and interfere with others, I will accept culpability. but in the privacy of my own home, I will be as debauched as I choose to be.


Right on, like, ya know, like toke on, Dude, know what I mean, like?

----------


## sophocles07

> If I step outside my house and interfere with others, I will accept culpability. but in the privacy of my own home, I will be as debauched as I choose to be.


Here here!

----------


## Ozwest

> Right on, like, ya know, like toke on, Dude, know what I mean, like?


Having worked 70 hours a week, for the past 15 years, I can assure you that I am in good health. 

None-the-less I am entitled to do with my body as I please, as long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Get past the colloquialisms, and the stereotyping...

----------


## sophocles07

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm

Get with the program, Truth warrior.

----------


## DriftWood

> Is it only design if one moment the life form was not there, the next moment it was?
> 
> Say there really is a natural process that can spontaneously generate a living cell. Would scientists say they've disproved the existence of God if such a process were discovered? The question would still remain: how did the universe itself get created such that order can spontaneously generate?
> 
> To make an analogy to music: maybe God is an improviser, not a composer? Either way there would be intelligent design, a mind creating something.
> 
> I guess I think the whole debate is silly. Religious minded people should not feel threatened by evolution, and atheist minded people should not feel threatened by creationism. Neither religious minded people nor atheists can possibly know whether there was a God---but it would be nice if the more vociferous factions on both sides would admit this.
> 
> Atheists often assert there is no evidence for something supernatural such as a God---but then again, that's taking scientific evidence out of context. Evidence for a theory is only evidence for a description of something, not evidence for an explanation.
> ...


You could argue that god set in motion the first motion. And that, this first motion was intelligently designed (to cause life somewhere sown the line.. a harder or softer nudge by god might have caused a universe where life would never form). Most atheists would not really mind if that was the only role for god that theist and intelligent design advocates had. 

The problem with intelligent design and religion is that they predict an constantly intervening god. If he did not intervene it could be argued that he is as good as dead. That he died shortly after the big bang, when he had fulfilled his purpose of setting in motion the universe. Theist and creationist don't like this idea, and claim all kinds of further intervention by god into reality (miracles and creation of different species etc). Scientists can disprove the need for any such divine intervention by laboratory tests and theories that correspond better with evidence found in reality.

Cheers

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Having worked 70 hours a week, for the past 15 years, I can assure you that I am in good health. 
> 
> None-the-less I am entitled to do with my body as I please, as long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> Get past the colloquialisms, and the stereotyping...


No condemnation here.  Still just havin' some fun.  Wheeee!

----------


## Ozwest

> No condemnation here.  Still just havin' some fun.  Wheeee!


Gotta laugh. You are the hemaphrodite of  
debaters

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat,
> 
> Are you aware of vestigial organs?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial
> 
> "Humans
> 
> Human vestigiality is related to human evolution, and includes a variety of characters occurring in the human species. Many of these are also vestigial in other primates and related animals. The *vermiform appendix* is perhaps the most commonly used example of vestigiality in humans. While many functions for the appendix have been hypothesized, none has been empirically demonstrated.[citation needed] Other structures that still are considered vestigial include the *coccyx*, or tailbone (a remnant of a lost tail); the *plica semilunaris* on the inside corner of the eye (a remnant of the nictitating membrane); and, as pictured, *muscles in the ear* and other parts of the body.[citation needed]
> ...


Have you considered this? 




> Since your writing suggests that you are quite ready to speak on God's behalf, perhaps you can fill us non-believers in as to why vestigiality exists at all.


The vestigiality of organisms is *your* claim, not mine. The assumption of your question illogically places the burden of proof on me for an organism's vestigiality.

----------


## Ozwest

> Have you considered this? 
> 
> 
> 
> The vestigiality of organisms is *your* claim, not mine. The assumption of your question illogically places the burden of proof on me for an organism's vestigiality.


God forbid!

Do you belong to a cult?

----------


## Theocrat

> That's not true. A theory is not closer to hypothesis than a scientific law, you actually have it backwards. For a hypothesis to become a theory, it has to meet stringent requirements for proof, reproducibility, observation, predictability and confirmation by other scientists. Evolution is a biological theory, not the same as say a theory in physics such as relativity--perhaps what you don't like about the theory of evolution is that it evolves more frequently than other theories like those in physics. Truth is, biology is much more complex and you can't just give it a number like 9.8 m/s^2. 
> 
> I'm an analytical chemist by degree, but I've done research in biochemistry and done a lot of benchtop microbiology for the hell of it. While this is not work specifically in evolution, what I learned from classes in biology and from working in this science is that, especially relative to physics and chemistry--biology is _messy._ Given the same conditions and environment, growing bacteria will give you somewhat different results every time you grow new colonies. 
> 
> I recall being in a class quite a while ago and learning about evolution--also how competing theories (Lamarck, if I recall correctly was one) were thrown out via the scientific method. Also, how Darwin's original theory was refined over time with evidence and gave way to the modern theory of evolution. This theory is constantly refined as new evidence is found and will always be. The theory of evolution is a dynamic theory relative to theories in chemistry and physics, that is the nature of the beast called biology. 
> 
> Unfortunately for you and others who ascribe to the philosophy that is ID/creationism--there is no place in science for that, and there never will be no matter how much you are threatened by the theory of evolution. If scientists ascribed to the "magic" theories like ID, chemists would still be alchemists looking for the Philosopher's Stone or trying to turn iron into gold. Astronomers would be astrologists. Physicists would be trying to show that God holds us on the surface of Earth via his breath instead of gravity. Can you understand that?
> 
> If you want to truly challenge yourself, take some courses in evolution. I've taken a philosophy course that brought up intelligent design--it didn't affect my path in science one iota because they're completely different things. 
> ...


For your information, I've taken many courses in biology and other natural sciences. I like science. The sad thing is you're an analytical chemist, and yet you don't even realize how religious you are when it comes to your own beliefs in macroevolution. It seems to me you need to step out of the lab and take some philosophy classes or read some books on the subject.

----------


## Ozwest

> For your information, I've taken many courses in biology and other natural sciences. I like science. The sad thing is you're an analytical chemist, and yet you don't even realize how religious you are when it comes to your own beliefs in macroevolution. It seems to me you need to step out of the lab and take some philosophy classes or read some books on the subject.


Are you Carl Rove's illegitimate spawn?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Gotta laugh. You are the hemaphrodite of 
> debaters


Yeah I dislike lessor evils.  NOTA!

----------


## amy31416

> For your information, I've taken many courses in biology and other natural sciences. I like science. The sad thing is you're an analytical chemist, and yet you don't even realize how religious you are when it comes to your own beliefs in macroevolution. It seems to me you need to step out of the lab and take some philosophy classes or read some books on the subject.


I've said very little on the specifics of evolution and that is precisely because I'm not an expert in it. Nobody here is from what I can glean. I've read books on it, studied it in classes, read about various experiments on it, and I accept it as a legitimate scientific biological theory based on everything I've read, seen and studied. That is not a religious belief. If scientists, after all these years, have just been drawing up the grand hoax of evolution in order to hide God's existence--well I'll be tickled freakin' pink! An ex of mine did his doctoral thesis in directed evolution and he's part of it, that bastard! I even read his thesis and bought it--what a chump!

I loved philosophy in college and took more than the required 3 courses in it, and have done a lot of reading on my own. ID presupposes a divine creator, and is thus no more than a hypothesis in the scientific world, however it is a legitimate philosophical/religious belief as far as I know. 

Why does it need to be a science if you're so confident in your beliefs and religion? Isn't science, in a sense, beneath your esteemed religion due to it's secular nature?

----------


## Theocrat

> When was this? 
> Can you show me an example of abiogenesis theory being crucial to evolutionary theory?


Where did living organism evolve from?




> Like what?


I've already told you.




> How it got to be the way it is...
> 
> Why does it have a telomeric sequence in the middle?


I believe God made it that way (though I didn't observe this empirically), just like you believe it was fused that way, even though you never observed it.




> That's what I'm getting at. Science doesn't say "We don't need to explain that." 
> Science asks how it can explain things. Science looks for an explanation for everything. Often it can't find an explanation, but often it can. 
> 
> It never says "Well, we don't need to explain how that got that way."


News flash: natural science *cannot* and *will not* be able to explain everything in the universe. You macroevolutionists deify natural science in such a cult-like fashion that it's simply pathetic.




> Uh, so you are saying that a lion can mate with a house cat and produce offspring?


Perhaps.




> I want to get this straight. 
> 
> God created one kind of cat that later, over time, became many types of cat that can no longer interbreed (new species). Am I getting that straight?
> 
> You realize what I'm getting at, right? 
> 
> The one kind of cat became many species of cat. 
> 
> By what mechanism do you suppose this happened?


It happened through the genetic information available in the cat-kinds which allowed variations within the cat family. Adaptations occur in animals, but once again, they're limited. 




> So are a housecat and a lion the same kind?


Yes, I would say that they are, similar to the taxonomic Family in the classification of living organisms.




> Because telomeric sequences aren't found in the middle of chromosomes unless the chromosomes had fused somehow.


Once again, did you *observe* from any empirical evidence this fusion?

----------


## Ozwest

> I've said very little on the specifics of evolution and that is precisely because I'm not an expert in it. Nobody here is from what I can glean. I've read books on it, studied it in classes, read about various experiments on it, and I accept it as a legitimate scientific biological theory based on everything I've read, seen and studied. That is not a religious belief. If scientists, after all these years, have just been drawing up the grand hoax of evolution in order to hide God's existence--well I'll be tickled freakin' pink! An ex of mine did his doctoral thesis in directed evolution and he's part of it, that bastard! I even read his thesis and bought it--what a chump!
> 
> I loved philosophy in college and took more than the required 3 courses in it, and have done a lot of reading on my own. ID presupposes a divine creator, and is thus no more than a hypothesis in the scientific world, however it is a legitimate philosophical/religious belief as far as I know. 
> 
> Why does it need to be a science if you're so confident in your beliefs and religion? Isn't science, in a sense, beneath your esteemed religion due to it's secular nature?


Some people like to rely on an outside authority, rather than being self reliant.

----------


## Theocrat

> ID presupposes a divine creator, and is thus no more than a hypothesis in the scientific world, however it is a legitimate philosophical/religious belief as far as I know.


I agree with you. Creationism/ID does indeed presuppose a Divine Creator. Macroevolution also has presuppositions. It presupposes that all there is in the universe is just matter in motion. Both of these worldviews bring assumptions to the table when dealing with natural sciences, and they direct the way one interprets the evidences found in nature.




> Why does it need to be a science if you're so confident in your beliefs and religion? Isn't science, in a sense, beneath your esteemed religion due to it's secular nature?


As Truth Warrior put it so succinctly, religion precedes natural science. Natural science is based on what a person expects in nature to occur and how they comprehend the raw data found in the natural world.

----------


## Ozwest

> I agree with you. Creationism/ID does indeed presuppose a Divine Creator. Macroevolution also has presuppositions. It presupposes that all there is in the universe is just matter in motion. Both of these worldviews bring assumptions to the table when dealing with natural sciences, and they direct the way one interprets the evidences found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> As Truth Warrior put it so succinctly, religion precedes natural science. Natural science is based on what a person expects in nature to occur and how they comprehend the raw data found in the natural world.


"Macroevolution also has presuppositions."

What the?

----------


## Theocrat

> Some people like to rely on an outside authority, rather than being self reliant.


Yeah, Adolf Hitler was self-reliant, too. Who were the Jews to tell him to rely on an outside authority to judge his moral behavior by?

----------


## amy31416

> Some people like to rely on an outside authority, rather than being self reliant.


Possibly. I just think it's a pretty simple concept to consider the cornerstones of science, and realize that it can never be taught as a science. You can not take ID beyond a hypothesis (and it barely can qualify as that) and still call it science, it fails. And neither Theocrat nor I can change the definitions of theory to suit our own beliefs, it's not like the bible where you can interpret it 50 different ways to justify your already formed conclusions.

But that is not to say that it's not an entirely legitimate belief system for religious people, though I do think that even a lot of religious people believe in the legitimacy of evolutionary theory--perhaps that's what torques him off.

----------


## Ozwest

> Yeah, Adolf Hitler was self-reliant, too. Who were the Jews to tell him to rely on an outside authority to judge his moral behavior by?


You are a piece of work.

----------


## Hiki

> Yeah, Adolf Hitler was self-reliant, too. Who were the Jews to tell him to rely on an outside authority to judge his moral behavior by?


Yeah, George W. Bush gets his morals from God, didn't he mention that God told him in his sleep to invade Middle-East and defend Israel? Who are we to judge his moral behavior if he has an perfect outside authority guiding him

----------


## Theocrat

> You are a piece of work.


Is that assessment based on what the chemicals in your body tell you?

----------


## Theocrat

> Possibly. I just think it's a pretty simple concept to consider the cornerstones of science, and realize that it can never be taught as a science. You can not take ID beyond a hypothesis (and it barely can qualify as that) and still call it science, it fails. And neither Theocrat nor I can change the definitions of theory to suit our own beliefs, it's not like the bible where you can interpret it 50 different ways to justify your already formed conclusions.
> 
> But that is not to say that it's not an entirely legitimate belief system for religious people, though I do think that even a lot of religious people believe in the legitimacy of evolutionary theory--perhaps that's what torques him off.


Is there uniformity in nature?

----------


## Ozwest

> Possibly. I just think it's a pretty simple concept to consider the cornerstones of science, and realize that it can never be taught as a science. You can not take ID beyond a hypothesis (and it barely can qualify as that) and still call it science, it fails. And neither Theocrat nor I can change the definitions of theory to suit our own beliefs, it's not like the bible where you can interpret it 50 different ways to justify your already formed conclusions.
> 
> But that is not to say that it's not an entirely legitimate belief system for religious people, though I do think that even a lot of religious people believe in the legitimacy of evolutionary theory--perhaps that's what torques him off.


  To each their own.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief system.

I prefer to not be encroached upon.

Live and let be...

----------


## Theocrat

> Yeah, George W. Bush gets his morals from God, didn't he mention that God told him in his sleep to invade Middle-East and defend Israel? Who are we to judge his moral behavior if he has an perfect outside authority guiding him


We judge His moral actions by the *word of God*, not the words he thought he heard in his head.

----------


## Hiki

> We judge His moral actions by the *word of God*, not the words he thought he heard in his head.


"he thought he..." How can you know that he just thought? Can you prove that God didn't talk to him?

----------


## Ozwest

> We judge His moral actions by the *word of God*, not the words he thought he heard in his head.


Sooo...

Why did you elect him?

----------


## Ozwest

And don't lie.

It's a sin.

----------


## amy31416

> I agree with you. Creationism/ID does indeed presuppose a Divine Creator. Macroevolution also has presuppositions. It presupposes that all there is in the universe is just matter in motion. Both of these worldviews bring assumptions to the table when dealing with natural sciences, and they direct the way one interprets the evidences found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> As Truth Warrior put it so succinctly, religion precedes natural science. Natural science is based on what a person expects in nature to occur and how they comprehend the raw data found in the natural world.


All science presupposes that the universe is made up of matter and energy in motion, so far there's been nothing to debunk that. There are quite a few arguments though, that there is not a divine creator, and no proof for his existence. Last I checked, no arguments against matter and energy in motion, and no physical evidence that there is more.

How do you know that religion precedes natural science? Did primal humans first turn rocks into tools, or did they pray to some figure unseen in the skies to help them magically split open bones of their prey? We can never truly know which came first for humanity. Of course, you will disagree, because you presuppose the bible as divine word of God and that the universe is 6,000 years old.

----------


## Theocrat

> "he thought he..." How can you know that he just thought? Can you prove that God didn't talk to him?


Yes, I can prove that God didn't talk to him *by his actions*. Jesus says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?"

----------


## amy31416

> Is there uniformity in nature?


Some, sure. There is also chaos.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Hey everyone, repeat after me,

"Yes, I believe in Evolution. I am an independent thinker."
"Yes, I believe in Evolution. I am an independent thinker."
"Yes, I believe in Evolution. I am an independent thinker."
"Yes, I believe in Evolution. I am an independent thinker."
"Yes, I believe in Evolution. I am an independent thinker."

One more time, take it from the top, all together now, and this time with feeling. Say it like you mean it.



 

Oh, way to go there. The shepherds will be just so proud of ewe ... er .... you!

----------


## Theocrat

> Sooo...
> 
> Why did you elect him?


I didn't elect him. I voted Constitution Party.

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat, give me a quote from the Bible using the word "kind" I want to see how relevant it is to discussions of science (I want to look at the original and see what it meant in original context).

----------


## Theocrat

> All science presupposes that the universe is made up of matter and energy in motion, so far there's been nothing to debunk that. There are quite a few arguments though, that there is not a divine creator, and no proof for his existence. Last I checked, no arguments against matter and energy in motion, and no physical evidence that there is more.


Is your statement quoted above made up of matter and energy in motion?




> How do you know that religion precedes natural science? Did primal humans first turn rocks into tools, or did they pray to some figure unseen in the skies to help them magically split open bones of their prey?


Who said anything about primal humans? The first humans were incredibly intelligent, and yes, they were smart enough (preprogrammed by God) to turn rocks into tools and incise their prey.




> We can never truly know which came first for humanity.


How do you *know* we can never truly know about the origins of humanity?




> Of course, you will disagree, because you presuppose the bible as divine word of God and that the universe is 6,000 years old.


Exactly.

----------


## Hiki

> Yes, I can prove that God didn't talk to him *by his actions*. Jesus says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?"


I'm bad with riddles so I have no idea what that means.

God supposedly talks to a lot of people. To be able to debate I assume that the Bible is the inspired word of God. So when someone does bad things and says that God told him to do it, you check from the Bible if God really spoke to him. Now the Bible contains a lot of stuff that a normal human being living in the 20th Century would consider as immoral and complete nonsense.
How can you tell which is correct there? In the end the people who supposedly wrote the Bible heard God speaking to them. Some wrote about love and caring for neighbor, some wrote about mass-murder and genocide. On what basis do you decide which is right and which is wrong?

----------


## Ozwest

> I didn't elect him. I voted Constitution Party.


I'll take you at your word.

But most of your "flock" voted for the fascists who have occupied the White House for the last two terms.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, give me a quote from the Bible using the word "kind" I want to see how relevant it is to discussions of science (I want to look at the original and see what it meant in original context).


Here's some examples: Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'll take you at your word.
> 
> But most of your "flock" voted for the fascists who have occupied the White House for the last two terms.


  The last five ( 5 ) terms at least.  Some more were earlier.

----------


## Ozwest

> I didn't elect him. I voted Constitution Party.


Without the "religious right," Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Constitution destroying maniacs would never have been elected.

----------


## Ozwest

> The last five ( 5 ) terms at least.  Some more were earlier.


This is true.

But...

The pace has quickened.

----------


## Theocrat

> Now the Bible contains a lot of stuff that a normal human being living in the 20th Century would consider as immoral and complete nonsense.
> How can you tell which is correct there? In the end the people who supposedly wrote the Bible heard God speaking to them. Some wrote about love and caring for neighbor, some wrote about mass-murder and genocide. On what basis do you decide which is right and which is wrong?


What you consider immoral and complete nonsense is of no importance, Hiki. You are not the absolute standard to judge immorality and nonsense.

----------


## amy31416

> Is your statement quoted above made up of matter and energy in motion?


Yes.




> Who said anything about primal humans? The first humans were incredibly intelligent, and yes, they were smart enough (preprogrammed by God) to turn rocks into tools and incise their prey.


You don't know that.




> How do you *know* we can never truly know about the origins of humanity?


Because the majority of fossil evidence no longer exists. Fossil evidence (dating older than 6,000 years) shows that early man used tools and had some semblance of religious belief, prior to the bible--so it looks nothing like your religion today.

Why again is it so important that an aspect of your religion be considered science? 

Oh, and if you're looking for where science meets metaphysics or possibly some possibility of the divine, you're barking up the wrong tree. If you truly want to stump scientists, you should consider getting into physics, especially quantum physics and the origin of matter and energy itself. There is a preponderance of evidence, experimentation and hard science behind evolution. 

I can't believe that I have to point that out to you, when you claim to know religion, philosophy and science so well. As I've said before, the only reason I'm agnostic rather than an atheist is due to what I learned about the quantum world and the inability of science to explain where matter and energy came from in the first place. You sure as hell aren't going to convince me via evolution.

There it is on a platter for you, make good use of it.

----------


## Ozwest

> What you consider immoral and complete nonsense is of no importance, Hiki. You are not the absolute standard to judge immorality and nonsense.


You are a slave Theocrat.

----------


## Hiki

> What you consider immoral and complete nonsense is of no importance, Hiki. You are not the absolute standard to judge immorality and nonsense.


That's true because I'm asking you and this has nothing to do with me. Now speak up.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You are a slave Theocrat.


And who do you work for 6 months of each year?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> This is true.
> 
> But...
> 
> The pace has quickened.


 Targeting the 2010-2012 time frame, I think.  So much to do , so little time.

----------


## Ozwest

> And who do you work for 6 months of each year?


So, in order to avoid paying taxes?duties, I should become a Christian?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So, in order to avoid paying taxes?duties, I should become a Christian?


But that wasn't the question, now was it?  

BTW, are you a trucker?  Just curious.

----------


## Ozwest

> But that wasn't the question, now was it?  
> 
> BTW, are you a trucker?  Just curious.


I owned trucks.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I owned trucks.


 Well one answer out of two ain't bad. 

Do you drive also?

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes.


So your thoughts are made up of matter and energy in motion? If you were thinking of a pink banana, and I cut your brain open, I would see a pink banana inside there?




> You don't know that.


Yes, I do know that, and you already know how I know.




> Because the majority of fossil evidence no longer exists. Fossil evidence (dating older than 6,000 years) shows that early man used tools and had some semblance of religious belief, prior to the bible--so it looks nothing like your religion today.


It's funny how you assume all that from your interpretation of some dead bones in the ground. Can you tell me again why your belief in macroevolution is not based on faith?




> Why again is it so important that an aspect of your religion be considered science?


Without the Christian view of natural science, scientific discovery and advancement would simply not be possible because it is only the Christian worldview which provides the necessary preconditions to make sense of the uniformity of nature which allows inductive inference possible in making accurate scientific predictions and reproducible results.

On the evolution side, the universe just came to be by random processes and blind chance. How can *randomness* and *chance* of matter and energy allow *uniformity* and *inherent consistency* of organisms in the universe?




> Oh, and if you're looking for where science meets metaphysics or possibly some possibility of the divine, you're barking up the wrong tree. If you truly want to stump scientists, you should consider getting into physics, especially quantum physics and the origin of matter and energy itself. There is a preponderance of evidence, experimentation and hard science behind evolution.


All evolution has are untested theories, ways and models of explaining the evidence which fits their own assumptions.




> I can't believe that I have to point that out to you, when you claim to know religion, philosophy and science so well. As I've said before, the only reason I'm agnostic rather than an atheist is due to what I learned about the quantum world and the inability of science to explain where matter and energy came from in the first place. You sure as hell aren't going to convince me via evolution.
> 
> There it is on a platter for you, make good use of it.


Macroevolution is a useless theory anyway, so of course I'm not going to convince you of God's existence using it. I admit, I don't know much about the "quantum world," but really, I don't have to. There are plenty of problems in our world which can be solved without the use of quantum theories and especially macroevolution.

----------


## Ozwest

> Well one answer out of two ain't bad. 
> 
> Do you drive also?


I am self-sustaining, to answer your other question.

I have paid more than my fair share of taxes, superannuation. public liability, insurance, compensation, lawyers, and accountants.

----------


## Theocrat

> You are a slave Theocrat.


We're all slaves, Ozwest. If men will not serve God, then they will worship at the feet of tyrants, whether it's the State or their own sinful natures, which entrap them in the bondage of their own immorality and irrationality. It's your choice.

----------


## Theocrat

> That's true because I'm asking you and this has nothing to do with me. Now speak up.


What do you want to know?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I am self-sustaining, to answer your other question.
> 
> I have paid more than my fair share of taxes, superannuation. public liability, insurance, compensation, lawyers, and accountants.


Almost an answer. 

I claim that you too are a slave, at least in part.  And probably, more than you know.

----------


## Hiki

> What do you want to know?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...postcount=1344

----------


## Ozwest

> We're all slaves, Ozwest. If men will not serve God, then they will worship at the feet of tyrants, whether it's the State or their own sinful natures, which entrap them in the bondage of their own immorality and irrationality. It's your choice.


Everyone needs a little immorality from time... to time...

An occasional entrapment in bondage, heightens my sinful nature.

Sounds to me like doublespeak - Theocrat.

----------


## Ozwest

> Almost an answer. 
> 
> I claim that you too are a slave, at least in part.  And probably, more than you know.


As Bob Dillon said: "You're going have to serve somebody."

You serve the Lord.

I come from planet Earth.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Hey Theocrat --

Please check out 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...postcount=1225
When you get a chance, unless you already have. Feedback appreciated. 

Thanks!

----------


## amy31416

Theocrat,

I can't debate silliness like cutting my brain open and finding a pink banana, that's just ridiculous, you also can't cut my brain open and find my soul or god. 

The universe is made up of matter and energy, and unless it's at absolute zero, yes, it's in motion. That is all anyone has found thus far--if they find something else, great! I'll learn about it to the nth degree. 

And the universe is not always consistent, chaos is found in places as well. Turbulence, things like that. If evolution is merely a theory based on a person's assumptions--why the hell would we assume that we are evolved from lower life forms? Isn't it prettier and more along the lines of human ego that we are far more special than animals, thus _that_ is the more likely assumption? Given your logic, relgion would reign supreme and would seek to hide the evidence of evolution and downplay the hard science that backs it. Is that what you're doing?

And if you were right about Christianity being the only worldview that can promote or unfurl the mysteries of science, then why are so many scientists who've made astonishing advancements not Christian?

You really should pick up some books on quantum mechanics and particle physics, I'm afraid that it won't lead to Christianity as you'd like, but it is an amazing world.

Try _The Elegant Universe_ by Brian Greene, _Where does the Weirdness Go?_ by Lindle, http://www.amazon.com/Uncertainty-Ei...ref=pd_sim_b_1 (I haven't read that yet, but it looks good), http://www.amazon.com/Search-Schrödi...ref=pd_sim_b_3 (anything by Griffin is good.)

If you don't believe in carbon dating or other methods of calculating the age of things, you should really do it yourself sometime, because if you're right that it's all a fraud, you should be motivated enough to actually disprove it. You will make a name for yourself in science.

That said, happy memorial day to all. It's almost time to fire up the grill.

----------


## Theocrat

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...postcount=1344


Why do you continue to ask me questions in which you already know my answer will be? I've explained to you many times that the Bible is the absolute standard by which morality is judged. As self-authenticating, the Bible must first be accepted as true (which only comes from the regenerating work of the Spirit of God into the soul of a person), and then through the use of hermeneutical principles of interpretation the paradoxes in Scripture (such as how God can treat one nation favorably and another in wrathful vengence) make sense (Read Romans 9.). This is one of the deep, rich mysteries of God's sovereignty, which is a whole separate topic for another thread. You let Scripture interpret Scripture.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> As Bob Dillon said: "You're going have to serve somebody."
> 
> You serve the Lord.
> 
> I come from planet Earth.


Serve the Lord??? Where on planet Earth, did you ever get that one? 

( Let me guess and predict here, no answer.   Or at least no comprehensible answer.   )

----------


## Ozwest

> Serve the Lord??? Where on planet Earth, did you ever get that one? 
> 
> ( Let me guess and predict here, no answer.   Or at least no comprehensible answer.   )


I'm a babbling mess. 

My sinful nature is catching up with me...

----------


## Ozwest

It's 3:00 am in Australia, and I've been partying.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm a babbling mess. 
> 
> My sinful nature is catching up with me...


Noted!   ( accurate predictions for TW + 1)

----------


## Truth Warrior

> It's 3:00 am in Australia, and I've been partying.


Noted!  ( accurate predictions for TW + 1)

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat,
> 
> I can't debate silliness like cutting my brain open and finding a pink banana, that's just ridiculous, you also can't cut my brain open and find my soul or god.


I gave that illustration to prove the point that there are things which exist in the universe that are not just matter and energy in motion.




> And the universe is not always consistent, chaos is found in places as well. Turbulence, things like that. If evolution is merely a theory based on a person's assumptions--why the hell would we assume that we are evolved from lower life forms? Isn't it prettier and more along the lines of human ego that we are far more special than animals, thus _that_ is the more likely assumption? Given your logic, relgion would reign supreme and would seek to hide the evidence of evolution and downplay the hard science that backs it. Is that what you're doing?


Chaos never organizes anything, and it definitely doesn't produce life, which is what is theorized in macroevolution. The reason why people assume that they evolve from lower life forms is because they would rather be irrational than accept the obvious that there is a God. As I've mentioned before, macroevolution is a foolish attempt to explain how the world came to be without acknowledging God, and yet this is exactly what God tells us will happen to those who reject Him--they are reduced to absurdity (Psalms 14; Romans 1; I Corinthians 1). There is no evidence for evolution; it is an assumption used to explain how the universe works (theory). Religion influences how natural science is obtained, whether it's supernaturalistic or naturalistic.




> And if you were right about Christianity being the only worldview that can promote or unfurl the mysteries of science, then why are so many scientists who've made astonishing advancements not Christian?


Because the non-Christian is indeed acting as a Christian when he does his natural science, though he denies the foundation of what he's doing. As I've said before, when the nonbeliever uses inductive inference to assume the future will be like the past in his experimentation and analysis (thus relying on the uniformity of nature), it is at this point that he is acting as a Christian believer, and he shows that in his "heart of hearts," he does believe in God. In another sense, he has stepped out of his own worldview and into another's (Christian) because his naturalistic assumptions cannot account for uniformity in nature and the use of induction. That's why.




> You really should pick up some books on quantum mechanics and particle physics, I'm afraid that it won't lead to Christianity as you'd like, but it is an amazing world.
> 
> Try _The Elegant Universe_ by Brian Greene, _Where does the Weirdness Go?_ by Lindle, http://www.amazon.com/Uncertainty-Ei...ref=pd_sim_b_1 (I haven't read that yet, but it looks good), http://www.amazon.com/Search-Schrödi...ref=pd_sim_b_3 (anything by Griffin is good.)


Thanks.




> If you don't believe in carbon dating or other methods of calculating the age of things, you should really do it yourself sometime, because if you're right that it's all a fraud, you should be motivated enough to actually disprove it. You will make a name for yourself in science.
> 
> That said, happy memorial day to all. It's almost time to fire up the grill.


Thanks, but carbon dating has been proven to be a fraud many time over by its own inconsistency of dating things. I don't want to make a name for myself, so I'll just continue to proclaim the Name which is above all names.

Happy Memorial Day to you, too.

----------


## Theocrat

> Hey Theocrat --
> 
> Please check out 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...postcount=1225
> When you get a chance, unless you already have. Feedback appreciated. 
> 
> Thanks!


The "new kid" theory, as you've put it, is just a dead corpse being forced into natural sciences by "necrophiliac" puppeteers who inherently hate God and want their superstition so desperately kept in the public schools to teach unsuspecting children that they're just animals, there is no purpose to life, and everything is relative. It carries no weight against creationism/ID, and it's assumptions go as far back as Epicureanism. What can I say? There's nothing new under the sun.

----------


## Ozwest

Theocrat,

So what you are saying is...

Four thousand years ago humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.

Makes perfect sense...

----------


## Ozwest

Is that what you are saying?

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat,
> 
> So what you are saying is...
> 
> Four thousand years ago humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.
> 
> Makes perfect sense...


No, I would say about 6,000 years ago that happened. As a matter of fact, there may be some dinosaurs still around today. The deep recesses of cryptozoology are quite fascinating.

----------


## Ozwest

> No, I would say about 6,000 years ago that happened. As a matter of fact, there may be some dinosaurs still around today. The deep recesses of cryptozoology are quite fascinating.


So, six thousand years ago, dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.

You really believe that?

Please give some more dinosaur history Theocrat.

I am on a slow learning curve here...

Enlighten me!

----------


## Hiki

> So, six thousand years ago, dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.
> 
> You really believe that?
> 
> Please give some more dinosaur history Theocrat.
> 
> I am on a slow learning curve here...
> 
> Enlighten me!


It gets even better. Creationists say that T-Rex was hanging out in Noah's Ark.

Speaking of the Ark...

There are somewhat 10 million species in the world. The Bible tells us that Noah took a pair of every species into the Ark. That makes the total figure of 20 million animals. The Ark was filled in 7 days. That means that the Ark was filled with 2000 units per minute, 30 units per second through the one only door in the ark non-stop for 7 days.

Makes perfect sense.

----------


## Ozwest

> It gets even better. Creationists say that T-Rex was hanging out in Noah's Ark.
> 
> Speaking of the Ark...
> 
> There are somewhat 10 million species in the world. The Bible tells us that Noah took a pair of every species into the Ark. That makes the total figure of 20 million animals. The Ark was filled in 7 days. That means that the Ark was filled with 2000 units per minute, 30 units per second through the one only door in the ark non-stop for 7 days.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


Usually Theocrat is so quick to reply.

I'll bet he's thumbing through the pages right now...

----------


## Theocrat

> So, six thousand years ago, dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.
> 
> You really believe that?
> 
> Please give some more dinosaur history Theocrat.
> 
> I am on a slow learning curve here...
> 
> Enlighten me!


Here's some dinosaur history for you. I hope this helps.

----------


## Theocrat

> It gets even better. Creationists say that T-Rex was hanging out in Noah's Ark.
> 
> Speaking of the Ark...
> 
> There are somewhat 10 million species in the world. The Bible tells us that Noah took a pair of every species into the Ark. That makes the total figure of 20 million animals. The Ark was filled in 7 days. That means that the Ark was filled with 2000 units per minute, 30 units per second through the one only door in the ark non-stop for 7 days.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


Of course, because it wasn't like Noah was smart enough to bring babies of the various dinosaur kinds aboard the Ark...

----------


## Mesogen

> Mesogen --
> 
> 
> Nope!  Your theory, your burden. 
> 
> What were the evolutionary origins of the *FIRST* Earth life species?  And what precisely was it and when?


No. You made a claim (that abiogenesis theory was crucial to evolutionary theory). Can you verify this claim?




> Where did living organism evolve from?


In the context of showing that life evolves today and has evolved in the past, that question is irrelevant. 

If you want to show evidence that species A diverted into species A and B, you can do that without knowing the ultimate ancestor of species A. 





> I believe God made it that way (though I didn't observe this empirically), just like you believe it was fused that way, even though you never observed it.


So God put it in there for some mysterious purpose (or none at all). So the creationist explanation for the chromosome #2 appearing as if it were the result of the fusion of two chromosomes is that God did it that way and we ain't tellin why. 

That could be the explanation for anything. 

You could say that God set the Earth up to harbor life that would evolve and that this eventually caused an ape species chromosome to fuse eventually resulting in what we call humans. (of course God made this planet of 2/3 water specifically for humans, who have no gills.)





> News flash: natural science *cannot* and *will not* be able to explain everything in the universe. You macroevolutionists deify natural science in such a cult-like fashion that it's simply pathetic.


When did I say that science can explain anything and everything? 

Yet, it is the most effective way of explaining the universe around us. 







> Perhaps.
> 
> It happened through the genetic information available in the cat-kinds which allowed variations within the cat family. Adaptations occur in animals, but once again, they're limited.


Adaptations that cause different species to form, right? 

Evolution causing different species to form. Something that you say is impossible. 





> Yes, I would say that they are, similar to the taxonomic Family in the classification of living organisms.


Yes, they are in the same family (Felidae) just like humans and apes are in the same family (Hominidae). Some cats, like ocelots and some leopards, have 36 chromosomes instead of 38. This is thought to be a result of chromosomal fusion. 




> Once again, did you *observe* from any empirical evidence this fusion?


Have you ever observed the air? Have you ever observed an oxygen molecule? How do you know the air even exists? How can you really say that you get so much chemical energy to run your body from oxygen when it must not exist, since you've never seen it? How do you know it's not God breathing the breath of life into your nostrils all day?

----------


## Mesogen

> Of course, because it wasn't like Noah was smart enough to bring babies of the various dinosaur kinds aboard the Ark...


Wouldn't the dinosaurs be left OFF the ark? Otherwise we'd see them today? 

Or did they all die off in a massive, unrecorded in history, extinction?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The "new kid" theory, as you've put it, is just a dead corpse being forced into natural sciences by "necrophiliac" puppeteers who inherently hate God and want their superstition so desperately kept in the public schools to teach unsuspecting children that they're just animals, there is no purpose to life, and everything is relative. It carries no weight against creationism/ID, and it's assumptions go as far back as Epicureanism. What can I say? There's nothing new under the sun.


Thanks!

----------


## Mesogen

I'm not saying anything, except that this is weird and never heard of it before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6NkRUbI38

----------


## Ozwest

Theocrat,

  What a waste of six and a half minutes.

Reptiles lived for 900 years, and they are the same reptiles that inhabit the earth now, except todays reptiles die earlier, and don't reach their growth potential. 

So Adam and Eve were giants.

Let's ponder this...

Six thousand years - Living things lived to 900 years, and got really big! 

Were there 2 or 3 generations of dinosaurs?

I am perplexed, and inquisitive.  Please enlighten me further Theocrat.

----------


## Hiki

> Of course, because it wasn't like Noah was smart enough to bring babies of the various dinosaur kinds aboard the Ark...


How do you know this?

*Genesis 38:6* Judah acquired a wife for Er his firstborn; her name was Tamar. 38:7 But Er, Judahs firstborn, was evil in the Lords sight, so the Lord killed him.

38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, Have sexual relations with your brothers wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her so that you may raise up a descendant for your brother. 38:9 But Onan knew that the child would not be considered his. So whenever he had sexual relations with his brothers wife, he withdrew prematurely so as not to give his brother a descendant. 38:10 What he did was evil in the Lords sight, so the Lord killed him too.

What a great, merciful and loving God.

----------


## Ozwest

I'm dissapointed in you Theocrat.

You have bailed out on the dinosaur discussion.

How come?

----------


## Hiki

> I'm dissapointed in you Theocrat.
> 
> You have bailed out on the dinosaur discussion.
> 
> How come?


He'll come up with something sooner or later.

It's bedtime for me now.

----------


## Ozwest

> He'll come up with something sooner or later.
> 
> It's bedtime for me now.


I'm not waiting around for some lame explanation either.

Adios.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No. You made a claim (that abiogenesis theory was crucial to evolutionary theory). Can you verify this claim?
> *No, can you?* 
> 
> *I just asked two very simple basic evolution theory questions.*


Namely:
What were the evolutionary origins of the *FIRST* Earth life species? And what precisely was it and when? 

It's kind of like asking a chemistry guy about hydrogen and/or a physics guy about atoms and/or an astronomy guy about planets or stars.. No toughies for any TRUE REAL science.

And now: Isn't evolution, at least supposed to be in part, about origins of life species on Earth? 

I'll make it even easier, what were the second or third or fourth or fifth, etc. Earth life species origins that evolved? 

Doesn't seem like any sort of "rocket science" should be required, to me. 

Thanks!

----------


## Mesogen

> You made a claim ...Can you verify this claim?





> No...


That's what I thought.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Have you considered this?


Yes, I watched that video in entirety. 

It appears that the appendix may have an immune function and it appears that the coccyx has useful muscles attached to it.

I am not going to argue with those explanations. They seem reasonable to me at this time.

However, before you rub your hands in glee what about the other parts I brought up in the original post?

Moreover, I will direct you to this recent article in the New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nger-need.html

It lists the following organs/tissues/structures with explanation:

"*Vomeronasal organ*

Rodents and other mammals secrete chemical signals called pheromones that carry information 
about their gender or reproductive state, and influence the behaviour of others. Pheromones 
are detected by a specialised sensory system, the vomeronasal organ (VNO), which consists of 
a pair of structures that nestle in the nasal lining or the roof of the mouth. Although most adult 
humans have something resembling a VNO in their nose, neuroscientist Michael Meredith of 
Florida State University in Tallahassee has no hesitation in dismissing it as a remnant.

"If you look at the anatomy of the structure, *you don't see any cells that look like the 
sensory cells in other mammalian VNOs,*" he says. "*You don't see any nerve fibres 
connecting the organ to the brain*." He also points to genetic evidence that the human 
VNO is non-functional. *Virtually all the genes that encode its cell-surface receptors - the 
molecules that bind incoming chemical signals, triggering an electrical response in the cell - 
are pseudogenes, and inactive.*

So what about the puzzling evidence that humans respond to some pheromones? Larry 
Katz and a team at Duke University, North Carolina, have found that as well as the VNO, 
the main olfactory system in mice also responds to pheromones. If that is the case in 
humans too then it is possible that we may still secrete pheromones to influence the 
behaviour of others without using a VNO to detect them.

*Goose bumps*

Though goose bumps are a reflex rather than a permanent anatomical structure, they are 
widely considered to be vestigial in humans. The pilomotor reflex, to give them one of their 
technical names, occurs when the tiny muscle at the base of a hair follicle contracts, pulling
 the hair upright. In birds or mammals with feathers, fur or spines, this creates a layer of 
insulating warm air in a cold snap, or a reason for a predator to think twice before attacking. 
*But human hair is so puny that it is incapable of either of these functions.*

Goose bumps in humans may, however, have taken on a minor new role. Like flushing, another 
thermoregulatory mechanism, they have become linked with emotional responses - notably fear, 
rage or the pleasure, say, of listening to beautiful music. This could serve as a signal to others. 
It may also heighten emotional reactions: there is some evidence, for instance, that a music-induced 
frisson causes changes of activity in the brain that are associated with pleasure.

*Darwin's point*

Around the sixth week of gestation, six swellings of tissue called the hillocks of Hiss arise around 
the area that will form the ear canal. These eventually coalesce to form the outer ear. Darwin's 
point, or tubercle, is a minor malformation of the junction of the fourth and fifth hillocks of Hiss. 
*It is found in a substantial minority of people and takes the form of a cartilaginous node or 
bump on the rim of their outer ear, which is thought to be the vestige of a joint that allowed the 
top part of the ancestral ear to swivel or flop down over the opening to the ear.*

Technically considered a congenital defect, Darwin's point does no harm and is surgically removed 
for cosmetic reasons only. However, the genetics behind it tells an interesting tale, says plastic 
surgeon Anthony Sclafani of the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary in New York City. The trait is passed 
on according to an autosomal dominant pattern, meaning that a child need only inherit one copy of 
the gene responsible to have Darwin's point. That suggests that at one time it was useful. However, 
it also has variable penetration, meaning that you won't necessarily have the trait even if you inherit 
the gene. "The variable penetration reflects the fact that it is no longer advantageous," Sclafani says.

*Tail bone*

A structure that is the object of reduced evolutionary pressure can, within limits, take on different 
forms. As a result, one of the telltale signs of a vestige is variability. A good example is the human 
coccyx, a vestige of the mammalian tail, which has taken on a modified function, notably as an 
anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place.

The human coccyx is normally composed of four rudimentary vertebrae fused into a single bone. 
"But it's amazing how much variability there is at this spot," says Patrick Foye, director of the Coccyx 
Pain Service at New Jersey Medical School in Newark. *Whereas babies born with six fingers or toes 
are rare, he says, the coccyx can and often does consist of anything from three to five bony segments.* 
What's more, there are more than *100 medical reports of babies born with tails*. This atavism 
arises if the signal that normally stops the process of vertebrate elongation during embryonic 
development fails to activate on time.

*Wisdom teeth*

Most primates have wisdom teeth (the third molars) but a few species, including marmosets and 
tamarins, have none. "These are probably evolutionary dwarfs," says anthropologist Peter Lucas 
of George Washington University, Washington DC. He suggests that when the *body size of 
mammals reduces rapidly their jaws become too small to house all their teeth, and overcrowding 
eventually results in selection for fewer or smaller teeth* (International Congress Series, vol 1296, p 74). 
This seems to be happening in **** sapiens.

*Robert Corruccini of Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, says the problem of overcrowding 
has been exacerbated in humans in the past four centuries as our diet has become softer and more 
processed.* With less wear on molars, jaw space is at an even higher premium, "so the third molars, 
the last teeth to erupt, run out of space to erupt", he says. Not only are impacted wisdom teeth becoming 
more common, perhaps as many as 35% of people have no wisdom teeth at all, suggesting that we 
may be on an evolutionary trajectory to losing them altogether."




> The vestigiality of organisms is *your* claim, not mine. The assumption of your question illogically 
> places the burden of proof on me for an organism's vestigiality.


It is a claim that supports evolution, put forth by scientists who studied the matter. 

It is one that supports the theory of evolution and does *not* support your theory of "intelligent" 
design. If it does so, then by all means do tell how.

You seem to have backed out of an opportunity to defend your version of an explanation of how life on earth 
got to be the way it is with a seemingly ill-conceived retort that the burden of proof is illogically placed on you. 

Given that the existence of vestigiality seems to run counter to your theory, surely you would need to address it? 

One thing that I have seen creationists of orthodox or intelligent design variety claim is that the 
vestigial organs are examples of devolution not evolution i.e. you are losing functionality not gaining it. 

This assumes that evolution is all about gaining functions, which is not true, it can be gaining and 
losing at the same time.

From wiki:

"In biology, evolution is the *process of change* in the inherited traits of a population of organisms 
from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the 
inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in 
individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also 
come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal 
gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic 
recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these 
heritable differences become more common or rare in a population."

I noticed in the video you provided the speaker said "how is that going to help, you lose everything 
until you have it all". Why wasn't he intellectually honest with respect to the definition of evolution 
to say you can lose and gain things at the same time? I also notice that frequently he makes 
dismissive all encompassing statements without going into the why such as "..could not possibly..".

Back to square 1, where are the explanations for the vestigial organs I outlined from the ID side? 

In science we try to explain all that we see by proposing theories that can accomodate observed data. 

On the other hand, ID is not explaining all that it sees (at least not from what I have seen so far).

Why not?

IDer might say, well we just do not know enough about an organ to say what function it may have at 
this time, but one day we will as biological science improves.

If that takes place then ID is not a theory that best fits the known data is it? 

We can't just pick and choose only that which fits our explanation. 

That is known as intellectual dishonesty my friend.

*So, until you can convince me of usefulness of all 'vestigial' organs/structures/tissues OR 
explain why the intelligent designer left useless organs/structures/tissues in place 
I will consider evolution to be the best explanation because it is the best technical 
theory available subject to known data.*

*Is that fair enough?*

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I'm dissapointed in you Theocrat.
> 
> You have bailed out on the dinosaur discussion.
> 
> How come?


Im sure he and Truth Warrior will soon try to expand the definition of "dinosaur" to include all living animals.

. . . Or is it that they will narrow the definition so tightly that no known dinosaur species will fit that definition?


Im still trying to figure out their perplexing logic structure.  We will just have to wait and see which way they swing with this one.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> It gets even better. Creationists say that T-Rex was hanging out in Noah's Ark.
> 
> Speaking of the Ark...
> 
> There are somewhat 10 million species in the world. The Bible tells us that Noah took a pair of every 
> species into the Ark. That makes the total figure of 20 million animals. The Ark was filled in 7 days. 
> That means that the Ark was filled with 2000 units per minute, 30 units per second through the one 
> only door in the ark non-stop for 7 days.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


So the animals would have to get speeded up and become super organised and super strong in skeletal 
and tissue structures to withstand the required acceleration and de-acceleration.

If for argument's sake an average animal is 1 foot in length and can enter one animal at a time, we need 
a speed of at least 30 feet per second for all animals as they pass through the door, assuming they are 
all touching each other front to back.

Expressed as kilometres per hour that is approximately 1100 kilometres per hour. 

Indeed the animals would nearly be breaking the sound barrier to populate the ark.

Although such logistical challenges could be overcome by widening the ark's entry point. 

If the ark entry point was 100 times wider then we have a manageable 11 kilometers per hour.

Nethertheless, to hold 10 million species, would require quite some room and attention in terms of feeding and caring.

How did Noah allocate his time efficiently to watch 10 million species? Was he multi tasking?

How did he ensure that some species did not eat their natural or even un-natural prey whilst on the ark's premises?

Did Noah have any concerns about 10000 species of termites or any other species that eat wood that were on the ark?

There is more at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1357.htm

"p.194 The generally accepted size of the ark is 155 metres long, 25 metres wide and 15 metres high and it was to contain 
three decks, a side-opening door and a one-cubit square window at the top.

p. 104 It is fairly safe to assume that Noah had never seen a kangaroo, so how did Noah know what size cage to build 
on the ark for a pair of kangaroos?

p. 106 ...did Noah really know that a pair of elephants eats 300 kilograms of greenery per day ... It is of particular interest 
to speculate how Noah would have housed and fed the 10 000 known species of termites on the wooden ark. 
The termites must have developed an appetite for 'gopher wood' and such an appetite must surely have weakened an already 
overcrowded, overloaded boat.

p. 108 The total amount of water carried for the animals would have sunk the ark, the total weight of provisions would have sunk 
the ark, the total weight of vertebrates would have sunk the ark many times, the amount of excreta generated would have sunk 
the ark every five days and the aquarium for a pair of whales would have sunk the ark many times. Furthermore, if a couple of large 
animals had the urge to procreate, the ark would become terribly unstable. Imagine if the two-tonne Ultrasaurus dinosaurs converted 
the snaking stinking sinking overcrowded freighter into a love boat. The ark would have capsized!

p. 110 On the assumption that the animals came on two by two (and not seven pairs), each animal would have some 1150 cubic centimetres 
(I.e. the volume of a milk carton) of shipboard space for the 371 days at sea ... cages and crates for animals must be much larger than their 
body size ....How did Noah know to build a system to preserve fresh Eucalyptus leaves for the koala passengers from Australia, which was 
then undiscovered ...?

p. 112 Coral survives in warm, nutrient-poor, clear, shallow ocean waters. No coral would have survived.

p. 113 Even if by some great coincidence, these five [Noah, his wife and three daughters-in-law] had no genetic variant in common, it would 
still not be possible to have the genetic diversity we see today.

p. 114 Some organism don't survive as a couplet. For example bees, flies and other organisms live in swarms and without community activity 
neither function nor survive.

p. 115 How did Noah see the pairs of microscopic bacteria come on to the ark?

p. 117 Noah and his family would have shared this tiny ark with 30 million pairs of known and extinct organisms. ....The Bible tells us that all 
the organisms were loaded in a 24-hour day (Genesis 7:11-15) thereby requiring 460 organisms per second to enter the ark over this period.

p. 125 Humans are the only host for numerous diseases including measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, typhus, typhoid fever, smallpox. 
lep[rosy, poliomyelitis, five types of syphilis and gonorrhoea, AIDS, hepatitis, shingles, four types of malarial parasites, two types of tapeworm, 
an intestinal worm, hookworm, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, pinworm, three types of lice, various types of fever 
(for example, Japanese river fever), kuru, just to mention a few. ... The transmission of kuru must have placed inordinate ethical burdens 
on the already overtaxed Noah. Kuru is only transmitted by cannibalism, by eating the brains of another human afflicted with the disease. ... 
Noah's family must have carried a veritable hospital of diseases because this was the only way that diseases endemic to hominoids could 
have survived the 'Great Flood'.

p. 126 The magnitude of the feeding task is astronomical. if the few of four males worked 24 hours a day for the 371 days at sea, then each 
animal would have received a total of six seconds attention for the whole year. In the six seconds, the animals would have to be fed and 
watered at least 371 times and presumably the stalls had to be cleaned in order to avoid the outbreak of disease.

p. 128 ... thousands of tonnes of urine and excreta were generated on a daily basis ... the ark had a ventilation port of one cubit square 
so the atmosphere below decks was obviously indescribably fetid.

p. 129 ...one wonders how Noah avoided the spontaneous combustion of the monstrous volumes of methane-oxygen mix below decks.

p. 132 If the Priestly version of the ark myth is true, then we should not have ravens today as we lost one of the breeding couple.

p. 133 [After the flood] Why did the new world primates return to South America, the very area where their fossil ancestors thrived? How 
did flightless birds, some up to three metres in size and 300 kilograms in weight, manage to swim tens of thousands of kilometres to remote 
islands such as Mauritius (dodo), Reunion (solitaire), Rodriguez (white dodo), New Caledonia (kagu) and New Zealand (moa)? .... After the 
'Great Flood', we are expected to believe that the double coconut was transported only to the Seychelles, the eucalypt only to Australia and 
the Andean alpine flora only to South America, and to nowhere else in the whole wide world."

Please forgive me for I do not believe in Noah's Ark Theocrat.

I do not mean to disrespect your beliefs, but I must say, I found the above very humorous, so much so that the laughter made it hard to 
remain seated on a few occasions.

----------


## Theocrat

> *So, until you can convince me of usefulness of all 'vestigial' organs/structures/tissues OR 
> explain why the intelligent designer left useless organs/structures/tissues in place 
> I will consider evolution to be the best explanation because it is the best technical 
> theory available subject to known data.*
> 
> *Is that fair enough?*


Once again, you fail to understand the assumptions of your own theory. On the creationist paradigm, there are no vestigial organs. That claim is not necessary to understand the human anatomy for the creationist. Vestigial organs are just arbitrary observations of certain organs *believed* to have been lost in evolutionary history in order to explain the discontinuity of structures between organisms, all of which *presuppose common ancestry*. It then becomes obvious that creationism rejects the hypothesis of vestigial organs because creationism assumes the structures of organisms were created with purpose in mind (some still to be revealed, perhaps), but nonetheless, the organs do not derive from some past evolutionary ancestor, fallen out of use over time.

Vestigiality is what evolution proponents claim, so I don't even know why you expect the creationists to explain vestigiality of organic structures when that is not even a part of their scientific apparatus. Asking the creationist to describe vestigial structures is like asking the evolutionist to explain why God created humans with two eyes, two ears, but only one nose and one mouth. I hope you see my point. For the creationist scientist, vestigiality in organisms is simply moot.

Just for fun, let me ask you this: do whales have legs? Do crocodiles have feathers? Why would an organism have a sudden urge to leave a body of water and walk on land if we never observe that same phenomenon happening today with any water creatures? Why would that organism "evolve" lungs if it was just living fine underwater with gills?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That's what I thought.


Geeze.  What a dishonest chicken$#@! duck and dodge?  BTW that kind of crap is exactly what I have come to routinely expect from the pathetic evolutionism "cult" faithful true believers.

Always a very sure sign of a BULL$#@! pseudo-science "cult" crapola and a con job. 

Hell,  I can get more honest answers from astrolgers, psychics, and voodoo witch doctors, than from the "brainwashed" programmed evolutionism sheeple bots.

"By their BULL $#@! non-answers, ye shall know them."

----------


## amy31416

A Christian Evolutionary Biologist's perspective on evolution: http://nov55.com/rel/cre.html

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Once again, you fail to understand the assumptions of your own theory. On the creationist paradigm, there are no vestigial organs.


I think I am getting to the core of the entire debate. Perhaps this is why you seem to be getting frustrated and dismissive as the tone of your post indicates.




> That claim is not necessary to understand the human anatomy for the creationist. Vestigial organs are just arbitrary observations of certain organs *believed*
> to have been lost in evolutionary history in order to explain the discontinuity of structures between organisms, all of which *presuppose common ancestry*.


Dismissive tone.




> It then becomes obvious that creationism rejects the hypothesis of vestigial organs because creationism assumes the structures of organisms were created with purpose in mind (some still to be revealed, perhaps),


So its blind faith? Observation be damned?

You say some function will be revealed. Can you see that was my whole point in the prior post. 

Your theory ignores that which it can't explain and simply says in a manner of speaking: 'god made it, no questions asked'.

That does not appeal to those such as myself that subscribe to the notion that a technical theory that best fits 
the current observable data is the best theory.

You cannot possibly 'win' this debate because you are putting imagination versus science. More on this below.




> but nonetheless, the organs do not derive from some past evolutionary ancestor, fallen out of use over time.


You can only say that based on faith.




> Vestigiality is what evolution proponents claim, so I don't even know why you expect the creationists to explain 
> vestigiality of organic structures when that is not even a part of their scientific apparatus. Asking the creationist to 
> describe vestigial structures is like asking the evolutionist to explain why God created humans with two eyes, two ears, 
> but only one nose and one mouth. I hope you see my point. For the creationist scientist, vestigiality in organisms is 
> simply moot.


Translation: We cannot explain it, so it doesn't matter to us.

Your analogy is false. I am asking you to explain observed physical characteristics, you are asking me to explain a 
figment of your own imagination.

Unless you are implying that ones imagination removed from counter examples is 'just as good' an explanation of what 
is around us as one that attempts to take into account all that we actually observe?

This is the thrust I am getting and let me tell you it is the wrong approach to take.

Why? Think about where this approach leads.

It means that whenever I see something I can just make up explanations for it based on my imagination and it would be just 
as valid as anything else.

Example:

Event: Rain.
Explanation: Blue/Green Blob on Planet Yrrtip is emptying his bladder.

You would agree my explanation is false? If yes, then you would go with the water cycle explanation no?

If you think my explanation is correct, what if I change the colour of the being on Yrrtip, will you go along with it
then? It's fun to imagine isn't it?

Back to reality. 

Why not apply the same strict scientific rigour to evolution as we did to rain?

If you haven't noticed to me this is all about applying a consistent standard and this time it happens to touch an area of biology.




> Just for fun, let me ask you this: do whales have legs? Do crocodiles have feathers? Why would an organism have a sudden 
> urge to leave a body of water and walk on land if we never observe that same phenomenon happening today with any 
> water creatures? Why would that organism "evolve" lungs if it was just living fine underwater with gills?



I will address something in the above paragraph briefly. There was no "sudden". Evolution took place over millions of years.

However, this is not the point at contention right now. You have ignored the examples of vestigiality I produced and have 
defended your position by saying it is moot, when it in fact runs core to the argument as to which theory is best in the sense 
of explaining that which is observed right now by scientists.

----------


## Theocrat

> So its blind faith? Observation be damned?
> 
> You say some function will be revealed.
> 
> That was my whole point. Your theory ignores that which it can't explain and
> simply says in a manner of speaking it is gods will. 
> 
> That does not appeal to those that subscribe to the notion that a theory that best describes what is currently known is the best theory such as myself.


Why should I as a creationist be obligated to explain something which I don't even believe exists? The examples you gave do not prove vestigial structure in organisms. The explanations given are just based on speculation about the history of the functionality of those organs.




> Translation: We cannot explain it, so it doesn't matter to us.


Why did God create humans with two eyes, two ears, one nose, and one mouth? Don't you find that strange? Isn't it intriguing? The nose even has two nostrils in it, and it's facing downward. If it were facing upward, man would always drown when walking outside in the rain. Notice both hands have five fingers on them. Why did God do that? Couldn't He have given man ten fingers on each hand? If you can't explain these things, then you're just not being scientific... 




> This is not the point at contention right now. You have ignored the examples of vestigiality I produced and have defended your position by saying it is moot, when it is in fact runs core to the argument as to which theory is best in the sense of explaining that which is observed right now by us mortals.


No. Like I've said, those examples do not prove vestigial structures. I don't agree with the interpretations of your observations of those structures that they have no functions.




> Thank you. I can see clearly now, where you stand.
> 
> Let me summarise:
> 
> "Counter Evidence you cannot explain = Moot Evidence"


You have no evidence for vestigial structures. Your hypothesis is rejected. Next. I simply don't have the time to refute every single piece you consider evidence for vestigial structures. If you want more information from a creationist perspective on vestigial structures, Google it.

----------


## Theocrat

> A Christian Evolutionary Biologist's perspective on evolution: http://nov55.com/rel/cre.html


It seems to me that Christian evolutionary biologist needs to read his Bible more, and stop assuming what the Bible-hating evolutionists assume about nature.

----------


## amy31416

> It seems to me that Christian evolutionary biologist needs to read his Bible more, and stop assuming what the Bible-hating evolutionists assume about nature.


Guess ya didn't read it?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> Why should I as a creationist be obligated to explain something which I don't even believe exists? The examples you gave do not prove vestigial structure in organisms. The explanations given are just based on speculation about the history of the functionality of those organs.


Let us assume for a minute that the history of those organs can be anything, however if those organs 
do not have a purpose, then why are they there according to your theory? 

So far you said, doesn't matter. 

To me that is not a valid approach if you expect to be taken seriously as a defender of ID. 

ID is all about intelligent design and there doesn't seem to be much intelligence in putting 
useless things into something you design.




> Why did God create humans with two eyes, two ears, one nose, and one mouth? Don't you find that strange? 
> Isn't it intriguing? The nose even has two nostrils in it, and it's facing downward. If it were facing upward, man 
> would always drown when walking outside in the rain. Notice both hands have five fingers on them. Why did 
> God do that? Couldn't He have given man ten fingers on each hand? If you can't explain these things, then 
> you're just not being scientific...


Well I would say to you the following: 

God did not do any of these things. 
God is part of your imagination. 
That is where God exists, inside your own head.

Show me just one thing that directly proves God exists to show that I am wrong. 

I do not mean point me to things you allege he created and say he exists because these things exist. 

Indirect proof is not enough. Now, I do not mean to look down on indirect proof, but you must 
understand that indirect proof is insufficient.

Why? Because there exists a contention for an alternative explanation for these objects which
withstands the scrutiny of rigorous scientific enquiry.

Thus, as you surely can appreciate only a direct proof that God exists would suffice to cross 
justified scientific scepticism.

However, I know that you cannot do that and the reason is rather simple:

God exists solely in your imagination and while that is convincing to you and requires no other proof as
far as you are concerned, it is rather blunt to think it should be convincing to others who subscribe to
a different standard (i.e. scientific principles) than just blind faith.

Now, if we are to attempt to understand why man looks the way he does, we can start by observing 
the world around us (rather than strictly inside our imagination) and try to come up with a theory that *best* fits 
the *known physical* data. 

So far as you know, I have come up with some items such as vestigial organs that show that ID 
could not have happened by definition while at the same time supporting the evolution theory.

The case I put forth before you is very clear.




> No. Like I've said, those examples do not prove vestigial structures. I don't agree with the interpretations of your observations 
> of those structures that they have no functions.


You are free to disagree with my interpretation. I humbly ask that you show me what functions if any these items have.

If they have any functions, show me if those functions are at all useful to humans.




> You have no evidence for vestigial structures.


I believe my evidence comes from the posts I put earlier. All the structures are listed and explained in black and white. 

Are you just being dismissive?




> Your hypothesis is rejected.


That is simply wishful thinking.




> Next. I simply don't have the time to refute every single piece you consider evidence for vestigial structures. If you want more 
> information from a creationist perspective on vestigial structures, Google it.


There is the frustrated tone that I indicated your posts have as of late.

Forgive me for thinking that the above equates to a man who lost an argument and has nothing more to say.

PS. Can you give me ID view on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

I would like to see how ID manages to dismiss all of that.

In addition, I would have also thought, that the assertion that Earth is only 6000 years old (which you seem to subscribe to) 
to be rather inaccurate. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-....html#creadate

It seems that there is an abundance of data both earth and meteorite based to show that earth is over 4 billion years old.

Surely you can see that if the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years then that is long enough for the processes of 
evolution to take place such that we see the life forms that are around us today.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design*
by Charley Reese

I am an agnostic when it comes to explaining the origin of life. I don't believe yet in evolution, creationism or intelligent design. I can see flaws in all three. I just simply don't know and frankly don't think it matters whether we know or not.

My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses. Human history shows us to be far too error-prone to go around eliminating dissent by majority vote of one of the more ignorant classes in our society, namely politicians.

Science has been itching to replace religion in Western culture for some time. You can see for yourself how science assumes the characteristics of religion. There is the priesthood (scientists, or at least those who call themselves scientists) and laity, which is the rest of us. Theory becomes dogma. Dissenters are persecuted. The high priests of science want the government not only to fund them, but to enforce their dogmas with the power of the law.

I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the separation of science and state. In fact, I believe in the separation of practically all aspects of life from the state, which should basically tote the mail and guard the coast.

We, as mortals with short life spans, would not even be concerned about the origins of life, except the evolutionists wish to use their theory to destroy religion, and religious people want to use their theory to defend religion. 

True science means simply the search for truth, but a search conducted with an open mind and tolerance for dissent. There is nothing wrong with a person believing that a dinosaur evolved into a canary, but there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that God created the first man and woman. I've never seen any physical evidence to support either belief, and one is no more improbable than the other. The only fact is that some beliefs have to be accepted on the basis of faith, and that goes for evolution as well as creationism.

The trouble is that both science and religion provide a person with a worldview, and unconsciously the person begins to evaluate everything he or she sees or hears or thinks up in accordance with the worldview. I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools. There is a large volume of facts biology students need to learn without wasting their time on theories that have no practical value. It's like teaching molecular physics to students studying auto mechanics.

There is always more to learn than there is time to learn it, so we should be more practical in designing our school curricula. Not every student needs to read Shakespeare or learn calculus. I've had no occasion to solve a quadratic equation since I left high school. Students should be taught only what will be useful to them. Survey courses  giving them a taste of what is on the large menu of learning  are useful. Practical courses, such as personal finance or typing, are useful. Teaching all children a second language would be extremely useful, as would be music and drawing.

We should try to keep ideological and political disputes out of the public schools. We have to recognize that fanatics and ideologues will try to inject their materials into the public schools, and we should guard against that. I truly despise people who try to use children in adult conflicts. We should also guard against the state imposing its views on the students. The best way to do that is to abolish public education, a great idea whose time I hope will come one day.

In the meantime, just remember that facts are scarcer than theories, speculation, assumptions and guesses.

May 5, 2008

Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist for 49 years.
© 2008 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese452.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep*

by Fred Reed

Oh help. The religious orthodoxy that impedes discussion of biological evolution continues with its accustomed dreadful tenacity. Im going to hide in Tierra del Fuego.

One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He wont be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.

By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected.

Among the articles of faith: Life evolved from the primeval soup (sheer conjecture; the existence of the soup is inferred from the theory); evolution occurred, as distinct from change; accounting for all characteristics of life (mere assertion); natural selection being the driving force (unestablished). Many of these points are logically separable. Since evolution serves the purposes of a religion, namely to explain human origin and destiny, they are invariably bundled.

A few questions:

It is asserted, though not demonstrated, that point mutations caused by, say, cosmic rays sometimes give an animal a slight advantage over others of its species, and that these advantages accumulate over countless generations and lead to major changes. Demonstrable fact, or plausible conjecture? I note that metaphysical plausibility often substitutes for evidence in matters evolutionary. The approach ignores hard questions, such as whether tiny advantages, if engendered at all, rise above the noise level, or what that level might be.

At any rate, the idea is that slight selective pressure (operational definition, please? Units?) over enough time produces major changes. The idea is appealingly plausible. 

But, for example:

(1) A fair number of people are deathly allergic to bee stings, going into anaphylactic shock and dying. In any but a protected urban setting, children are virtually certain to be stung many times before reaching puberty. Assured death before reproduction would seem a robust variety of selective pressure. 

Yet the allergic havent been eliminated from the population. Why is it that miniscule, unobserved mutations over vast stretches of time can produce major changes, while an extraordinarily powerful, observable selective pressure doesnt? The same reasoning applies to a long list of genetic diseases that kill children before they reach adulthood. (Yes, I too can imagine plausible explanations. Plausibility isnt evidence.)

(2) Homosexuality in males works strongly against reproduction. Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?

(3) Pain serves to warn an animal that it is being injured, or to make it favor, say, a wounded leg so that it can heal. Fair enough. But then why did we evolve the nerves that produce the agony of kidney stones  about which an animal can do absolutely nothing?

(4) There are at least two ways in which a species might change over time. One is the (postulated) accumulation over very long periods of mutations. Maybe.

The other is the concentration of existing traits by selective breeding, which is nothing but deliberate natural selection. The latter is demonstrable, and can happen within a few generations. If a breed of dog has weak hips, for example, the defect can be rectified by interbreeding those with better hips until good hips become the norm. About this there is no doubt. If natural selection occurs as advertised, this is where we would expect to see it.

Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay. Presumably (a tricky word) in a pre-civilized world, strong and intelligent people with superbly acute (for humans) senses would be more likely to survive and spread their genes, leading to a race of supermen. Is this what we observe? 

Here we come to an interesting question: Do the superior pass along their genes more reliably than the inferior? In primitive tribal societies do we observe that the brighter have more children than the not so bright?

Do the most fit men breed with the most fit women, or with the most sexually attractive? As a matter of daily experience, a man will go every time for the sleek, pretty, and coquettish over the big, strong, bright, and ugly. I mention this to evolutionists and they make intellectual pretzels trying to prove that the attractive and the fit are one and the same. Well, they arent.

(5) If intelligence promotes survival, why did it appear so late? If it doesnt promote survival, why did it appear at all?

(6) People have a wretched sense of smell and mediocre hearing. Why? The pat explanation is that people evolved in open territory, where sight is more important than the other senses. People walked erect, keeping their eyes well above the ground so that they could see farther. As noses became smaller, there was less room for the olfactory apparatus.

Is much of this not palpable nonsense? Horses have eyes at about the same altitude as people, yet have acute senses of smell. Anywhere but in perfectly open territory, a sense of smell is obviously important in detecting predators, as it is at night, when many things hunt. Excessively small nasal apparatus? Cats and rats have little room for olfactory equipment yet have acute senses of smell. Do sensitive ears take up more space than sorry ones?

(7) Without weapons, humans would appear to be easy prey for almost anything. A persistent forty-pound dog would be a challenge for a single man. A pack of hyenas would have no trouble killing him. Any big cat would need about ten seconds.

People are weak. I once had a semi-domesticated monkey of perhaps thirty pounds jump on me in Bali because it wanted a banana I was eating. I was a husky 180 and lifted weights. I tried to push the thing off of me, and instantly realized I couldnt. The little beast was ferociously strong. I gave it the banana.

A man cannot outrun a toy poodle, cannot climb well (and anyway there arent trees in open territory), cannot swim naturally, has teeth useless as weapons, no claws, and poor musculature. (Why the latter? Strength isnt of value in survival?) He can neither smell nor hear an approaching big cat (say) and, unless armed, couldnt do anything about it anyway. Hiding isnt a choice: People are noisy, their children uncontrollably so. When unwashed, humans reek. Our young are extraordinarily helpless for long years. 

Were we already packing heat when we swung down from the trees?

(8) So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators wont see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. Butbut.

The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value. That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence.

This is science? 

March 3, 2004

Fred Reed [send him mail] is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.

Copyright © 2004 Fred Reed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

*My Life After Darwin*
by John R Morgan, MD

Like most people, I never really bought the idea that life just spontaneously developed out of nowhere, and then humans came from fish or whatever.

It just didnt make sense.

A man named William Dembski with a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a PhD in philosophy from the University of Illinois has developed one good explanation why I always felt this way.

Lets say that you go to see the carving of Confederate heroes on Stone Mountain right outside of Atlanta. Even though you didnt actually see anyone perform the carving, you can infer that a designer made the images. Now if you go to the back of the mountain and see various amorphous shapes (although they are statistically as improbable as the carving), you assume that they were randomly formed by erosion.

I know what you are thinking. This is basic common sense. Unfortunately, however, we live in a time where common sense must be justified; hence, Dembski is creating mathematical models to test the validity of inferring design from something that is improbable and specific. He hopes to prove that life falls into the category of intelligent design.

I laud his efforts but in a way it is a sad commentary on our society.

Another man, Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson, has criticized the intellectual leaps of faith necessary to accept evolution as a life-creating force (leaps that I was never convinced to take). Johnson argues that Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and is now a tautology that conveniently explains everything in nature. Although Darwin himself operated within the context of the scientific method by giving examples of empirical observations that would refute his hypothesis, modern-day evolutionists entertain no such claims. Their position is derived from a presupposed metaphysical belief that God cannot exist.

As Johnson points out, in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species (actually entitled The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), the fossil record was relatively incomplete. Darwin predicted that further examination of fossils would demonstrate slow gradual change in living organisms. Paleontologists have since found the abrupt appearance of new organisms followed by long periods of static existence before abrupt distinction.

The pattern of life as portrayed by the fossil record prompted Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick (he co-discovered DNA), to suggest that space aliens must have visited earth at different times bringing new species. Even the guy who discovered DNA has doubts about evolution!

(Crick is actually an interesting fellow. He signed the "Resolution in Scientific Freedom" with 49 other scientists noting that left-wing institutions are censuring and punishing some scientists for politically incorrect research.)

In Darwins time it was also believed that cells were made of simple vitalistic goo that contained life. Molecular biology has since revealed that even the most primitive organisms contain amazingly complex, interdependent parts. Micheal Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has adduced the concept of irreducible complexity that challenges the logic of natural selection driving the creation of complicated mechanisms with multiple independent parts. (How can a sophisticated structure like a wing develop piecemeal if its only functions in its completed form?)

My personal intellectual journey with Darwinism began at the University of Georgia as an undergraduate. I majored in microbiology (graduating 1st in my class of roughly 5,000 students in 1991) and did non-human genetic cloning research. I was overwhelmed with the diversity of life and the power of genetics. In fact, I came to understand that genes really matter. At the same time, I didnt buy the weak little theory of survival of the fittest creating life.

I saw intraspecies change like bacterial anti-biotic resistance (microevolution) but I needed missing-link evidence (macroevolution). No one could give it to me.

I sincerely resented my professors conflating my skepticism in Darwinism with irrational anti-intellectualism. I loved science and truly respected the power of DNA. I just didnt think they had proven how life was created.

I began reading everything I could get my hands on about evolution. I put aside my biology textbooks that presented evolution as a universally accepted law and started devouring the primary writings of the modern-day evolution experts. It was at this point that I realized that millions of students were being taught bad science for religious and political reasons. 

I also learned that a potentially internecine civil war was raging within the Darwinian Nation. 

On one side were the strict constructionists led by Richard Dawkins of Oxford University in England. Dawkins was more like a religious zealot than a political ideologue. He had long since accepted the fundamental primacy of survival of the fittest, and was applying its logical corollaries to human behavior.

On the other side were left wing ideologues led primarily by the brilliant but ruthless Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, a self proclaimed Marxist, loved the metaphysical liberation and culturally transforming power of Darwinism. He despised, however, "the universal acid of natural selection  reducing human cultural change to the Darwinian algorithm." 

Basically, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

Remember, leftists like Gould require a worldview where human behavior is 100% culturally conditioned; and here was Dawkins stating that culture itself was an extension of human genes. (At this point I should note that Dawkins is not a right winger, and received the Humanist of the Year Award in 1996)

Gould viciously attacked the "ultra-Darwinists."

In a perfidious stab in the back to those committed to keeping "the divine foot out of the door" (to borrow from another left-wing ideologue, Richard C. Lewontin) Gould proclaimed, "Darwin is dead!" He went on to attack the inadequacy of natural selection to explain the complexity of life. He also cogently argued that the fossil evidence did not support slow gradual change.

He proposed a new theory of (macro)evolution that he called punctuated equilibrium. Basically, he suggested that (macro)evolution must have occurred in quick spurts not captured by the fossil record. In addition, he attempted to down play the importance of survival of the fittest. Using his talented literary skills, he painted the world of biological change as a non-threatening nebulous impression. He fashioned himself an "evolutionary pluralist." 

Now what was a confused young student to do?

I knew Darwin had stated that any reliance on macro mutations (or saltations as he called them) would cause him to reject his theory of evolution because it is not plausible; and here was Gould asking me to accept (macro)evolution based on some unknown rapid genetic change, basically a macro mutation. (Phillip Johnson has argued that punctuated equilibrium is a euphemism for miracle)

I also didnt trust Gould. His primary concern seemed to be maintaining the leftist moral code of life rather than the scientific understanding of life.

I also couldnt buy Dawkins historical narrative of life. The power of Darwinism rested in its claim to a plausible mechanism (which Gould destroyed) and its claim to a process without intentionallity. Dawkins was writing about "selfish genes." How could the substrate of evolution (DNA) be selfish and at the same time be without intention?

In addition, I was learning about other mechanisms of genetic inheritance called genomic imprinting. Without going into detail, the evolutionists were touting this phenomenon as a genetic "battle of the sexes." Again, they were asking me to accept Darwinism because DNA changed without purpose while simultaneously rejoicing that female DNA held a grudge against male DNA (I hope to fully describe the inconsistencies in logic of genomic imprinting and natural selection in another setting).

Basically, I came to realize that Dawkins and Gould were not the sophisticated atheists they wanted to be. They actually had faith in a god  the DNA molecule. They seemed to believe that it was omnipotent. To Dawkins it was a selfish god. To Gould it was an egalitarian god. 

Personally, I decided to pass on worshipping the double helix. No, sir, I decided to keep the Christian faith of my ancestors.

But maybe it wasnt actually free will that brought me to my decision. Maybe it was determined by the genes God gave me.

February 17, 2000

John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.

Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

*A Skeptics View of Natural Selection*
by Ryan McMaken

Its become somewhat de rigueur in recent election cycles to ask politicians about their beliefs regarding biological evolution. This was an issue again this year with several Republican candidates earning the condemnation of pundits over their views on the matter. The issue rears its head occasionally, mostly in the context of public schooling, but rarely is any actual discussion on the matter allowed. The question is only asked to make a political point, and never to discuss specifics.

Whether applied to political candidates or not, the immediate response in any case in which any person expresses some skepticism around evolution is to suggest or suspect that the skeptic is therefore some kind of young-Earth creationist who thinks the Earth was created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago.

This is a false dichotomy. Creationism is hardly the only alternative to devout and orthodox Darwinism, and evolution is not synonymous with Darwinism. Evolution is one thing, and Darwinian natural selection is another, but ever since the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial, creationism is the straw man repeatedly set up to illustrate the alleged foolishness of those who express even the slightest doubt about the infallibility of Darwin and natural selection. The favored strategy is to suggest that the choice is only between Darwinism on the one hand, and creationism on the other.

This approach is nonsense. Evolution as a general concept has been a well-accepted theory among the educated since the ancient Greeks. Saint Augustine in the 4th century rejected the notion that the scriptures should be used as a guide to natural history, and an acceptance of evolution was widespread in Europe well before Darwin ever came on the scene.

Darwins innovation was the theory of natural selection which is a specific mechanism used to explain evolution.

Whats interesting is that the most venomous condemnation of skeptics seem to come from those who know nothing about evolutionary science whatsoever. Those who have read anything about the field at all know that natural selection as an explanation of evolution, while generally accepted by most biologists, is nevertheless a theory that is critiqued and questioned in scholarly publications. 

As with any scientific theory, natural selection needs to be evaluated based on how well it explains natural phenomena. It is a theory like general relativity or quantum theory. Sometimes it explains natural phenomena quite well and sometimes it does not. 

The reason physicists search for a "unified theory" is because the theories of Einstein and the great physicists of the past have their shortcomings. Does one therefore embrace "superstition" if he notes that general relativity is "a theory" and that another theory might be shown to better explain the universe? I suspect not.

In the same way, natural selection is a theory that has hardly proven itself as infallible. As this article by W.E. Lonnig illustrates, problems with the theory have been pointed out for years by biologists and other physical scientists who have encountered scores of natural phenomena that natural selection cannot fully account for.

Obviously, the scientists found questioning natural selection in scholarly texts are not arguing for any kind of creationism. They are, however, pointing out that the empirical evidence is insufficient to prove that natural selection is an adequate theory to explain all aspects of evolution. 

Although refereed journals are hardly the last word on scholarly matters, they are helpful in illustrating what is considered acceptable discourse among most scholars. This bibliography of peer-reviewed articles questioning the validity of natural selection well illustrates that natural selection is indeed "a theory," and that a defense of the theory as unassailable smacks more of dogmatic metaphysics than of a healthy and open mind regarding scientific theories.

If one accepts generally accepted notions of empirical analysis, a theory must be regularly analyzed for its ability to describe the phenomena that it is supposed to describe. If it is found wanting, then the theory obviously has its shortcomings and remains but a theory. The fact is that natural selection has, on more than one occasion, been found wanting. Does this prove it is a useless theory? Not necessarily. But it does prove that it is not an immutable fact of life, and we would be right to harbor doubts about it.

The idea that science, if left to the scientists, would proceed unmolested by ideology and politics is unserious in the extreme. Scientists, physical and otherwise, all function within a little world probably best explained by the philosopher Paul Feyerabend in which scientific "progress" is not a matter of rational acceptance of a better theory over a worse theory, but is really a reflection of the ideologies of those who decide what is "scientific" and what is not.

Anyone who has spent any time in academia at all knows full well that the ideological and economic concerns of the gatekeepers dictate what is acceptable research at least as much as the quality of the research itself.

Beyond labeling everything they disagree with as superstition or religious extremism, the pundits who vilify critics of natural selection as creationists or religious nuts merely illustrate their own dogmatism about theories to which they have ascribed a devotion of religious proportions. 

When it comes to Darwin, they would do well to rely a little less on faith, and a little more on reason. 

January 10, 2008

Ryan McMaken [send him mail] teaches political science in Colorado.
Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken125.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Ron Paul: I don't believe in evolution
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

----------


## Mesogen

> Geeze.  What a dishonest chicken$#@! duck and dodge?  BTW that kind of crap is exactly what I have come to routinely expect from the pathetic evolutionism "cult" faithful true believers.
> 
> Always a very sure sign of a BULL$#@! pseudo-science "cult" crapola and a con job. 
> 
> Hell,  I can get more honest answers from astrolgers, psychics, and voodoo witch doctors, than from the "brainwashed" programmed evolutionism sheeple bots.
> 
> "By their BULL $#@! non-answers, ye shall know them."


You seem to be talking to yourself.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You .

----------


## TheEvilDetector

If you do not mind I would like to comment on this article




> *Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design*
> by Charley Reese
> 
> I am an agnostic when it comes to explaining the origin of life. I don't believe yet in evolution, creationism or intelligent design. I can see flaws in all three. I just simply don't know and frankly don't think it matters whether we know or not.


Fair enough.




> My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact


We challenge IDers for example to show how their theory fits the observable facts better, and we ask that you provide more than just blind faith as a support for your argument. Latest example was related to vestigial organs. Theocrat simply gave up.

Interesting how the sentence before went along the lines of it doesn't matter if we know which one is right and the next is that there is a personal conflict with one theory.




> and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism


FWIW If I was a politician I would never ban discussion of creationism.




> and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses. Human history shows us to be far too error-prone to go around eliminating dissent by majority vote of one of the more ignorant classes in our society, namely politicians.


See above. By the way not all politicians are ignorant.
We all know one that certainly isn't.




> Science has been itching to replace religion in Western culture for some time.


Science does not have emotions. It is an abstract concept.




> You can see for yourself how science assumes the characteristics of religion. There is the priesthood (scientists, or at least those who call themselves scientists) and laity, which is the rest of us.


This can be said for many things eg. parents and children. 
It is a fallacious argument.




> Theory becomes dogma. Dissenters are persecuted. The high priests of science want the government not only to fund them, but to enforce their dogmas with the power of the law.


Maybe in China or some place really authoritative.




> I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the separation of science and state. In fact, I believe in the separation of practically all aspects of life from the state, which should basically tote the mail and guard the coast.


That is fair enough. 

Although separation of science and state is not necessarily a beneficial process.

Just what is a state without religion or science or any aspect of life?




> We, as mortals with short life spans, would not even be concerned about the origins of life, except the evolutionists wish to use their theory to destroy religion, and religious people want to use their theory to defend religion.


FWIW I believe in evolution and have no problems with people who believe in religion. If that is what they want to believe in.




> True science means simply the search for truth, but a search conducted with an open mind and tolerance for dissent.


Fair enough.




> There is nothing wrong with a person believing that a dinosaur evolved into a canary, but there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that God created the first man and woman.


What about a blue/green blob on planet Yttrip who creates rain when he empties his bladder? Is that ok?




> I've never seen any physical evidence to support either belief, and one is no more improbable than the other.


I would have to strongly disagree with you there on both counts.




> The only fact is that some beliefs have to be accepted on the basis of faith, and that goes for evolution as well as creationism.


Not entirely correct. The theory of evolution explains what is actually observed. If there is any faith component it is certainly less than that of creationism.




> The trouble is that both science and religion provide a person with a worldview, and unconsciously the person begins to evaluate everything he or she sees or hears or thinks up in accordance with the worldview. I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools. There is a large volume of facts biology students need to learn without wasting their time on theories that have no practical value. It's like teaching molecular physics to students studying auto mechanics.


Evolution Theory does have practical value in that the concept is useful to people.
Just a very brief search revealed:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00003
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-A.../dp/0195099710 




> There is always more to learn than there is time to learn it, so we should be more practical in designing our school curricula. Not every student needs to read Shakespeare or learn calculus. I've had no occasion to solve a quadratic equation since I left high school. Students should be taught only what will be useful to them. Survey courses – giving them a taste of what is on the large menu of learning – are useful. Practical courses, such as personal finance or typing, are useful. Teaching all children a second language would be extremely useful, as would be music and drawing.
> 
> We should try to keep ideological and political disputes out of the public schools. We have to recognize that fanatics and ideologues will try to inject their materials into the public schools, and we should guard against that. I truly despise people who try to use children in adult conflicts. We should also guard against the state imposing its views on the students. The best way to do that is to abolish public education, a great idea whose time I hope will come one day.
> 
> In the meantime, just remember that facts are scarcer than theories, speculation, assumptions and guesses.
> 
> May 5, 2008
> 
> Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist for 49 years.
> ...


Lots of blurb about a schooling wish list

----------


## Timothy

Well, only watch out that the separation of science and state doesn't become a separation of fact and state.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

I would like to comment on this also




> *Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep*
> 
> by Fred Reed
> 
> Oh help. The religious orthodoxy that impedes discussion of biological evolution continues with its accustomed dreadful tenacity. I’m going to hide in Tierra del Fuego.
> 
> One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He won’t be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.
> 
> By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected.
> ...


ID/Creationism is an improvement how exactly? 

Magical being did it?




> evolution occurred, as distinct from change; accounting for all characteristics of life (mere assertion); natural selection being the driving force (unestablished). Many of these points are logically separable. Since evolution serves the purposes of a religion, namely to explain human origin and destiny, they are invariably bundled.


Evolution is a scientific theory and that is all it is.




> A few questions:


By all means




> It is asserted, though not demonstrated, that point mutations caused by, say, cosmic rays sometimes give an animal a slight advantage over others of its species, and that these advantages accumulate over countless generations and lead to major changes. Demonstrable fact, or plausible conjecture? I note that metaphysical plausibility often substitutes for evidence in matters evolutionary. The approach ignores hard questions, such as whether tiny advantages, if engendered at all, rise above the noise level, or what that level might be.


Well to be meaningful they would have to be above 'noise' whatever that means.




> At any rate, the idea is that slight selective pressure (operational definition, please? Units?) over enough time produces major changes.


Survival Unit is measured in Life/Death/Reproduction/Lack of it.




> The idea is appealingly plausible.


Indeed.




> But, for example:


The core of your argument. FINALLY.




> (1) A fair number of people are deathly allergic to bee stings, going into anaphylactic shock and dying. In any but a protected urban setting, children are virtually certain to be stung many times before reaching puberty. Assured death before reproduction would seem a robust variety of selective pressure.


Yes it would seem to be the case.




> Yet the allergic haven’t been eliminated from the population. Why is it that miniscule, unobserved mutations over vast stretches of time can produce major changes, while an extraordinarily powerful, observable selective pressure doesn’t?


Who says it didn't? 

What is the percentage of those who are deadly allergic to bee stings? 

What might have the percentage been a few thousand years before and allowing for variation in bee numbers/toxicity? 

Moreover, where exactly in evolution does it state, all life forms at present time are perfected?

Don't forget evolution is an *ongoing* process that literally takes millions of years.

Here is a refresher on what evolution is referring to:
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population."

As you can see from the above, apart from passed on DNA we have mutations that occur spontaneously in DNA, potentially leading to individuals who have physical survival shortcomings and this by definition has nothing to do with failure of evolution as such.

Evolution would alter percentages of various traits over very long periods of time. 

It cannot necessarily completely eliminate undesirable characteristics and I for one never claimed it can do that. 

In fact, the presence of vestigial organs, as supporting evidence for evolution is in itself a demonstration that evolution is ongoing and is not perfect. 
(These same organs are a thorn in ID theory, Theocrat never could explain in the context of ID theory all of the ones I brought up before him).

Remember we are talking about evolution, not intelligent (ie. perfect and final) design.




> The same reasoning applies to a long list of genetic diseases that kill children before they reach adulthood. (Yes, I too can imagine plausible explanations. Plausibility isn’t evidence.)


See above.




> (2) Homosexuality in males works strongly against reproduction. Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?


Who knows how much genetics as opposed to environment really has to do with it? Even if it does, see above.




> (3) Pain serves to warn an animal that it is being injured, or to make it favor, say, a wounded leg so that it can heal. Fair enough. But then why did we evolve the nerves that produce the agony of kidney stones – about which an animal can do absolutely nothing?


The nerves in the area are useful in urination.

Also, the pain aspect of it, may not matter much or at all in terms of survival or reproduction, thus the nerves were not diminished or eliminated.




> (4) There are at least two ways in which a species might change over time. One is the (postulated) accumulation over very long periods of mutations. Maybe.
> 
> The other is the concentration of existing traits by selective breeding, which is nothing but deliberate natural selection. The latter is demonstrable, and can happen within a few generations. If a breed of dog has weak hips, for example, the defect can be rectified by interbreeding those with better hips until good hips become the norm. About this there is no doubt. If natural selection occurs as advertised, this is where we would expect to see it.
> 
> Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay. Presumably (a tricky word) in a pre-civilized world, strong and intelligent people with superbly acute (for humans) senses would be more likely to survive and spread their genes, leading to a race of supermen. Is this what we observe?


Well as time went on, average level of intelligence improved. 

That is why technology levels advanced when they did. Earlier peoples/humanoids were not capable of it.

Otherwise we would be colonising other galaxies by now.

Certainly early humanoids would not be able to do advanced scientific research even if they managed to read and write our language.

I am of course referring to the ones in here:
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

There are plenty of fossils to back this up, this isn't make belief in magical beings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils




> Here we come to an interesting question: Do the superior pass along their genes more reliably than the inferior? In primitive tribal societies do we observe that the brighter have more children than the not so bright?


See above.




> Do the most fit men breed with the most fit women, or with the most sexually attractive? As a matter of daily experience, a man will go every time for the sleek, pretty, and coquettish over the big, strong, bright, and ugly. I mention this to evolutionists and they make intellectual pretzels trying to prove that the attractive and the fit are one and the same. Well, they aren’t.


Attractive people are more likely to be fit, than unattractive people. That is why we are instinctually drawn to attractive people.




> (5) If intelligence promotes survival, why did it appear so late? If it doesn’t promote survival, why did it appear at all?


It improved very slowly and gradually. It does promote survival.
However intelligent people may not only be improving their own survival.

How many inventions that improve your survival were made by other intelligent people?

Life Jackets. Seat Belts. Guns for home defense etc.




> (6) People have a wretched sense of smell and mediocre hearing. Why? The pat explanation is that people evolved in open territory, where sight is more important than the other senses. People walked erect, keeping their eyes well above the ground so that they could see farther. As noses became smaller, there was less room for the olfactory apparatus.


Yep.




> Is much of this not palpable nonsense? Horses have eyes at about the same altitude as people, yet have acute senses of smell.


Maybe for horses, a sense of smell is more vital to survival than it is for humans.




> Anywhere but in perfectly open territory, a sense of smell is obviously important in detecting predators, as it is at night, when many things hunt. Excessively small nasal apparatus? Cats and rats have little room for olfactory equipment yet have acute senses of smell. Do sensitive ears take up more space than sorry ones?


See above.




> (7) Without weapons, humans would appear to be easy prey for almost anything. A persistent forty-pound dog would be a challenge for a single man. A pack of hyenas would have no trouble killing him. Any big cat would need about ten seconds.


Human brain is far more complex. 

This is why we are able to communicate the way we are doing right now.

That is why back then, humans would adapt to dangerous conditions, because
their brain allows changes of behaviour based on situation (rather than just pure instinct in every instance).

Besides all of the above, are you implying at all that under IDer/Creationist theories there was no danger to humans in our history from wild animals or 
that humans had weapons from the start?




> People are weak. I once had a semi-domesticated monkey of perhaps thirty pounds jump on me in Bali because it wanted a banana I was eating. I was a husky 180 and lifted weights. I tried to push the thing off of me, and instantly realized I couldn’t. The little beast was ferociously strong. I gave it the banana.
> 
> A man cannot outrun a toy poodle, cannot climb well (and anyway there aren’t trees in open territory), cannot swim naturally, has teeth useless as weapons, no claws, and poor musculature. (Why the latter? Strength isn’t of value in survival?) He can neither smell nor hear an approaching big cat (say) and, unless armed, couldn’t do anything about it anyway. Hiding isn’t a choice: People are noisy, their children uncontrollably so. When unwashed, humans reek. Our young are extraordinarily helpless for long years.


Yet we are still here. 




> Were we already packing heat when we swung down from the trees?


We had whatever weapons and/or behaviours we needed to survive (we are still around are we not) appropriate for the historic period.

I am fully accepting of the fact that from time to time large groups of humans would have got slaughtered by wild animals, 
however those that remained *learned* from that. Self-preservation instinct is strong.

From your earlier discussion relating to diseases, I am fully accepting that from time to time large groups died due to diseases, 
however some of those that remained were immune/less vulnerable/missed being infected.




> (8) So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won’t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But…but….


I don't think any of what you brought before us warrants attention as something that contradicts the theory of evolution. These items are easily explainable and I have given you those explanations.




> The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value.


That is correct.




> That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence.


No. Theory fits the evidence. Where does it not?
Your word play does not change this.




> This is science?


Precisely. 

By the way how exactly does saying a magical being did everything scientific?




> March 3, 2004
> 
> Fred Reed [send him mail] is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well.
> Copyright © 2004 Fred Reed
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html


Yeh, let's drop our 'inner child' down a well.

LOL.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> If you do not mind I would like to comment on this article
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> We challenge IDers for example to show how their theory fits the observable facts better, and we ask that you provide more than just blind faith as a support for your argument. Latest example was related to vestigial organs. Theocrat simply gave up.
> 
> Interesting how the sentence before went along the lines of it doesn't matter if we know which one is right and the next is that there is a personal conflict with one theory.
> 
> FWIW If I was a politician I would never ban discussion of creationism.
> ...


Evolution, fix your "science".  Beating up on the skeptics and critics, does absolutely nothing constructive to advance your cause. Some better science might really help though.

Evolution has become the "Political Correctness of 'science' ".  And just coincidentally, ( I'm sure  ) from the very same source as the whole lame "PC' concept. Go figure!

Thanks for your comments.

----------


## Timothy

Why this understatement of humans' ability to confront animals?

If you meet a wolf, all you need is a solid branch. If there are rocks in your area, you can throw them. A 10 pounds rock is a pretty dangerous thing to get hit by, you know? Then you have torches. Animals don't like torches. People are producing flatbows for some time, they are producing spear shafts and spear tips for some time.

Sometimes a big cat kills a monkey. It doesn't happen often though, mostly because monkeys also throw stuff and cats don't like it.

Confronting a group of brick sized stone throwing humans is something that not even an elephant would be keen on.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why this understatement of humans' ability to confront animals?
> 
> If you meet a wolf, all you need is a solid branch. If there are rocks in your area, you can throw them. A 10 pounds rock is a pretty dangerous thing to get hit by, you know? Then you have torches. Animals don't like torches. People are producing flatbows for some time, they are producing spear shafts and spear tips for some time.
> 
> Sometimes a big cat kills a monkey. It doesn't happen often though, mostly because monkeys also throw stuff and cats don't like it.
> 
> Confronting a group of brick sized stone throwing humans is something that not even an elephant would be keen on.


Humans make up for their physical weaknesses through the use of tools. It is one of their primary distinctive characteristics. It may have been developed in fact originally as a survival/nature equalizer.

Without tools humans are "lunch".

Thanks!

----------


## Timothy

Well, my point was that sometimes tools are just lying around the place, like stones and sticks, and it doesn't require human intelligence to use them as monkeys demonstrate.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well, my point was that sometimes tools are just lying around the place, like stones and sticks, and it doesn't require human intelligence to use them as monkeys demonstrate.


 Wrestle, one on one, with an angry chimp and you will very quickly find out and understand what I mean. 

They have about 5 times the human's strength, pound for pound, and could just literally tear us apart, limb by limb, if so motivated.

----------


## Timothy

Well, o.k., but it is entirely possible that we are monkey like creatures that specialized in throwing rocks and hurling clubs.

EDIT. And it was surely only a matter of time until the first of our ancestors came up with the idea to fasten a rock to a club and hence produce the first ax (or hammer, depending on the shape of the rock.)

----------


## amy31416

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Evidence of Evolution


The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth.  Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world.  When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform.  In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations.  In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time.  Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.  Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences.  However, religious creation stories and the idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or history courses.  Religion and Science provide different approaches to knowledge.  It is important to understand both.


What is Evolution?

Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another.  The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times.  Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species.  Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction.

When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation.  It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories.  Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts.  As a result of the massive amount of evidence for evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.  All life forms, including people, evolved from earlier species.  Furthermore, all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today.  We now understand that there are a number of different natural processes that can cause evolution to occur.  These are presented in later tutorials of this series.

For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution.  Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago.  However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life.  Charles Darwin modified his religious beliefs, as did many others, as a result of the discovery of convincing proof of evolution.  Darwin's religious faith was also severely challenged by the death of his 10 year old daughter Annie in 1851.  Apparently, he came to believe that his God created the order of the universe including the rules of nature that result in biological evolution.  His famous book, On the Origin of Species, was not a denial of his God's existence.  However, he did reject a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.  His religious beliefs were probably very similar to those who advocate "theistic evolution" today.  Isn't Evolution Just a Theory--video clip from PBS 2001 series Evolution
        requires RealPlayer to view                                (length = 6 mins, 15 secs)
  Darwin's Personal Struggles--an interview with Darwin's biographer, James Moore
       This link takes you to an audio file at an external website.  To return here, you must click 
       the "back" button on your browser program.           (length = 7 mins, 38 secs)
  Evolution of the Eye--an explanation by zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must click the
        "back" button on your browser program.               (length = 4 mins, 8 secs) 



How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:1.    	the fossil record of change in earlier species
2.	the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3.	the geographic distribution of related species
4.  	the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations



The Fossil Record 	
Geological strata containing an
 evolutionary sequence of fossils


Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary  rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through time.  This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things.  Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms.  Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection.  The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens.


                             Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions.  No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa  or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes.  After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die. 

All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements.  In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements.  This is not a mere coincidence.

All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes.  Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA  molecules in our cells.

section of a DNA molecule


These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids  in specific sequences.

simple protein molecule


All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids.  Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things.  This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life. 	   

Human arm bones
(typical vertebrate pattern)


In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them.  This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons.  The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes.  These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.


Geographic Distribution of Related Species

Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species.  It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities.  For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials  but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals  such as dogs, cats, bears, horses.  Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand.  Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world.  The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.


Genetic Changes Over Generations

The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways.  When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs.  As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish.  Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity.  Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce.   Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.

This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium.  When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off.  However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive.  The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors.  That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved.  Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria  




This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection.  That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away.  They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.   Antibiotic resistance--how mutation and fast reproductive rates of 
       microorganisms can outpace modern medical breakthroughs
       This link takes you to an external website.  To return here, you must click
       the "back" button on your browser program. 


Dog variety resulting
from selective breeding
over many generations


People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding.  This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above.  Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population.  Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed.  Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits. 	

Insect with a high
reproductive potential


Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes.   Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness.  We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures.   Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.

If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor.  Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits.  For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species.  Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.

  Genetic Tool Kit--evidence of a common set of genes for body parts shared by many,
        if not most, creatures
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must click the
        "back" button on your browser program.               (length = 4 mins, 47 secs) 
  Science and Faith--roundtable discussion about resolving conflicts with religion
        This link takes you to an external website.  To return here, you must click the "back"
        button on your browser program.
  Evolving Ideas: Why Is Evolution Controversial Anyway--reconciling a belief in science
        and religion
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must click the
        "back" button on your browser program.               (length = 6 mins, 36 secs) 


Given the abundant evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution, it is highly probable that evolution has occurred and is still occurring today.  However, there remains speculation in regards to the specific evolutionary path of some species lines and the relative importance of the different natural processes responsible for their evolution.

Much has been added to our understanding of the nature of evolution since the 19th century.  It is now known that there are six different processes that can operate independently or in consort to bring about evolution.  The understanding of these processes has become the basis for an overall synthetic theory of evolution .  This theory encompasses multiple causes, including Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's experimental results concerning genetic inheritance, as well as a number of crucial 20th century discoveries.  The synthetic theory of evolution will be revisited with more detail in the 6th tutorial of this biological anthropology series.


The Public Perception of Evolution in the United States

Biological evolution is far from being universally accepted by Americans.  Annual national polls carried out since the mid 1980's by the Center for Biomedical Communication at Northwestern University School of Medicine indicate that the percentage of Americans who accept evolution has dropped from 45% to 40%.  Curiously, the number who reject evolution have also dropped from 48% to 39% over the same time period.  Those who are uncertain about whether evolution occurs or not have increased from 7% to 21%.  While it is encouraging that fewer people are now hostile to the idea of biological evolution, the U.S. still has a higher percentage of its population who hold this view than 33 of the 34 European nations and Japan.  This is very likely a consequence of the relative emphasis placed on teaching science in public schools in the different countries.  In addition, anti-evolution sentiment is far stronger in American national politics, especially in the Republican Party.

 NOTE:   Some critics have said that the kinds of rapid evolutionary changes in insects and bacteria referred to above are not good evidence of the process of natural evolution because they occur as a result of human interference.  However, there is abundant evidence of rapid evolution occurring today independent of people.  An example was described by Cristina Sandoval in the May 23, 2002 issue of Nature.  A species of insect called the "walking stick" (Timena cristinae) found in the Santa Ynez Mountains of California now exists in two distinct varieties or forms that are in the process of evolving into two separate species by adapting to different environments.  The insect forms differ in terms of genetically determined color patterns--one is striped and the other is not.  The striped ones hide from predators on the striped chamise plant, while the unstriped ones hide on the unstriped blue lilac plant.  Those that have inherited the appropriate camouflaging color pattern for their chosen environment survive the onslaught of lizards and birds.  In this case, the natural predators, rather than humans, are the driving forces of natural selection.  Mating experiments show that each variety of "walking stick" prefers to mate only with others having the same color pattern.  This breeding isolation is leading to the evolution of two distinct species.

NEWS:   On July 17, 2005, The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted a national poll in the United States concerning the teaching of creationism and evolution.  In regards to beliefs about how life developed, 42% of the respondents said that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."  Only 26% said that they had evolved through time as a result of "natural process such as natural selection," while 18% said that evolution occurred but was guided by a supreme being.  In response to the question of whether creationism should be taught in public schools instead of evolution, 38% said yes and 49% said no.  When asked whether creationism should be taught along with evolution, 64% said yes and 26% said not.  The older the respondent, the more likely he/she was to reject evolution and its teaching in favor of creationism.  The sample consisted of 2,000 people and the margin of error was ±3.5%. 

POSTSCRIPT:   For additional information regarding "creation science" and "intelligent design", look at the 2007 PBS Nova documentary and the entertaining 2008 follow-up lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller linked below.  Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial--analysis of a controversial 2004 court
        case and its consequences.  This link takes you to a video at an external website.
        (length = 1 hr 55 mins)
  God, Darwin, and Design: Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial--a 2008 lecture at
        the University of Texas by Kenneth Miller, a noted biologist.  This link takes you
        to a video at an external website.  You will be asked to first download the Envivio
        plugin in order to view the video.                 (length = 2 hrs 17 mins)


   Previous Topic  	  Return to Menu  	  Practice Quiz  


This page was last updated on Sunday, April 06, 2008.
Copyright © 1998-2008 by Dennis O'Neil. All rights reserved.
Illustration credits

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well, o.k., but it is entirely possible that we are monkey like creatures that specialized in throwing rocks and hurling clubs.


 "Evolutionarily", how did we "lose" the primate's physical strength "survival of the fittest" advantages? Where is it, in that 1% DNA difference with the chimps?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> *My Life After Darwin*
> by John R Morgan, MD
> 
> Like most people, I never really bought the idea that life just spontaneously developed out of nowhere, and then humans came from fish or whatever.
> 
> It just didn’t make sense.
> 
> A man named William Dembski with a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a PhD in philosophy from the University of Illinois has developed one good explanation why I always felt this way.
> 
> Let’s say that you go to see the carving of Confederate heroes on Stone Mountain right outside of Atlanta. Even though you didn’t actually see anyone perform the carving, you can infer that a designer made the images. Now if you go to the back of the mountain and see various amorphous shapes (although they are statistically as improbable as the carving), you assume that they were randomly formed by erosion.


Fallacy. How often do we see clouds that resemble real life items? I know I have more than once.

(Did I think to myself the pattern was made by a magical being? No. 
To me it was just the particular arrangement of water droplets and also the wind factor).

How about arrangement of stars? Tea leaves in a cup? Ink Blots on Paper?

You get my drift. Chaos can lead to apparent order from time to time.

Is the order self-sustaining?

In the case of biological evolution there is an organism characteristic based 
survival feedback loop, in the case of clouds/tea leaves/stars/blots there is no such thing.




> I know what you are thinking. This is basic common sense. Unfortunately, however, we live in a time where common sense must be justified; hence, Dembski is creating mathematical models to test the validity of inferring design from something that is improbable and specific. He hopes to prove that life falls into the category of intelligent design.
> 
> I laud his efforts but in a way it is a sad commentary on our society.
> 
> Another man, Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson, has criticized the intellectual leaps of faith necessary to accept evolution as a life-creating force (leaps that I was never convinced to take). Johnson argues that Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and is now a tautology that conveniently explains everything in nature. Although Darwin himself operated within the context of the scientific method by giving examples of empirical observations that would refute his hypothesis, modern-day evolutionists entertain no such claims. Their position is derived from a presupposed metaphysical belief that God cannot exist.
> 
> As Johnson points out, in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species (actually entitled The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), the fossil record was relatively incomplete. Darwin predicted that further examination of fossils would demonstrate slow gradual change in living organisms. Paleontologists have since found the abrupt appearance of new organisms followed by long periods of static existence before abrupt distinction.
> 
> The pattern of life as portrayed by the fossil record prompted Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick (he co-discovered DNA), to suggest that space aliens must have visited earth at different times bringing new species. Even the guy who discovered DNA has doubts about evolution!
> ...


Good on you for keeping the faith.

----------


## Timothy

Well, we are not the children of chimps but their cousins. So, we might never have had that strength.

Also, muscles need energy. You know that yourself, if you don't exercise, your body will absorb your muscles. Nature doesn't produce luxury models, you only have what you need.

As for the genetic similarity between chimp and man, well, perhaps all the phenomenal difference is there in this 1%. I would be cautious there, the DNA consists of instructions, like a programming language. You can make quite a big difference with some lines of code changed. It's also non-sense when journalists say that a species has been fully understood, because its DNA has been fully documented. The interplay of all genes is far from understood.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> "Evolutionarily", how did we "lose" the primate's physical strength "survival of the fittest" advantages? Where is it, in that 1% DNA difference with the chimps?


Survival of the fittest subject to the environment and the organism itself.

As a general rule humans 'traded' exceptional physical strength for superior (to animals) intellectual potential and development for survival purposes.
(although the word traded is a bit misleading, more accurate would be to say, certain traits were encouraged/amplified over time by environment/mutation more than others)

Not every organism has to evolve the same way.

Nethertheless, there are many  humans with exceptional strength, ever watched WWE?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Fallacy. How often do we see clouds that resemble real life items? 
> 
> How about arrangement of stars? Tea leaves in a cup?
> 
> You get my drift. Chaos can lead to apparent order from time to time.
> 
> 
> 
> Good on you for keeping the faith.


Isn't the universe just the eternal interplay between the forces of chaos and order?



In the end, I'm betting on an ultimate win for chaos.

----------


## Timothy

@evildetector.

I think you are not quite fair to call tw's example a fallacy. There are a lot of structures that seem to us to be similar to things that are artificial, but consider this:

If you heard this knocking pattern: * ** *** **** ***** etc., wouldn't you know that its source is not natural?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well, we are not the children of chimps but their cousins. So, we might never have had that strength.
> 
> Also, muscles need energy. You know that yourself, if you don't exercise, your body will absorb your muscles. Nature doesn't produce luxury models, you only have what you need.
> 
> As for the genetic similarity between chimp and man, well, perhaps all the phenomenal difference is there in this 1%. I would be cautious there, the DNA consists of instructions, like a programming language. You can make quite a big difference with some lines of code changed. It's also non-sense when journalists say that a species has been fully understood, because its DNA has been fully documented. The interplay of all genes is far from understood.


1% DNA difference from chimps, over how many millions of years? 5% DNA difference from gorillas? 

Hell, by the DNA alone, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas.

Very clever and/or lucky those accumulated purely physical random chance non-lethal genetics species' mutations, no?

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> @evildetector.
> 
> I think you are not quite fair to call tw's example a fallacy. There are a lot of structures that seem to us to be similar to things that are artificial, but consider this:
> 
> If you heard this knocking pattern: * ** *** **** ***** etc., wouldn't you know that its source is not natural?


I would assume it is man made knocking because 999/1000 times when I hear knocking on my door it is a human. 

However, it could be that 1/1000 any time.

If you are talking about general knocking sound, I would not know what the source is,.

For example, it could be a random arrangement of small rocks falling of something onto wood due to a gust of wind,
that could possibly make a sound like that. 

Patterns do occur in nature, so it is possible to hear visual and audio patterns from natural sources.

http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/...jbfibslide.htm

The point of the original post by Truth Warrior, was that if I see something that looks 'designed' in an 
environment which is normally 'chaotic', then what I see is in fact designed by some sort of intelligent being.

I replied with an explanation of why I think that view is false.

As for your example, it does not provide an environment which I can fix as being either normally chaotic or ordered for proper comparison to the original point.

You might need to provide more details about the situation.

----------


## Timothy

No, no, no... knocking signs can be water drops falling or anything.

But in nature, there is not a single process I know that would generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Logical fallacies in this thread are rampant. If the fallacies were all  to somehow be, "magically" removed, there'd be maybe 10 posts left ................. *max*.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No, no, no... knocking signs can be water drops falling or anything.
> 
> But in nature, there is not a single process I know that would generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc.


Would you perhaps settle for the Fibonacci sequence, in nature?

----------


## Timothy

Actually, there is probably really no process in nature that would generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc. Even computers and humans would either stop or loop at some point... That is of course a problem, humans function according to the laws of nature too.

But funny point to make...

----------


## amy31416

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

God and Evolution 
Copyright © 1994-1998 by Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub 


This is a collection of frequently asked questions and answers about the compatibility of belief in evolution and God from talk origins. This text presupposes the reader's belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but many answers are general enough to include most religions. There is no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of any religion, as that is not the intent. Please contact me at kv07@iastate.edu with any questions or suggestions. 

1. Definitions
*Science* 
A method of determine how the universe works by use of the scientific method. 
*Scientific method* 
The process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by collecting data on events the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions match the new data the hypothesis is supported. Generally the best supported hypothesis is considered correct. 
*Evolution* 
The fact the frequency of the apperance of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. 
*Allele* 
The pieces of DNA that cause a particular trait, ie. "blue eyes". 
*The theory of evolution* 
A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution occurs. 
*The theory of common descent* 
The theory that all living creatures on earth share a common, remote ancestor. More specifically, given any two living creatures there was a creature that is ancestor to both. 
*Creationism* 
One of several beliefs that incorporate a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are variations that allow some figurative interpretation. 
*Young Earth Creationism* 
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be 24 hour events, and that by saying animals reproduce "after their kind" evolution is precluded. 
*Old Earth Creationism* 
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be figurative lengths of time, and the time scales given by geologists are generally correct. However, the special creation of man precludes common descent. 
*Theistic Evolution* 
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which the story line is considered as an explanation for the why and who of creation, but not the exact method. The purpose of this FAQ is to show that this position is not contradictory. 

2. Evolution and Religion
Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact. 

Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_. 

Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something. 

Q2. Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses. 

Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve. 

Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold. 

So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory. 

Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did. 

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists. 

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven. 

Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain. 
3. Evolution and God
Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God. 

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution. 

Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?

While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe. 

Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?

Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old. 

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution. 
4. Evolution and Proof
Q9. Nobody can really prove anything anyway.

Except, of course, in mathematics. However, science does not require absolute proof, otherwise science textbooks would be empty. Science works by use of the scientific method: explanations are found, and tests made to tell which ones are correct. Evolution has passed thousands of tests, many of which separated it from theories indistinguishable to non-biologists. 

Few people are aware, for instance, that Darwin's original hypothesis predicted the existence of genetic information. As said before, even if the theory is not correct in every detail, it is very close to the truth. Chris Colby's FAQ gives a clear picture of this. 

Q10. Theories have been proven wrong in the past, why not evolution?

When Einstein proposed general relativity, he revolutionized physics. The theory replaced most of Newton's laws of physics. General relativity, though, still incorporates Newton's laws. This is due to the enormous number of observations and tests that Newton's laws had passed, so any new theory would have to account for them also. 

Similarly, if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well. Creationism, then, is not a possible replacement. 

Q11. Doesn't evolution promote evil?

Even if evolution did do this, it would not be a reason to assume it is wrong. Chemistry is responsible for millions of deaths every year, but we do not reject its findings because of this. How people use a theory is not a judgment of its accuracy. 

Fortunately we do not face this dilemma. Evolution does not say what is right and what is wrong, but merely what has happened. A historical account of the sacking of Rome does not say that the act of sacking Rome is good or bad, just that it happened. Similarly evolution does not say that any conclusions people might draw from it are good or bad. 

While many people have claimed the theory of evolution supports their injustice, never forget that many people have done the same with the Bible. One person's opinion should not be considered the whole truth. 

Q12. So what would I need to have creationism accepted scientifically?

Read Chris Colby's FAQ for some evidence that must be explained. Also you need to propose a test that would give different results depending on whether creation or evolution is true. Most important, however, is the willingness to abide by the results, even if they disprove creationism. 





Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links 
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates

----------


## Timothy

Well, the adding up of the last two numbers might occur somewhere, but there is a general problem with sequences that have no bounds, namely the number of molecules in the universe.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well, the adding up of the last two numbers might occur somewhere, but there is a general problem with sequences that have no bounds, namely the number of molecules in the universe.


  Only 4% of the universe matter is atoms.  95%, or so, of those atoms are hydrogen. 

BTW, nature just uses the heck out of the Fibonacci sequence, once you know how and where to look.  It's a primary nature building "tool".  Growth and decay, order and chaos.

----------


## TheEvilDetector

> No, no, no... knocking signs can be water drops falling or anything.
> 
> But in nature, there is not a single process I know that would generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc.


What do you mean by generate? 

We have digressed I think from the original point somewhat.

----------


## sophocles07

> So your thoughts are made up of matter and energy in motion? If you were thinking of a pink banana, and I cut your brain open, I would see a pink banana inside there


So asks the 7th century monk who has just awakened from a comma for a thousand years, clutching yellowed church doctrine papers and with bad desert sinus.




> On the evolution side, the universe just came to be by random processes and blind chance. How can randomness and chance of matter and energy allow uniformity and inherent consistency of organisms in the universe?


Pray tell, benedict, why you think it operates by randomness?




> As Bob Dillon said: "You're going have to serve somebody."
> 
> You serve the Lord.
> 
> I come from planet Earth.


Damn, I was going to quote that.

It’s DYLAN by the way.

John Lennon’s reply: “Serve Yourself”:




> You say you found Jesus. Christ!
> He's the only one
> You say you've found Buddha
> Sittin' in the sun
> You say you found Mohammed
> Facin' to the East
> You say you found Krishna
> Dancin' in the street
> 
> ...





> I gave that illustration to prove the point that there are things which exist in the universe that are not just matter and energy in motion.


You realize that when the brain _thinks_ it is still an operation of matter and energy in the chemical make-up of the brain, right?  It’s the same with memory; the brain has the ability to register images—it does not mean they do not come about without exception by material circumstances and operations.

You should probably read up on that, you sound like a befuddled caveman.

----------


## Timothy

> What do you mean by generate? 
> 
> We have digressed I think from the original point somewhat.


Not really. Now we're asking "What does generate even mean?" I think that's well in line with this thread.

But I mean generate like in: This set of differential equations generates this solution with these initial conditions given.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Not really. Now we're asking "What does generate even mean?" I think that's well in line with this thread.
> 
> But I mean generate like in: This set of differential equations generates this solution with these initial conditions given.


Nature uses arithmetic, people use calculus ( and still get it wrong ).

----------


## Timothy

TruthWarrior, you're not a number theorist, are you?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> TruthWarrior, you're not a number theorist, are you?


Nope, how about Hawking? 

http://www.amazon.com/God-Created-In.../dp/0762419229

Math is a tool too.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Nope, how about Hawking? 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/God-Created-In.../dp/0762419229
> 
> Math is a tool too.


Why does it matter what Stephen Hawking thinks about God?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Why does it matter what Stephen Hawking thinks about God?


DUH!!! He's BAAACK!

----------


## Timothy

Well, amazon's preview didn't wet my mouth and to pick that Kronecker quote for a title... on the other hand, Hawking's usually interesting enough.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well, amazon's preview didn't wet my mouth and to pick that Kronecker quote for a title... on the other hand, Hawking's usually interesting enough.


AGREED! I tend to think that mathematics is metaphysical. We just tap into it.

----------


## Theocrat

> Let us assume for a minute that the history of those organs can be anything, however if those organs 
> do not have a purpose, then why are they there according to your theory?


It would depend on what organs you're referring to as not having a purpose in the structure of the human anatomy. In passing, I would remind you that just because we may not understand the purpose or function of a particular organ at this point in natural science does not prove the entire organism had no Designer not does it assume that the organism had an evolutionary ancestor. For instance, I may not understand the purpose or function of leather seats in a car, but that would not prove the car evolved from a living room over the span of millions of years. And so it is with you evolutionary assumptions of vestigial organs which preclude the possibility of intelligent design.




> I would say to you the following: 
> 
> God did not do any of these things. 
> God is part of your imagination. 
> That is where God exists, inside your own head.


You would be wrong, too. Are you absolutely certain God didn't do any of those things? How do you know for sure?




> Show me just one thing that directly proves God exists to show that I am wrong. 
> 
> I do not mean point me to things you allege he created and say he exists because these things exist. 
> 
> Indirect proof is not enough. Now, I do not mean to look down on indirect proof, but you must 
> understand that indirect proof is insufficient.


God exists from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God's existence, no one can make sense of reality, knowledge, morality, logic, or anything else in an absolute, objective, and universal way.




> Thus, as you surely can appreciate only a direct proof that God exists would suffice to cross 
> justified scientific scepticism.


How do you scientifically prove "scientific skepticism?"




> However, I know that you cannot do that and the reason is rather simple:
> 
> God exists solely in your imagination and while that is convincing to you and requires no other proof as
> far as you are concerned, it is rather blunt to think it should be convincing to others who subscribe to
> a different standard (i.e. scientific principles) than just blind faith.


These are your claims, which are not proven by empirical observation. God does not exist solely on my imagination. God would exist even if I didn't believe in Him. Also, my faith in God is not based on "blind faith." It is based on God's on revelation of Himself and the evidence He provides of His existence through His creation.




> So far as you know, I have come up with some items such as vestigial organs that show that ID 
> could not have happened by definition while at the same time supporting the evolution theory.


Those "vestigial organs" are just your own interpretation of what those organs look like, based on the assumed and unproven notion that they evolved from an evolutionary ancestor.




> You are free to disagree with my interpretation. I humbly ask that you show me what functions if any these items have.
> 
> If they have any functions, show me if those functions are at all useful to humans.


Start here.





> I believe my evidence comes from the posts I put earlier. All the structures are listed and explained in black and white.
> 
> Are you just being dismissive?


It's not the evidence I disagree with. It's your interpretation of what the evidence suggests that I disagree with, just as you disagree with my interpretation that those organs were created by God with a purpose in mind.




> Forgive me for thinking that the above equates to a man who lost an argument and has nothing more to say.
> 
> PS. Can you give me ID view on this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils
> 
> I would like to see how ID manages to dismiss all of that.
> 
> In addition, I would have also thought, that the assertion that Earth is only 6000 years old (which you seem to subscribe to) 
> ...


Click here.

----------


## sophocles07

> You would be wrong, too. Are you absolutely certain God didn't do any of those things? How do you know for sure?


0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  000000000000001% chance.

Yes this is *absolutely* scientific.

----------


## Hiki

http://illuminati-news.com/videos/se...tter_full.mpeg

I would like everyone to watch this video and tell me what they think of it.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

There is a magic elf who sits on top of my head.  He is responsible for the rain.

You see it rain all the time dont you?  Thats my magic elf doing it.  If you want proof of the magic elf, just look at the rain.

----------


## sophocles07

> For instance, I may not understand the purpose or function of leather seats in a car, but that would not prove the car evolved from a living room over the span of millions of years.


What’s with you and convoluted car analogies?




> God exists from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God's existence, no one can make sense of reality, knowledge, morality, logic, or anything else in an absolute, objective, and universal way.


Why?

Let’s have this debate again.  I want to know why these things require external, “transcendental” origins.




> These are your claims, which are not proven by empirical observation. God does not exist solely on my imagination. God would exist even if I didn't believe in Him. Also, my faith in God is not based on "blind faith." It is based on God's on revelation of Himself and the evidence He provides of His existence through His creation.


More

imaginative

fictions

----------


## Kludge

> There is a magic elf who sits on top of my head.  He is responsible for the rain.
> 
> You see it rain all the time dont you?  Thats my magic elf doing it.  If you want proof of the magic elf, just look at the rain.


But God made the elf. The Devil is simply manipulating you and leading you astray.

Come back on the path, good sheep, and let our Shepard guide you into the Holy Light so that your life may be full.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> But God made the elf. The Devil is simply manipulating you and leading you astray.
> 
> Come back on the path, good sheep, and let our Shepard guide you into the Holy Light so that your life may be full.


No, the magic elf made God.  The magic elf has always been, and always will be.  He is eternal.  He made God out of a potato.  God is just another creation of the almighty magic elf.

----------


## sophocles07



----------


## TheEvilDetector

> It would depend on what organs you're referring to as not having a purpose in the structure of the human anatomy.


You know precisely which ones I am referring to, because they are listed in my previous posts.




> In passing, I would remind you that just because we may not understand the purpose or function of a particular organ at this point in natural science does not prove the entire organism had no Designer


It does not disprove that Earth was built by pink elephants either...

This is negative proof fallacy you are venturing into.




> not does it assume that the organism had an evolutionary ancestor. For instance, I may not understand the purpose or function of leather seats in a car, but that would not prove the car evolved from a living room over the span of millions of years.


Analogy is flawed for several reasons:

First, we are talking about biological organisms that can reproduce. 

Can the car in your example reproduce? Can the living room?

Secondly, do you have evidence of living rooms composed of same 
materials as the car seats existing millions of years ago?

Do you have evidence, that living rooms of millions of years ago 
and car had intermediaries?

You don't. 

Evolutionary biologists when dealing with biological organisms past and present do.

Apples and Oranges.




> And so it is with you evolutionary assumptions of vestigial organs which preclude the possibility of intelligent design.


Intelligent Design is possible. So is a blue/green blob on planet Godzooka who makes rain by thinking about it. You can't tell me that isn't possible either, can you?




> You would be wrong, too. Are you absolutely certain God didn't do any of those things? How do you know for sure?


Negative Proof fallacy.

Let's talk about something related called Russell's Teapot.

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?",[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

    If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

    The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[2] and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."




> God exists from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God's existence, no one can make sense of reality, knowledge, morality, logic, or anything else in an absolute, objective, and universal way.


What about the teapot?

Do we need the teapot?




> How do you scientifically prove "scientific skepticism?"


Follow these steps:

http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong...ificmethod.htm

It's an in depth article into the scientific method and I will post an extract here which lists the steps of the 
scientific method. Pay close attention to part 4:

"  1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
   2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations.  Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
   3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data.   Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
   4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern.  If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one.  In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data.  (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method.  A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
   5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
   6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory.   Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth."

Let me pre-empt you by pointing out what the bottom of the article said:

"Limitations of the Scientific Method

    The scientific method is limited to those phenomena which can be observed or measured.  For example, what existed prior to the Big Bang and the known universe is outside of the realm of science to investigate.

    Science is good at explaining "how things work" but not necessarily for explaining "why do such things exist" or "for what purpose."   (Science does not really explain why the Universe exists.) "

Notice, that theories that talk about what is outside the observable or measureable are no longer scientific theories, they are pseudo science at best.
Certainly, you can run your imagination wild, speculating as to what was going on before the big bang and what the purpose is, but rememeber,
by definition, this has nothing to do with science. It is quite intellectually dishonest of you and the other creationists to blur the lines between science
(and the associated theory of evolution in the context of our discussion) and creationism/intelligent design.




> These are your claims, which are not proven by empirical observation.


Empirical observation is all I've been talking about, while you are dodging it.

Further, these observations are consistent with the theory of evolution, while
inconsistent with the theory of ID (which by the way, strictly speaking, cannot be
a theory because it is not based on a hypothesis that withstands the empirical test,
more to the point, it is not testable at all in fact, because it defaults to "God did it"). 

All you can offer is:

"God did it, because he did it."





> God does not exist solely on my imagination. God would exist even if I didn't believe in Him. Also, my faith in God is not based on "blind faith." It is based on God's on revelation of Himself and the evidence He provides of His existence through His creation.


Negative Fallacy, plus you are going back to the point I raised earlier.

Evidence of existence of creator by pointing to creations is insufficient, 
when there are competing theories for the existence of creations, which
are consistent with empirical data. You need to prove directly the existence
of the creator.

For example, if you can make God say hello, so everyone on earth can 
hear it at the same time, I will never doubt you again, and start believing.

Although even this, could be achieved in the distant future through technology
and implanted brain chips.

Further, your bible (the revelation you referred to I presume) has so many contradictions.

For starters:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

You would think an all powerful being would compel the bible to be consistent.

Then there are the logistics of Noah's Ark.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
(many other sites similar to this one)

Then there is one story that stood out (from another thread):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...4&postcount=61

Here it is:
(post by Hiki)

"

All-Wise?

First God sets Saul as the King of the Israelites and promises that he will free them from the Philistines.

"1 Samuel 9:15 Now the day before Saul arrived, the Lord had told Samuel: 9:16 “At this time tomorrow I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin. You must consecrate him as a leader over my people Israel. He will save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have looked with favor on my people. Their cry has reached me!”
9:17 When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said, “Here is the man that I told you about! He will rule over my people.”"

Then God regrets what he had done

"1 Samuel 15:35 Until the day he died Samuel did not see Saul again. Samuel did, however, mourn for Saul, but the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel."

Then the Philistines come and occupy the city while Saul kills himself

"1 Samuel 31:4 Saul said to his armor bearer, “Draw your sword and stab me with it! Otherwise these uncircumcised people will come, stab me, and torture me.” But his armor bearer refused to do it, because he was very afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it. 31:5 When his armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his own sword and died with him. 31:6 So Saul, his three sons, his armor bearer, and all his men died together that day.
31:7 When the men of Israel who were in the valley and across the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned the cities and fled. The Philistines came and occupied them."

A job well-$#@!ing-done Yahweh.

"

Let us carry out an exercise in basic logic now:

I assume that you believe:

1. Bible is wholly Word of God
2. God tells the truth to his followers.

now, due to:

1. Bible having contradictions (see a link about contradictions above)
2. Contradictions by definition cannot all be true at the same time

it follows that:

1. Bible is telling lies

leading to the conclusion:

1. Bible is word of god but God is lying which means Assumption 1 is false and Assumption 2 is true

or

2. Bible is not wholly the word of God which means Assumption 2 is false and Assumption 1 may or may not be true

Wouldn't you consider the proof that either and the implication that possibly both of those assumptions are false to be troubling for your chosen belief system?




> Those "vestigial organs" are just your own interpretation of what those organs look like, based on the assumed and unproven notion that they evolved from an evolutionary ancestor.


This is not "my" interpretation, this is an interpretation by scientists, who study the matter.




> Start here.


I read the whole document carefully. 

The author did not show by functional enumeration that any vestigial organs that I presented
in earlier posts had function except for appendix. 

However this is a point with which I have no problem, at this time I believe appendix is useful to humans.

The author referred to "Bergman, J. and Howe, G., Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS
Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990." for proof that all vestigial organs have function.

This is the material I will try to look into if I can find it.

Will let you know my findings if I find it.

Now, without invalidating the simple point that organs without function validate evolution and invalidate
ID, here is another subtle point you should be aware of:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/20...0_archive.html

"
Vestigial Organs Colson's oversimplification in describing junk DNA as meaningless reminds me of another common creationists error: describing vestigial organs as having no function. That is why creationists sometimes write books with titles like Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional.

Scientists often point to vestigial structures such as the eyes of cave-dwelling rodents or the pelvic bones of snakes as being strong evidence for common descent. If snakes evolved from reptiles that had legs, then it makes sense that we would still find pelvic bones in their skeleton. But if they never had legs, it is not clear why they have these bones. But that does not mean the pelvic bones perform no function at all. They do, for example, connect the upper part of their skeleton to their lower part.

*The point is not that vestigial organs have no function whatsoever. It is that they no longer perform the function we expect them to perform when we see similar structures in other animals. Or they perform a function out of all proportion to their complexity*. For creationists to find some function for a particular vestigial structure and pretend that such structures do not augur well for evolution misses the point.

For more than you ever wanted to know about vesitgial strucutres, have a look at this article by biologist Douglas Theobald. He provides the following useful example:


    For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—*a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard*. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings. "

However, once again let me remind you that the above does not mean that I am giving up on my claim
that there are organs without any useful function. 

*Why do we have muscles in the ear?*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriculares_muscles



Look at the small ones in the ear also.

Why did the intelligent designer put muscles that do not move (and thus have no purpose) onto ear cartilage?

Let me provide a brief refresher of what muscles are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle

"Muscle (from Latin musculus, diminutive of mus "mouse"[1]) is *contractile tissue of the body* and is derived from the mesodermal layer of embryonic germ cells. Muscle cells contain contractile filaments that move past each other and change the size of the cell. They are classified as skeletal, cardiac, or smooth muscles. *Their function is to produce force and cause motion*. Muscles can cause either locomotion of the organism itself or movement of internal organs. Cardiac and smooth muscle contraction occurs without conscious thought and is necessary for survival. Examples are the contraction of the heart and peristalsis which pushes food through the digestive system. Voluntary contraction of the skeletal muscles is used to move the body and can be finely controlled. Examples are movements of the eye, or gross movements like the quadriceps muscle of the thigh. There are two broad types of voluntary muscle fibers: slow twitch and fast twitch. Slow twitch fibers contract for long periods of time but with little force while fast twitch fibers contract quickly and powerfully but fatigue very rapidly."

Look at the muscles of the whole head shown on the side to see the big picture.






> It's not the evidence I disagree with. It's your interpretation of what the evidence suggests that I disagree with, just as you disagree with my interpretation that those organs were created by God with a purpose in mind.


Your interpretation unlike mine is based on your blind belief in some book filled with contradictory and mystical information,
seemingly without use of the scientific method. A book into which most people are indoctrinated at a young age before the 
critical thinking faculty of their brain fully develops. A system of belief where any difficult question is met with 
"God did/said this, God did/said that and that's the end of it." and "do/believe as you're told or you go to hell" type of rhetoric.

That is the type of thing you may tell your kids, if you want them to do their homework or clean their room, but adults?

I don't know.

On the other hand, I subscribe to the scientific method.




> Click here.


I have looked at the entire video very carefully.

The man talked at length about lies in textbooks but not once did he set out to prove these were lies (2 exceptions below)*.

The whole video was a big whinge if you ask what the impression I got was.

* Two exceptions: In the articles he put forth before the audience, whoever wrote that evolution is a fact, 
should have written it is a theory and whoever wrote "creation science" should not have put those two 
words together, the same goes for the speaker who says "creation science" which is a conflict in terms.

Further, the speaker said words to the effect that all species were created at the time of Adam and Eve 
about 6000 years ago and any variations we see today are variations from those original species.

Well, that is evolution in itself is it not? Did the speaker not admit to evolution taking place with that statement alone?

The following are his *exact* words: 

"*By the way stop right there*, that is not what *creation science* teaches.
*Creation science teaches* that all the kinds of animals were created roughly 10000 years ago 
and *the only evolution has been variations in those kinds*. "

JACKPOT!

Do you not see how tragically flawed and precarious your position has become?

The man you have been referring to for a lot of your refutations, did not hesitate to link
evolution to variations in species, while in the same breath trying to demonstrate that 
evolution theory is not supported by any facts.

You cannot have it both ways my friend.

If you are to admit that evolution of species can occur, then you have no basis by which to put a starting point
on that evolution other than to claim the earth is so many years old. 

However, getting back to the age of the earth argument, creationists cherry pick geological evidence to support 
young earth, while the data overwhelmingly (and not limited to earth based materials, meteorite data is 
also supportive) shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Given that the age of earth is 4.5 billion years old, why is it hard for you to come to terms with the idea
that such a gigantic span of time is more than long enough for the various species of today to arrive
at their present form through the processes of evolution, starting at the point of basic raw materials?

Why?

I suppose you also argue that the earth could not have 'solidified' from spinning gaseous matter such
as it did many billions of years ago?

Why does everything have to be microwave instant noodles with you?

Just add God?

PS. I never can understand why religious people talk about evolution being a religion in a condescending manner?
Do they not see they are talking themselves down by doing so?
(It is obviously not a religion by the way)

----------


## TheEvilDetector

bump for Theocrat

----------


## Ozwest

Thecrat,

A coup;e of days ago you told me that the world was 6000 years old, and humans and dinosaurs co-habitated together.

You explained this to me through a 6 minute video link.

The explanation being that reptiles, animals, and humans used to live to 900 years, thereby realizing their full growth potential.

Existing reptiles would be *huge* if they stopped dying.

Adam and Eve could have made a tele-movie. Or were they *giants* too?

And it all fits into a 6000 year time-frame?

So many questions. So many bull$#@! answers...

----------


## Ozwest

Would anyone care to explain to me how the world is 6000 years old?

How my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-... grandfather lived with dinosaurs???

Explain Geology...   Rock strata... Ice surveys...Please.

Drop the "blinders."

----------


## Hiki

> Would anyone care to explain to me how the world is 6000 years old?
> 
> How my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-... grandfather lived with dinosaurs???
> 
> Explain Geology...   Rock strata... Ice surveys...Please.
> 
> Drop the "blinders."


And how do you explain the fact that anytime you look up in the sky, the light from those stars takes usually thousands if not millions of years to reach us.

----------


## Ozwest

> And how do you explain the fact that anytime you look up in the sky, the light from those stars takes usually thousands if not millions of years to reach us.



It's a figment of my imagination...

The Bible tells me so.

----------


## Ozwest

Isn't it interesting?

Religious zealots seem to be ducking for cover.

Let's see if they can answer the question...

----------


## Ozwest

Dinosaurs and biblical history.

Please explain?

----------


## sophocles07

bump like a pizza face

----------


## Kludge

> bump like a pizza face


...

I hope Theocrat has secretly prayed for your eternal damnation.

----------


## sophocles07

bu-bu-bu-bump likah pizzaface
bump likah pizzaface
bu-bu-bu-bump likah pizzaface
wha wha wha wha wha





buhbuhbuh

----------


## Atheist73

So while we are looking for an intelligent designer, shouldn't we maybe look for unicorns too? j/k

So do intelligent design proponents weight the idea that aliens created life equally with the notion that Zeus, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, etc. created it?

I am open to any theory as long as there is evidence and reason to support it...

----------


## Theocrat

> So while we are looking for an intelligent designer, shouldn't we maybe look for unicorns too? j/k
> 
> So do intelligent design proponents weight the idea that aliens created life equally with the notion that Zeus, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, etc. created it?
> 
> I am open to any theory as long as there is evidence and reason to support it...


Watch this video *in its entirety* if you want to understand intelligent design.

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat do you ever read books instead of watch youtube propaganda videos?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Theocrat do you ever read books instead of watch youtube propaganda videos?


Can you watch books on youtube yet?

----------


## Kludge

> Can you watch books on youtube yet?


War and Peace

[semi-retracted]

----------


## Ozwest

Shall the common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not?

----------

