backtop


Print 207 comment(s) - last by Jyrioffinland.. on Oct 30 at 6:46 AM


Professor Jørn Hurum was among the paleontologists to unveil Ida to the public in May 2009. His team, led by Professor Jens Franzen, contends that the newly discovered species was a human ancestor. Two studies from rival teams contend that the species was instead a lemur ancestor.  (Source: Jennifer Graylock/AFP)

Darwinius masillae was discovered in Germany and may be one of the oldest known ancestors of man.  (Source: PLoS ONE/Jens L. Franzen, Philip D. Gingerich, Jörg Habersetzer, Jørn H. Hurum, Wighart von Koenigswald, B. Holly Smith)
Original study labeled fossil as human predecessor, two later studies claimed it was a lemur ancestor

One of the most fascinating topics in science today is studying how humans evolved from scurrying rodent-like ancestors in the days of the dinosaurs to erect almost 2-meter tall masters of their modern domain.

Much focus has been put on recent hominid discoveries, such as newly discovered hominid "Ardie", a member of the newly discovered Ardipithecus ramidus species, and skeletons from the newly discovered Australopithecus sediba species.  While these hominids -- which are thought to have lived around 2 million years ago, provide essential insight into how mankind evolved, equally tantalizing are the fossil clues of much older ancestors which are slowly coming to light.

Among those is the 47-million-year-old remains of Ida, a 58 cm (23 in) primate-like creature.  Ida was discovered in 1983 at the Messel Pit, 35 miles southeast of Frankfurt, Germany.

The skeleton took 24 years to painstakingly fully assemble, finally being completed in 2007.  In 2009 Jens Franzen at the Research Institute and Natural History Museum of Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany published in the journal PLoS ONE the first detailed analysis of the resulting skeleton. 

Professor Franzen named the creature Darwinius masillae, in honor of the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolutionary theory.

In that analysis he asserted that Ida was a haplorrhine, a precursor to the branch of modern day primates that includes monkeys, apes, and humans.

Two following studies [1] [2], published in Nature and the Journal of Human Evolution, respectively, dissented with the initial publication.  They contended that Ida was instead the precursor to the strepsirrhine branch of primates -- the branch that contains modern lemurs. 

Now a fourth study has come out tying the score, defending the assertion that Ida was a human ancestor.  Philip Gingerich, a professor of biology, anthropology, paleontology, and anthropology at the University of Michigan was the lead author of this most recent analysis.  His study was published in the Journal of Human Evolution.

The bone of contention so to speak is in minimally complete skeletons of prehistoric lemurs.  The new study claims that the dissenting studies used such sketchy skeletons to support their claims that Ida was a lemur ancestor.  It argues that using teeth and bone fragments to identify the phylogeny of Ida is a flawed approach. 

Professor Gingerich complains there's a lot of uncertainty about the phylogeny of these incomplete skeletons themselves.  He states, "There are almost no skeletons comparable to Darwinius ... our opponents are referring mostly to fragments of jaws and teeth."

Palaeontologist John Fleagle of the State University of New York in Stony Brook disagrees, commenting in Nature, "Why not include data from the many fossils from the past 54 million years?"

Blythe Williams, an evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina also does not agree with Professor Gingerich.  He comments, "I'd love to see an analysis like they're doing with a much broader [range of] taxa."

Professor Williams says that the most recent study fails to account for some "spectacularly preserved" fossil lemurs.

Palaeontologist Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania explains that part of the reason for the dissenting viewpoints is that the skeleton itself is still somewhat poor.  He comments, "If Darwinius were as beautiful and complete as we're led to believe, there would be less controversy.  Its ear would be definitive."

Ears and ankles are two of the most valuable features for classification of primates.  The ear was incomplete.  And the ankle was too crushed to be used in the first four studies, but that could soon change.  Professor Franzen says that his team has completed high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans of Ida's hands and feet.  These scans could give him ammo to defend the hypothesis that Ida was a human precursor.

While at present the various paleontology experts agree to disagree on the topic of Ida's phylogeny, all of them are in resounding agreement that Ida is a product of natural selection, the force that drives evolution.  In that sense the disagreement here is on what species Ida evolved into, not the a critique on evolution by natural selection.  That critique (of the validity of evolutionary theory) is considered a non-debate among educated researchers in the biosciences, despite it being a lively topic of debate among the less-informed general public.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ohhh sh1t
By captainobvious on 10/12/2010 2:35:33 PM , Rating: 5
Pops popcorn, pulls out a cold beer and settles in lawnchair and waits for our resident crazy creationist Quadrillity to start debating college-educated scientists.




RE: Ohhh sh1t
By marvdmartian on 10/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Goty on 10/12/2010 3:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
"It's just a theory" is a meaningless statement since you can't ever "prove" a scientific theory; all you can do is amass supporting evidence.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By gamerk2 on 10/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Goty on 10/12/2010 3:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
Symmetry breaking.

;)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By foolsgambit11 on 10/12/2010 4:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've never thought of this subject this way. For speciation, what we know is the facts we observe every day - there are millions of species, distributed in a certain way over the globe, with certain proficiencies that allow them to fill certain niches in the environment. Our best theory to explain what we see is evolution, though we've never seen it occurring directly. For gravity, we see that objects with mass are attracted to each other based on their mass and the inverse square of their distance, with certain known variances in extreme cases (and unknown effects in very extreme cases). However, we don't really even have a universally accepted theory of its cause, much less have we observed it. In that sense, speciation is 'better understood' than gravity.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By FaceMaster on 10/12/2010 6:23:47 PM , Rating: 5
I don't mind people agreeing or disagreeing with scientific theories, unless their reason is some sort of religious book.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By B3an on 10/12/2010 6:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Our best theory to explain what we see is evolution, though we've never seen it occurring directly"

We have, there was even an article on this site some time ago about it, it was about something like germs or some sort of tiny organism, because things like that reproduce fast enough to see it happen.
I dont think it's debatable the evolution exists or not, i only really hear this sort of thing on american sites, but then over 80% of americans are meant to be religious which is just ridiculous for this day and age. You even have "in God we trust" on your money and insane religious presidents.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By aegisofrime on 10/12/2010 9:43:00 PM , Rating: 5
The exact organism that you are probably thinking of is Escherichia coli that evolved to be able to metabolize citrate, observed by Professor Richard Lenski. That in turn, led to one of the greatest displays of creationist stupidity by Andy Schlafly. Check here for the lulz:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_...

Religious people simply have to understand that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they should read the Bible themselves and make their own conclusions instead of listening to what some retarded priest thinks.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By BikeDude on 10/13/2010 2:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
...but today's priests acts as a nice filter between the common folk and the bible.

The bible still says "thou shall not suffer witches to live", right? And the story of Sodoma and Gomorra still more than hints that gay people infer God's wrath?

So we need someone to filter the bible so that the common folks don't flock to the street to burn witches and put gay people in jail.

Or better yet: Read completely different books and don't pay any attention to the bible at all. Problem solved.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Anoxanmore on 10/13/2010 8:09:17 AM , Rating: 1
Sodom and Ghomorra say rape is bad(unless it is your teenage daughter), not homosexuality.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Samus on 10/13/2010 10:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
1) Creationism is about as far fetched as Battlestar Galactica theory.

2) We stumble across more and more evidence of evolution seemingly everyday.

3) These are the same people still claiming the big bang never happened.

I'll stick with whatever theory has more evidence. Most religious efforts are not very convincing.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 10:21:15 AM , Rating: 1
The problem here is that you want to call yours fact, and mine opinion. They are all opinions; and I think mine happens to be correct.
quote:
1) Creationism is about as far fetched as Battlestar Galactica theory.

Why? It's even backed by science. Just because you don't agree with those opinions doesn't make it any more or less false. You just can't get past your anti-religious world views.
quote:
3) These are the same people still claiming the big bang never happened.

The definition of "science" involves testable, observable, and of the natural world. The big band involves none of the aforementioned.

Do you even realize that you believe that you came from a rock? Yep, that's right: You believe that you are the product of rain on rocks, while I believe that God created humans and everything else in the universe. Two VERY contrasting opinions, but yet yours is somehow "scientifically right?". I don't think so...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 10:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
1.) Creationism isn't backed by science.

2.) No matter how much you keep wishing for it to be true, all opinions are not equal.

If you can find a single credible source that makes either one of those arguments, I'll never bother you again about them.

Just one.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 12:11:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's even backed by science. Just because you don't agree with those opinions doesn't make it any more or less false. You just can't get past your anti-religious world views.
WOW....I don't even know where to begin with this, so there is evidence "god' created us? Link? Proof? Seriously, stfu...you are a moron.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 12:27:43 PM , Rating: 1
You are asking me for a link on the internet to "prove" God. LOL I don't even know what to say about you


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 12:32:09 PM , Rating: 1
Well, according to you it's BACKED BY SCIENCE. You should be able to find something to prove this! Oh, you can't? That's what I thought....


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 12:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
You really like to rant at people and tell them to shut up, don't you? This is really entertaining, please continue with the hateful ranting! Let it all out dude! Let's see those virtual fists shaking at the heavens!


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 1:51:15 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I do, considering you are the only dolt I told to shut up here

/me rolls eyes

Go read your story and be a good little christian.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 8:44:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Yes, I do, considering you are the only dolt I told to shut up here


Oh really? Seems to me like in your post dated 12:11:24 you told someone else that

quote:

WOW....I don't even know where to begin with this, so there is evidence "god' created us? Link? Proof? Seriously, stfu...you are a moron.


Isn't "stfu" a crude way of telling someone else to shut up? You just can't help yourself, can you?

Your insults and snide remarks only validate the moral decay and utter lack of class that all too often comes from your side.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/13/2010 8:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your insults and snide remarks only validate the moral decay and utter lack of class that all too often comes from your side.

Please. Don't even try to take a moral high ground on this. Rude insults come from all sides.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/14/2010 7:25:15 AM , Rating: 1
If you count up the number of nasty and classless comments like this, you see the vast majority (if not all of them) coming from atheists. It's a well known phenomenon.

Personally, I take no offense at this, or I wouldn't be an apologist for my point of view. I actually find it kind of entertaining when I can evoke some strong negative emotional response from an atheist.

It's also very confirmatory of a number of ideas that I have about reality, and what the Bible says is the natural state of man.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/14/2010 6:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you count up the number of nasty and classless comments like this, you see the vast majority (if not all of them) coming from atheists. It's a well known phenomenon.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Follow any conversation between myself and Quadrillity. Look at the number of names that get called. Very few (if any) are from me, while nearly all of them are him calling me something or other.

quote:
I actually find it kind of entertaining when I can evoke some strong negative emotional response from an atheist.

Yeah, free thinking people have this odd tendency to get upset when they see people consistently and willfully spreading ignorance, lies, or falsehoods. Odd group they are huh?

quote:
It's also very confirmatory of a number of ideas that I have about reality, and what the Bible says is the natural state of man.

What reality is that? I know you are trying to reach for idea that Christians are morally superior to atheists. Unfortunately for that view, many studies have shown that atheists almost always have lower prison representation, rates of divorce, teen pregnancies, etc. Ironic isn't it?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/14/2010 8:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
You have 0 clue about my side ...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By guffwd13 on 10/13/2010 2:12:08 PM , Rating: 3
Attempting to control contempt and not call complete and utter stupidity and astonishing lack of knowledge and education.

Quote from earlier:

quote:
"We've never actually seen [evolution] happen."


Um, yes, we have. In fact, the entire pharmaceutical industry is based upon it. Bacteria and other micro-organisms reproduce at rates as fast as several generations a minute. Every time they divide, they are imperfect. Some genetic data is changed. This is a fact. It happens randomly and is why the survival of the fittest is scientifically sound. When it comes to harmful organisms, like salmonella, they reproduce and randomly mutate. A antibitoic is introduced killing the vast majority (but never all - thats why soap bottles read 99.9% and not 100% of germs). The ones that didn't die either got lucky or were resistant to it because of random genetic inconsistencies (mutations). Thus, this strand of salmonella now is completely immune to the antibiotic. Thus its back to the drawing board for the pharmaceutical company - which only makes more money in the end. Convenient line of work health is - perpetually fighting against the inevitable (death). This is true for every viral/fungal/bacterial etc disease out there.

To fail to see this only demonstrates a complete lack of understanding how all parts in life, science, reality and society fit together. Its one quite impressive symphony and can and will all eventually be proven by irrefutable if then statements. Can I back this particular claim up? No. I don't need to, and don't have the time to.

I'm sorry to be so blunt. But I see this over and over and find it increasingly difficult to simply pass over it. I don't mean to be condescending or insulting, but I'm sure that's exactly how I'm coming across.

quote:
Do you even realize that you believe that you came from a rock?


Abso-friggin-lutely. Do you even realize that you are made up of proteins and acids, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms - all entirely Iron or below in atomic wieght, which coinidentally is the heaviest element that can be created from fusion in a star? Do you even realize that the food you eat is materially identical to matter found in the earth? Do you get that you are simply electro-chemical impulses that operate no differently than that of a CPU? Have you ever connected these dots?

And even more astoundingly, how on earth have you never come across these arguments prior to now? How do you go through college and not have had these thrown at you prior to this?

Unbelievable.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We have NEVER observed anything you just talked about, yet you take it on blind faith that it happens.
And the argument comes back to you, no one has ever seen or heard god, but you take it on blind faith that he is real and he is the all mighty creator. Fucking hypocrites.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By guffwd13 on 10/13/2010 3:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no one has ever seen or heard god


And even if one did, would you believe him? Science isn't science if it cannot be predictably repeated. So if one or two or ten people claim to have seen God - that still doesn't mean God exists.

However, I have to defend him here. He was saying that we go on all high and mighty and simply refute Creationism rather than conceding "faith" as an option.

So, I disagree with him on his belief and request, but he's not a hypocrite.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By guffwd13 on 10/13/2010 3:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
2. see post below.

1. what do you mean by irreducibly complex structure?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By guffwd13 on 10/13/2010 5:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Caught myself up by reading below.

You need to refine your arguments be more selective with which ones you take on dude.

There are loopholes in your statements and obvious misinterpretations of others'. For example the world is flat thing. If the Bible so obviously demonstrates the world is flat, then why did the Catholic church (the christianity at the time) deny it until 1992 (admittedly they stopped refuting it long before that, but thats when they made it official - funny though how a religious institution with ten commandments meant to uphold virtues of men that are inherently lacking find it acceptable to eliminate dissenters - sounds a bit like... government).

Whether this argument upholds, that was his point and you seemed to not get it.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By guffwd13 on 10/13/2010 3:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
even come up with an working idea as to how life could come from non-life


Working ideas, yes, viable ones as of yet, no - but that puts us in the same boat as religion and God.

quote:
You start by citing examples of micro evolution, and how it is somehow proof for macro (which it isn't).


First rule of genetics: spread the genes apart. Why? Because it makes you (and global you) more likely to survive.

The only difference between the macro and the micro is time as measured by humans. If measured by generations, setting time on an equal plane, the same thing happens regardless of scale. Genetic material gets changed and lost - and the ones with better genes get chosen and the rest die off and fail to reproduce - at least in theory anyway - humans have all but eradicated this with "help the depraved" interest groups - oh and there's medicine which entirely contradicts that as well. Genetic patterns are the result of this - particularly in small to medium scale communities. That's why Kenyan's tend to be really thin, lanky and good at running. Nordic peoples have blonde hair and blue eyes because it made it easier to see at night (blue eyes reflect more light into the eye than darker eyes) - which made survival easier with the shorter days.

At the same token those communities all had deficiencies unique to their group. Asians lack alcohol dehydrogenase (Asian glow), and blacks are susceptible to sickle cell. The key point here is that the other races, exposed to different mutations, don't have those traits.

There are animals - some amphibians and some sea creatures (and others I'm sure I'm not aware of) that change sex when there is too much of one in an environment. Why would God have made certain creatures suceptile to having disprotionate sexes rather than keep them like everything else? By your own admission, everything in nature makes sense, thus why would God - so obsessed with keeping logic and sense, be so non-sensical with random anomalies? Was he playing games with those? No those species had to evolve because they found themselves in frequent situations where it was unbalanced. This is not a conscious mutation, but a resultant one. The species that did genetically mutate lived on and passed down that mutation that allowed them to survive. What if that mutation switches back? Those communities died. End of genetic trait. The ones that could, survived. Simply as that.

The bengal cat is 7/8 house cat and 1/8 wild Asian tiger/cat. It is far more agile and strong than a house cat even though its 3 generations descending from an actual house cat. It mostly looks like one, but is longer and leaner and has a tiger-like face.

Inbreeding is illegal in most societies because the deficiencies become amplified and where one gene in a pair may have carried healthy chromosomes, it is more likely that both carry them and thus you get inbred children - which are, well, no need to go there.

Keep combining, keep mutating, keep changing and it'll turn into something different entirely, better built to survive to current environment. Not by accident, but by natural selection.

We have witnessed natural selection, survival of the fittest and evolution in action at all scales. But we don't even need to - because the living proof is already there.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Jyrioffinland on 10/30/2010 6:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have NEVER observed anything you just talked about, yet you take it on blind faith that it happens.


Actually, in the Baltic Sea there's a new sea weed species that is max. 300-400 years old.

Technically, no one was there at the time to see it, so you can keep on believing it doesn't happen. I doubt you'd change your mind even if some one had observed and documented it.

BTW, there's no micro and macro evolution --- there are merely shorter and longer time spans.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 2:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
You made a feww mistakes. Some of the materials heavier than iron are necessary as trace elements. Probably a result of evolving a resistance to their presence.

Elements heavier than iron were all produced by fusion. The reason for their relative rarity though is that fusion of iron and above in weight require more energy than the reaction produces. Gravity provides the additional energy required and the resulting reaction can be quite energetic as the gravitic energy is converted to waste heat (Supernovae). Less energetic reactions result in White Dwarfs and similar high density objects.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By foolsgambit11 on 10/13/2010 9:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to point it out, but what you describe as far as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is generally not considered full speciation. The bacteria that are resistant are referred to as different strains of the same species, like MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). The last two letters still stand for the same species. Pests develop resistance to pesticides, too. All of these are generally examples of adaptation, not speciation.

I'm surprised that my first post seems to have been interpreted as being against evolution. I stated that evolution is better understood than even gravity, and if you look back over my post history, you'll find I'm a staunch advocate of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. Because of that, there is no reason to misrepresent the evidence by conflating adaptation and speciation, for instance. I find it important to set the facts straight (as far as I can, though I make my own mistakes) because stretching the argument only leaves us advocates on shaky ground. If an evolution nay-sayer comes along and makes the point that adaptation and speciation are different, they will think that by winning this small point, they have won the entire argument (as if the theory of evolution hinged on that argument), when that is clearly not true.

Now I somehow missed the article about the E. coli population that evolved to metabolize citrate. That's pretty cool. It's possibly enough to declare it a separate species, since the inability to metabolize citrate is one of the identifying characteristics of E. coli, though it's likely this will still be considered a separate strain of the species. Still, I can foresee that evolution deniers won't be satisfied until a species that reproduces sexually diverges to the point where two populations can no longer successfully interbreed. That is the ultimate nail in the coffin, I'd say.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By delphinus100 on 10/16/2010 11:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The definition of "science" involves testable, observable, and of the natural world. The big band involves none of the aforementioned.


We know from red shift observations that the Universe is expanding. Logically, a finite time in the past, it was all at one point. And the interstellar background is observed to emit a peak of energy corresponding to a 4 degree Kelvin temperature. Just what one would expect, after this much time after the Big Bang. (BTW, that was a derisive name given the theory by supporters of the 'Steady State' theory...but over time, the evidence has been consistent with the 'Big Bang.') There's more evidence consistent with the so-called Big Bang, but those are the most important ones.

You understand that when police investigate a grime, they use the same logic of getting as much evidence as possible, and determining which 'theory' of how a crime or other event occurred, without having been there to observe it, right? Just because there were no living eyewitnesses or video recordings, doesn't mean that anything is possible. Assume the Universe is constrained by logic and physical laws (and accepting that we don't yet have the last word on what the latter are) until proven otherwise.

quote:
Do you even realize that you believe that you came from a rock? Yep, that's right: You believe that you are the product of rain on rocks, while I believe that God created humans and everything else in the universe.


Out of 'dust,' as I understand it. You find that more palatable? You believe what 'feels' better must be so? The heavy elements of which 'rocks' (and the oxygen in water) are made, come from the supernova explosions of long-dead stars. I find that pretty cool.

But the chemical origins of life don't care what I think is cool, either...

quote:
Two VERY contrasting opinions, but yet yours is somehow "scientifically right?". I don't think so...


In science, 'falsifiability' is important. There's always a chance that new experiments and observations can undercut a theory. (and it only takes one solid observation that's inconsistent with previous theory to do so) It's happened before, it'll likely happen again. That's how science has always worked.

Is there anything in your 'theory,' that allows for disproof? Is there anything like; "If God created the Universe, X, Y and Z must be true...but if someone finds that one or more of those things should turn out to be incorrect, then the assertion that God did this (or possibly even exists) must also be untrue."

And does it allow for asking the next logical question of how and why God created everything?

The devout simply won't go there. That 'God did it' is the end of inquiry for them.

And even if you do, it requires trying to delve into the psychology and ability (and origin?) of a presumably all-powerful, but inaccessible being...

Good luck with that.

The hell of it is, we may indeed reach some point where it's not even logically possible to ask further questions as to the existence of everything, and at that time, divine creation may be as philosophically as good as anything else.

But even if so, we're not there yet. Don't ever stop too soon. Assuming divine intervention st any point, may keep you from continuing to look for and find perfectly good answers that don't require that. No one said understanding would come easy. Throwing up your hands and assuming it's the work of God when you haven't tried absolutely everything else, is intellectual laziness.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By jklauderdale on 10/13/2010 11:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
4: There are still thousands of people out there who believe the world is flat.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Much like creationists, it really is pointless to argue with these people about their beliefs. Proponents of "Intelligent Design" are rabid in their beliefs, unable to accept the mountain of evidence in front of them. The bible makes for a great story book and some interesting reading. It also makes for a rather silly source from which to be quoting the causes of historical events.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:12:19 AM , Rating: 2
You're confusing micro & macro evolution. Way to be informed.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eggman on 10/13/2010 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
If I am not mistaken I think I heard that Quadrillity invented the concept of micro and macro evolution. I may be wrong however.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By oralpain on 10/13/2010 11:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
We have seen natural and artificial selection, both forms of evolution, at work.

The idea that we haven't directly observed evolution is one of the most massively ignorant fallacies I've ever encountered, and more frustrating is how frequently it is encountered.

Everything from needing a flu shot more than once in a lifetime, to antibiotic resistance, to the domestication of plants and animals, and more are examples of evolution that can easily be observed in the short term.

We've even observed rapid speciation in nature where populations become isolated or new niches open up. Both amphilophus citrinellus and rhagoletis pomonella are good example of this.

Evolution, both micro and maco, both natural and human induced, are an observable facts, and anyone who claims otherwise is perusing an agenda or is willfully ignorant.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By redbone75 on 10/13/2010 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it happens, but we can't observe it because it takes "time"? Good logic in that one; it seems like to me that you are shifting the facts to fit the theory. We have ZERO accounts of animals changing from one kind to another (macro evolution) yet if you magically add time, you POOF get another animal! Any and all sources for evidence are MICRO changes, not macro. AND micro does not = macro if you add magical time. Sorry, it doesn't account for a lack of evidence.


WTF?!? Puff, puff, pass. That's the rule.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By oralpain on 10/13/2010 4:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read what you replied to?

Anyway, you are wrong, I just gave two examples of natural macro evolution that modern humans have observed, and are currently observing. The names are right there, in the post you replied to, but didn't read. Look them up.

If you open your eyes for one second, you will find many more examples, even of macroevolution. Especially prevalent are forced

Ever see a pet dog, or cat? Pretty blatant examples of macro evolution there. Those species were verifiably created by humans, and even within my lifetime, dozens, if not hundreds of distinct phenotypes have been bread.

What about cattle, or the vast majority of the foods we eat? I don't know about you, but I have seen real wild maize, wild strawberries, wild boar, wild banans, and so on. The differences between them, and their domesticated counterparts are most certainly macro in every sense. And this isn't some "magical", spontaneous, "POOF" either. You can take wild strawberries, or animals, and by selecting the traits you want, you can get rapid, but flowing changes.

On a related note, you should look up the breeding experiments Dmitry Belyaev has been involved with.

My entire point has been that we can observe it. We have, we are, we will.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By mircea on 10/15/2010 2:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
How could you claim evolution for a domesticated cat/dog, or different types of berries. They have never changed from cat to dog or dog to cat, or anything else. The berries never became apples or oranges.
And yet that's what evolution claims. This is what it needs to be able to observe without any human interference.

As very few of scientists would allow to acknowledge but most probably feel inside them is what was posted here"

quote:
Working ideas, yes, viable ones as of yet, no - but that puts us in the same boat as religion and God.


Most comments point to the fact that faith has no right to be seen as an option. And this is where hypocrisy comes in. Since evolution while formed as a theory (debated amongst you in it's inner workings) requires faith that the assumptions made did happen until real observable proof will be shown (not pets).

So what you really are against is blind faith in God but are actually pro blind faith in "over a long period of time".


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By rhuarch on 10/12/2010 3:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to assume you're joking, but I'll answer the question nonetheless.

Actually, the general theory of relativity does a remarkable job of explaining what causes gravity. Gravity is caused by objects with mass warping the field of space-time. I would say (not as an anti evolution fundi) that Gravity, and the general and special theories of relativity are much more mature and experimentally supported theories than evolution. You know, just sayin...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By MozeeToby on 10/12/2010 4:14:13 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, we know for a fact that our understanding of gravity is woefully incomplete, there are several circumstances (high energy, small scale, and high density being the three most obvious) where our current understanding of gravity fails completely. Gravity also doesn't fit into our basic understanding of the other three of the major forces in the universe. Our current model happens to be very, very close to right, but it is not complete.

What's important to note here is that our understanding of gravity, while definitely incomplete, still holds true for 99.999% of human experience. It's even still extraordinarily useful for almost all scientific purposes all while being from a technical standpoint 'wrong'. And when we find the answer to the parts about gravity that we don't understand, our current model doesn't just get thrown out the window, it will be expanded, clarified, and perfected.

Similarly with evolution. There is little doubt that there are parts of the evolutionary process that we don't understand, else why would we continue to invest so much time and money into its research. At the same time, filling in the gaps that we don't understand today is highly, highly unlikely to disturb our current model very much; it is simply supported by too much evidence and too much critical thinking for it to collapse over night.

People forget that Darwin was wrong about or incomplete in several important aspects of evolution, the theory today is so much more than what he proposed with 'Origin of the Species'. But that's just it, the theory is more than what he proposed while still being amazingly true to his original theory, despite 200 years of advancing technology, 200 years of research (including the study of genetics which supports evolution to a level Darwin never would have dreamed), and 200 years of ceaseless, unending attacks by people that don't understand it.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/12/2010 7:53:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't think people have a problem with evolution, it's with macro-evolution that gives them pause. It's, admittedly, a difficult concept.

There really isn't any difference between "micro evolution", and "macro evolution", they are fundamentally the same. They are pushed by the same mechanism, the only difference is the time these mechanisms are at work. Usually, you will only see people fighting evolution attempt to break it up into micro and macro.

"Macro" can be a difficult concept to grasp, especially if you don't approach it in the right way. Many people have some misunderstanding that "macro" evolution means that one animal can produce another type of animal, which isn't the case at all. Believing such ridiculous misunderstandings makes it much easier to believe that those ideas aren't true. It's much easier to understand "macro" evolution if you try to imagine a common ancestor long ago, and how slight changes to isolated populations could accumulate to produce drastically different animals after a long period of time.

Essentially, "macro" is just an extrapolation of "micro". Conceding that "micro" is true but "macro" isn't, is essentially saying "Adding 0.00001 together many times will eventually add up to equal 1, but it will never add up to equal 1 million". Any amount of change, no matter how small, will accumulate into a large difference given enough time.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/12/2010 8:04:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

"Macro" can be a difficult concept to grasp


Actually, "macro" isn't a difficult concept to grasp at all. The problem with it is not that its difficult to grasp, but that it's an insane idea that is unsupported by the evidence.

quote:

It's much easier to understand "macro" evolution if you try to imagine a common ancestor long ago, and how slight changes to isolated populations could accumulate to produce drastically different animals after a long period of time.


Well, I can "imagine" all sorts of things, but that doesn't make them true. Not only does the scientific evidence not support such a crazy view, but indeed it directly contradicts the idea of macro-evolution.

For example, we don't see in the fossil record .000001 adding up to 1 over thousands or millions of steps. Instead we see all the major animal groups suddenly springing into existence fully formed in the Cambrian radiation.

Even Charles Darwin admitted that this was a problem for his theory for which he had no answer. He only held hope that the gradual, transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian radiation would be later discovered. If anything, the fossil record has gone the other way, with new discoveries making the Cambrian radiation even more startling than it was in Darwin's day.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/12/2010 8:36:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Actually, "macro" isn't a difficult concept to grasp at all. The problem with it is not that its difficult to grasp, but that it's an insane idea that is unsupported by the evidence.

LOL. You are confusing "unsupported" with "supported". I know it's only two letters, but it's a big difference.
quote:
Well, I can "imagine" all sorts of things, but that doesn't make them true.

You've clearly never heard of a "Thought Experiment" then. It worked quite well for Einstein.

quote:
Not only does the scientific evidence not support such a crazy view, but indeed it directly contradicts the idea of macro-evolution.

Actually, the scientific evidence 100% completely supports this very sane view. If evidence didn't support it, it wouldn't still be a theory.

quote:
Instead we see all the major animal groups suddenly springing into existence fully formed in the Cambrian radiation.

This is 100% complete and utter BS. You should be ashamed of yourself to be willfully misrepresenting the facts like this. Show me the mammals or birds as a result of the Cambrian explosion. You have conveniently failed to mention that the Cambrian explosion was over 540 million years ago, and the "explosion" took place over millions of years, and consisted entirely of aquatic animals.

The Cambrian explosion did produce a great diversification in the animal life forms on an earth that was primed for it, but in no way, shape, or form did it show "all the major animal groups suddenly springing into existence fully formed in the Cambrian radiation."

Completely ridiculous nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 7:06:39 AM , Rating: 1
Calindar,

quote:

This is 100% complete and utter BS. You should be ashamed of yourself to be willfully misrepresenting the facts like this. Show me the mammals or birds as a result of the Cambrian explosion. You have conveniently failed to mention that the Cambrian explosion was over 540 million years ago, and the "explosion" took place over millions of years, and consisted entirely of aquatic animals.


I highly recommend educating yourself on the evidence, my friend.

Let me help you get started:

Here is a story discussing a peer reviewed research article published in BioEssays in 2009 where the evolutionary biologists admit that everything said about the Cambrian radiation from the Intelligent Design Camp is essentially correct:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_art...

quote:

Beginning some 555 million years ago the Earth's biota changed in profound and fundamental ways, going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time. The abruptness of the transition between the ''Precambrian'' and the Cambrian was apparent right at the outset of our science with the publication of Murchison's The Silurian System, a treatise that paradoxically set forth the research agenda for numerous paleontologists -- in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple -- as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.

Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ''a major mystery,'' a ''challenge.'' The Theory of Evolution -- exploded again (idofcourse.com).

Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin's contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume -- if Victorian fashion dictated -- that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride.

(Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009)


Here's another link which discusses the find that even more creatures appeared in the Cambrian than were previously known:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/fossil_finds_...

quote:


Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. As a recent BBC news article reports:

"We go from very simple pre-Cambrian life-forms to something as complex as a cephalopod in the geological blink of an eye, which illustrates just how quickly evolution can produce complexity," said [evolutionary biologist Martin] Smith.

Keep in mind here that "evolution" is a placeholder term for an as-of-yet uncovered mechanism that produces animals like Cephalopods in a "geological blink of an eye." Darwin's Dilemma is not solved by vague appeals "how quickly" evolution can operate.

All this follows on the heels of recent fossil findings that push phylum Bryozoa back into the Cambrian period, and echinoderms back to the early Cambrian.

Isn't "evolution" amazing?


The fossil record completely contradicts the prediction by neo-Darwinism of millions of tiny mutations leading to a staggering amount of complexity of biological forms.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 2:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
They are still finding new fossils, some of which have been Pre-Cambrian complex critters.

The problem with fossils is that if the creature was not preserved at the time it died AND the fossil survived the millions of years of tectonic shift AND a researcher found it AND correctly identified it AND correctly dated it, then it is not in the database.

However new finds are being added each year with many of them being forms intermediate to known forms. Not only does the evidence imply macro-evolution as being an artifact of our sampling technique it keeps demonstrating that with the exception of changes in very basic genes that microevolution is the normal form of evolution. Micro-evolution can happen rapidly.

An experiment was done with domesticating foxes. After many generations (far less than 1 human lifetime) a new critter was developed that looked very little like a wild fox and lives comfortably with people. That is evolution in action. The new critter could breed with foxes still, but so can coyotes and wolves (which does not prove that a coyote IS a wolf, only that Red Wolves are likely to be a stable hybrid of Grey Wolf & Coyote)

The reason that the Cambrian explosion is where the oldest complex critters were known is simply they were the oldest fossils known. There are now some older ones.

Of course Creationism can be proven, we are just waiting for the Cambrian era moose, bison, elk, wolves etc. to be found. When that happens, the argument will end as there will be Proof that Creation occurred as the Bible said it did.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 2:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Fritzr,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I realize that the we have found fossils of creatures prior to the Cambrian, for example the Ediacaran fossils. These still do not explain the sudden appearance of the Cambrian animals with no biological precursors. This is what contradicts the narrative of macro-evolution.

The wild fox story is interesting. I actually wouldn't mind having one of the domesticated ones as a pet. My position is not that species cannot change and adapt to their environment, only that the massive changes promoted in macro-evolution are essentially impossible.

Finally, you seem to present a dichotomy that we either have option A) macro-evolution, option B) creationism (assuming a young earth interpretation with a 6,000 year old Earth and all the animals being created in one week. And obviously since option B looks false, option A therefore has to be true.

I go for option C. God created life but He did it over billions of years of Earth's history (from our perspective, anyway) and in distinct phases, in a way that is generally consistent with the Genesis account but much older and longer than the 6,000 year young earth interpretation of Genesis.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually my own opinion is in opposition to Einstein. I don't know whether his famous quote was ever spoken, but roughly he said that God does not play billiards.

I see no reason to forbid God playing billiards. In fact the evidence of Science is that while no evidence of God has been found, the existing body of evidence shows that if he does exist then he does play billiards on a Universe size pool table.

No matter how much Science reveals about the mechanics of the Universe, there is nothing in those mechanics that precludes a Divine Designer who created the Universe we live in and possibly many others if the Multi-verse ideas that are being developed pan out.

It is the Fundamentalist Believers generally who attempt to put a leash on God and control His behavior, while ignoring the fact that other Fundamentalist Believers have an equal belief that their (non Judeo/Christian/Moslem) beliefs are correct and the Christian God is the false myth.

The only thing that Science has to say about God is that no one has developed a scientific Theory about God. Even something as basic as may or may not exist.

I am always laughing at those who say that Science is falsified by belief in Evolution as they type away on their computers that exist due to Scientific Theories about the way elements interact with each other. The computer you are reading this post on is the result of Evolution in Action. Each generation of designers examines the previous generation and says "This will work better!" and sometimes they even add a brand new idea that 4 generations later is seen as so crude and primitive that designers wonder how it ever worked (Look up the Babbage Difference Engine. Probably the first modern computer with memory and a printer. There are two of them, the later one is the computer)

My only problem with the belief in God is that if God Created all that exists, then God Created Himself. To say that he did not Create Himself implies a 2d Creator who then suffers the same fault of either creating himself or being Created by a 3d Creator. Of course you can end this infinite regression by saying he spontaneously came into existence out of the rocks of whatever Universe he occupies.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer to the conumdrum of
"Intelligent life can only exist if it is Created by an Intelligent Designer.
Since the Designer is Intelligent it can only exist if it is Created by an Intelligent Designer.
Since an Intelligent Designer can only be Created by an Intelligent Designer
and our Universe was Created by an Intelligent Designer,
it is proven that we do not exist and so this message was never written."


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 3:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

I am always laughing at those who say that Science is falsified by belief in Evolution as they type away on their computers that exist due to Scientific Theories about the way elements interact with each other. The computer you are reading this post on is the result of Evolution in Action. Each generation of designers examines the previous generation and says "This will work better!" and sometimes they even add a brand new idea that 4 generations later is seen as so crude and primitive that designers wonder how it ever worked (Look up the Babbage Difference Engine. Probably the first modern computer with memory and a printer. There are two of them, the later one is the computer)


Dude! This logic is fatally flawed. You seriously need to google Berra's Blunder.

Here, I'll help you get started...

http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/berrablunder.html

quote:

"Everything evolves, in the sense of "descent with modification," whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette's evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today's Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today's version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms."

T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 118-119.

Critics claim that, in fact, this example actually demonstrates that similarity can be due to an archetype in the mind of a designer!

"Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence - like the sequence of Beethoven's symphonies to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court - does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan. Above all, such sequences have no tendency whatever to support the claim that there is no need for a Creator, since blind natural forces can do the creating. On the contrary, they show that what biologists present as proof of "evolution" or "common ancestry" is just as likely to be evidence of common design."
P. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by opening minds, 1997, pg 63.

"But Berra's analogy actually spotlights the problem of using a sequence of similarites as evidence for Darwin's theory. We all know that automobiles are manufactured according to archetypes (in this case, plans drawn up by engineers), so it is clear that there can be other explanations for a sequence of similarites besides descent with modification. In fact, most pre-Darwinian biologists would have explained such sequences by something akin to automobile manufacturing - that is, creation by design. So although Berra believed he was defending Darwinian evolution against creationist explanations, he unwittingly showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with either. ... Berra's blunder demonstrates that a mere succession of similar forms does not furnish its own explanation. Something more is needed - a mechanism."

J. Wells, Icons of Evolution,2000, pg 69-70.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 4:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually what it demostrates is evolution by selection.

Those features that did not cause a car to sell well were discarded.
Those features that did cause a car to sell well were retained and variants tried out to see if that would improve sales.

Natural evolution works in this manner without need for an intelligent designer.
Those features that cause a creature to reproduce at a lesser rate than their die off are discarded
Those features that cause a creature to reproduce at a greater rate than their neighbors take over the neighborhood.

Berra was only illustrating evolution by selection. The Fallacy was trying to falsify NATURAL selection by showing that DIRECTED selection also exists.

DIRECTED selection is also used by chimpanzees, crows, orangutans, ravens, vultures and other animals that use various tools in their daily life. The use of tools to improve survival is thus shown to not be dependent on a belief in God or even on having a human level of intelligence.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/14/2010 7:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Actually what it demostrates is evolution by selection.

Those features that did not cause a car to sell well were discarded.
Those features that did cause a car to sell well were retained and variants tried out to see if that would improve sales.


Yes, I see what you mean. The macro-evolution model does seem to apply in the development of merchandise. I found this great article on how we ended up with HDTVs. Check it out:

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v2i1f.h...

quote:

Evolution of Television

Last month I published an article in an electronics magazine about the evolution of television.1 After describing how color television evolved from black & white television, I outlined the difficulties of taking the next step from analog to digital television. While writing the article, I thought about how an evolutionist might have written that same article. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, here is that same article written from an evolutionist's point of view.

The fossils found in American garbage dumps clearly show the evolution of the radio into the television set. Layers of fossil garbage from the WWI era (10 million years ago) contain fragments of radios that use vacuum tubes. The first televisions appear in the WWII layer (8 million years ago) that lies immediately above the WWI layer.2 The components in these early television sets are nearly identical with those in the WWI radios, so the radio clearly evolved into the television. Both the radio and television show signs of further evolution, with transistors replacing tubes in later models.

Radios evolved into televisions through a process of random mutations and natural selection. All radios are built on an assembly line according to plans. When completed, the radios are tested to make sure they work. Occasionally, a radio is assembled incorrectly. In most cases, assembly errors cause the radio to work poorly, or not work at all. These errors are detected in the testing phase, and the faulty radios are destroyed.

In very rare instances, however, an assembly error actually causes the radio to work better than normal. When this is detected in the testing phase, the radio is studied to find out what the difference is. The plans are modified to incorporate the beneficial error, and all subsequent radios are built this way.

Over a period of 2 million years, the radio gradually evolved into a television set. Although the transitional forms have never been discovered, we know how this happened.

One day, on a whim, a worker decided to add a picture tube to the radio. The picture tube didn't actually do anything, because there weren't any horizontal or vertical deflection circuits yet, but the little white dot in the center of the screen impressed the inspector so much that he changed the plans so that all future radios would have picture tubes.

Some years later, another worker added deflection circuitry to make the little dot move across the screen from left to right and top to bottom. Since this was much more fun to look at, it was incorporated into the plans. Of course it cost more to build radios this way, but for some reason the moving light spot added some survival benefit in the electronics market. Since consumers would not buy a radio without a moving dot, all competing radios were built this way.

At exactly the same time, somebody at a radio station decided to hook a camera up to the transmitter, instead of a microphone, just to see what would happen. The image was broadcast from the radio station to the television set, and the broadcast industry was born.

Of course this is ridiculous. But is it any more ridiculous than the evolutionists' story of the development of the eye? Is it any more ridiculous than the evolutionists' fable about how wasps and figs had to have evolved at the same time so they could allow each other to reproduce? We don't think so.

Certainly television did evolve from radio, in a particular sense of the word. It did not, and could not, evolve by random mutation and natural selection. Radio and television components definitely are similar. That doesn't prove that an early television was once a radio, or that television and radio shared a common ancestor that has not been discovered yet. It is simply evidence that common component building blocks can be assembled to create different products.

Radio and television are both products of human intelligence. Their similarity is evidence of a common designer, not random chance. Phillip Johnson explains it this way:

Tim Berra is a professor of zoology at Ohio State University. He wrote a book that was published by the Stanford University Press with the title Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate. Berra's book has much the same purpose as this book [Defeating Darwinism]. It aims to explain, for nonscientists, how good thinkers should view the conflict between evolution and creation. Here is Berra's explanation of "evolution," which comes illustrated with photographs of automobiles in the middle of the book:

Everything evolves, in the sense of "descent with modification," whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette's evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; … [a long list of changes deleted] …The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.

Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence--like the sequence of Beethoven's symphonies or the opinions of the United States Supreme Court--does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. … I have encountered this mistake so often in public debates that I have given it a nickname: "Berra's Blunder."3

The evolution of television from black & white to color was very difficult because of the need for "backward compatibility". The number of American television sets grew from 137,000 in 1947 to more than 7 million in 1957. Broadcasters had to figure out how to transmit color signals that could be displayed on the existing 7 million black & white TVs. TV manufacturers had to figure out how to build color TV sets that could also display older B&W programs. It didn't just happen by chance.

Now there are 200 to 300 million analog TV sets in America, none of which are compatible with the new digital HDTV signals. The "evolution" from analog TV to digital TV required a federal law making it illegal to broadcast analog TV signals after 2006.4 (The government seems to be backing away from that date now.) The change from analog to digital can't happen naturally.

But what are these changes compared to a land-dwelling cow-like mammal turning into a whale? or a dinosaur turning into a bird? The evolution of TV or the Corvette is not evidence for evolution of new critters from old critters. TVs and Corvettes aren't changed at random to make the design better. That approach doesn't work, even with a highly intelligent selection process. Random changes will never turn a radio into a television. There has to be an intelligent purpose coordinating many design changes at once.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/14/2010 6:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But what are these changes compared to a land-dwelling cow-like mammal turning into a whale? or a dinosaur turning into a bird? The evolution of TV or the Corvette is not evidence for evolution of new critters from old critters. TVs and Corvettes aren't changed at random to make the design better. That approach doesn't work, even with a highly intelligent selection process. Random changes will never turn a radio into a television. There has to be an intelligent purpose coordinating many design changes at once.

This one I love :D
A TV *is* a radio. An ordinary audio only radio is a TV set with the video monitor removed. The full term for TV (that is now largely forgotten) is RadioTeleVision.
Both radios and TVs are called 'sets' because they are a collection of components that were developed for other purposes. Even after All-in-One sets became the norm, the term remains as a relic of the time they were sold like modern computers...a collection of parts put together by the enduser.

The precursor to the TV monitor was the Cathode Ray tube that was in use in lab equipment for such purposes as oscilloscope (a device that traces lines on the tube). A TV picture tube and it's yoke is an oscilloscope that traces 500 or so lines on the face of the CRT. A color picture tube uses three oscilloscope beam sources and changes the coating on the tube to glow in colors other than white.

These devices did not emerge full blown. They were modifications of previously existing equipment being used for unrelated purposes :)

LCD was not developed for TV, but a way was found to use these displays as replacements for the CRT displays. So now we think of LCD as a video monitor rather than the technology that has been adapted for use in a video monitor :P

The evolution of TVs from transformers, oscilloscopes, record players, microphones and other early tech that was modified for use is documented history. Your debunker simply relies on his reader not doing any research of their own :LOL: Bad idea for readers of this site :D

Very few design changes were needed. The early examples were primitive because they were mostly using off the shelf hardware :)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/15/2010 7:35:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:

The evolution of TVs from transformers, oscilloscopes, record players, microphones and other early tech that was modified for use is documented history. Your debunker simply relies on his reader not doing any research of their own :LOL: Bad idea for readers of this site :D


Fritzr,

I find your arguments quite astonishing, and I can't decide if you really believe any of what you are typing, or if you are instead having a private joke and trying to parady the typical macro-evolution believer.

With all due respect, to take the continuous improvements in the design of computers, cars, and high definition televisions made by engineers and somehow say that this somehow proves unguided Darwinian evolution from bacteria to man strikes me as mind-blowingly stupid. SERIOUSLY?

If anything, these improvements are proof of intelligent design. You seem the be the only person on the planet who does not get the point of Berra's Blunder.

But this is too fun to stop. So just for curiosity, please re-iterate to me (and the entire world) one more time how the improvement in the design of computers proves Darwinian macro-evolution.

Also, let me ask you another question. Does this mean that in order to prove that Darwinian macro-evolution is false, we have to live in a world where nothing ever gets improved? In other words, if there is something SOMEWHERE in the world (a computer program, an architectural blueprint, a blu-ray player, whatever) that has been improved from a previous design then that means that Darwinian macro-evolution is unfalsifiably true and I just need to pack up and go home. Is this your logic?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/14/2010 7:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Natural evolution works in this manner without need for an intelligent designer.
Those features that cause a creature to reproduce at a lesser rate than their die off are discarded
Those features that cause a creature to reproduce at a greater rate than their neighbors take over the neighborhood.


Not quite. A new study recently published in the journal nature (just in the past few weeks) found that new advantageous traits that helped reproduction didn't easily infuse in the general population of that species.

It's pretty much a stake in the heart on the power of natural selection.

quote:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

NOT! Newly appearing good traits in a single individual will rarely get infused (or “fixed” ) into a population. To understand theoretically why this is false, visit: Gambler’s Ruin is Darwin’s Ruin.

And now we have some poignant experimental confirmation of my theoretical prediction! In a paper published by the prestigious scientific journal Nature September 30,2010 we read:

Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations.”

Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.”


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/...

BTW, I'd just love to see Jason Mick post a blog topic discussing THIS new study! Think there's a chance he'd do it? It is a science topic, after all.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/14/2010 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

NOT! Newly appearing good traits in a single individual will rarely get infused (or “fixed” ) into a population.

Your error here is that you are reading rare==never. Actually rare means it DOES happen.

Additional error: Mr. Darwin's 6th Edition was not the last word on the subject. The Theory that he discusses in that book (which was a popular subject of study in his day) has been reviewed, corrected, revised and extended. There have been discoveries unknown to science in his day that provide support for the basic idea and many refinements of the mechanism including the discovery of multiple sources of change.
quote:

Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small , sexually reproducing laboratory populations,

The smaller the population, the fewer examples there will be to select from. Reducing the sample population reduces examples of oddities. This part of the study actually reduces the chance of observing what they claim to be seeking. Was this study designed to observe change or was it designed to provide 'evidence' of no change?

I would say that by deliberately minimizing the odds of a mutation occurring they were trying to avoid a positive observation. Unless they were studying the results of extreme inbreeding.

Any bookie can tell you that if you place enough bets you will win some wagers no matter how badly you choose where to place bets. They can also tell you that you can prove they never pay by placing the absolute minimum thus reducing the odds of seeing a positive result.

quote:
This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations.”

A stable environment favors the status quo. This researcher is saying that his lab experiment designed to minimize chance changes and maximize survival of the status quo proves that in large populations facing changes in environment... Uhm, personally I'd say that his study design was flawed based on what he claims to prove.

quote:
Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.

Resistance to cold is meaningless in the tropics. Transport the population to a climate that experiences severe cold and this resistance is no longer meaningless. This researcher is saying his study disproves this idea because he kept the environment unchanged :P
quote:
This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.”


He concludes that genetic variation does exist and that changes are not removed from the population. He further claims that this increasing change is evidence of no change?

Methinks he is reasoning backward from the conclusion.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/15/2010 7:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Your error here is that you are reading rare==never. Actually rare means it DOES happen....

Any bookie can tell you that if you place enough bets you will win some wagers no matter how badly you choose where to place bets. They can also tell you that you can prove they never pay by placing the absolute minimum thus reducing the odds of seeing a positive result.


This kind of reasoning reminds of the Jim Carrey line in Dumb and Dumber when he's asking the woman what his chances with her are. Check it out on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

This is the mentality that you have to have in order to believe that random mutations are responsible for all the different designs of life we see on Earth.

quote:

Uhm, personally I'd say that his study design was flawed based on what he claims to prove.


Well thanks for outing the bias. Many evolutionists beat the Intelligent Design community over the head with the peer reviewed research arguments.

But I guess only certain kinds of peer reviewed research are acceptable arguments, even if that peer reviewed research happens to be published in the prestigious (and pro-evolution) Journal Nature.

You should write a letter to Nature and tell them they dropped the ball on publishing the research. You might get a nice job with them.

Furthermore, your arguments are unsound. The laboratory conditions were actually optimizing the chances that the new alleles would get infused into the general population, yet they did not. Hence the point of the article, if its so hard to get new beneficial mutations to infuse into a population in a laboratory environment that is optimized for such an occurrence, it would be much harder for this to happen in the wild.

So this undermines a central point of Darwinism. Even if a beneficial mutation occurs (and they rarely do), the likelihood of getting that rare mutation infused into a population is very small. It's yet another hurdle (in an infinitely long line of hurdles) for macro-evolutionary processes to jump over.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2010 6:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
For fuks sakes you two. The walls of text here, jesus christ! Trying to out quote the other person with cherrypicked selections from other peoples works...

I was wondering why DT was down for maintenance yesterday and this morning, now I know. Your walls of text borked the servers :)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/13/2010 6:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I highly recommend educating yourself on the evidence, my friend.

I think you should take your own advice. The Discovery Institute is the LAST place to go when trying to educate yourself on the topic of evolution. They are Christian, Intelligent Design proponents that receive major funding from evangelical churches. Casey Luskin has been caught numerous times lying, making things up, quote mining, cherry picking data, using nonsensical logic, among many other things to push their creationist agenda. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, read information from real scientists.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/14/2010 7:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
Calindar,

Both of the topics I linked to were peer reviewed scientific research. Luskin in no way contorted the findings of either one of them. Ad hominem attacks aren't a good response to the data.

To make an effective case for your side, you have to tell me what is wrong with these new studies, rather than simply attack the messenger.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/14/2010 6:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
You may also ask why is Luskin a lone voice. Study the differences between Luskin and the general community and THEN base your conclusions on the data. Most pro-Creation researchers tend to document the conclusions first and then design studies to prove the conclusion quietly discarding anything not usable. In the wider community those discarded studies keep getting published.

There was a similar dislike of Tectonic theory that lasted for about 50yrs. It finally made it to the mainstream when it was noticed by newcomers to the field that studies repeatedly supported the theory and the opposition was ignoring the evidence.

The problem that creationists face that supporters of tectonics did not, is that their studies keep supporting evolution whether on a small scale such as antibiotic resistance or on a large scale with historical evidence of gradual change from a creature that is unsuited to an environment to a modern form that will have a difficult time being away from that same environment. Polar Bear & Penguin being but 2 examples.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/15/2010 8:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

You may also ask why is Luskin a lone voice. Study the differences between Luskin and the general community and THEN base your conclusions on the data.


First of all, Luskin is not a lone voice. There are many scientists and engineers out there, some of whom have won a nobel prize, that dispute the conclusions of Darwinism.

Second of all, your post is simply another reiteration of an ad hominem attack coupled with an appeal to authority and does absolutely nothing to address the points of the studies that Luskin was discussing.

Third of all, the research discussed in the articles by Luskin was not conducted by "pro-Creation researchers" or any researchers with an agenda. They were actually conducted by pro-evolution researchers who were surprised at the results of their findings.

And lastly, I would respectfully suggest that you take your own advice. The research I mentioned in another post from the Journal Nature that discussed the difficulties in infusing a new mutation into a general population were dismissed by you at the outset because they did not support your pre-determined conclusions.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/15/2010 6:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, Luskin is not a lone voice. There are many scientists and engineers out there, some of whom have won a nobel prize, that dispute the conclusions of Darwinism.

First, calling it "Darwinism" is yet another PR move my the Discovery Institute. It isn't "Darwinism", it's evolution.

Second, no, there aren't many scientists and engineers out there that dispute evolution. They are by far a very small minority, and that's not even talking about people in the field of biology. Those that are actually in the field of biology have an even bigger overwhelming majority that accept evolution. IDers always try to make it out as if there is some controversy about evolution, but the only controversy is that some people don't want to teach evolution in science classes because it disagrees with their primitive superstitions.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/14/2010 6:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To make an effective case for your side, you have to tell me what is wrong with these new studies

These studies didn't justify your errant claim at all. Your claim was, and I quote...

quote:
Instead we see all the major animal groups suddenly springing into existence fully formed in the Cambrian radiation.


Which is still completely, 100% false. There were no mammals appearing from the Cambrian explosion, there were no birds. The Cambrian explosion was aquatic. Even if we can't completely explain every aspect of the Cambrian explosion yet, "God done it" is a much more ridiculous answer.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, a huge extrapolation. The odds of getting to where we are now strain credibility without seeing all the steps along the way.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2010 9:32:01 AM , Rating: 1
Ok I wasn't saying this was my opinion, sheeesh. Don't shoot the messenger here.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By drando on 10/12/2010 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
remember, it's still just a theory


This is a statement of profound ignorance. If I were you I would be ashamed to be so uneducated in modern society where it's so easy to remedy.

Evolution is still a theory because in the 151 years since it's discovery there has never been a shred of evidence to discredit it. That's right, in 151 years, deniers have never been able to come up with anything remotely accurate to refute the validity of it.

A theory in layman's terms may mean a guess or conjecture but in science it is much more. To a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing evidence, observations, facts, and predicts new ones.

quote:
So then a college educated scientist, dealing with the theory of evolution (remember, it's still just a theory), is somehow more capable of understanding that the fossilized skeletal remains in that picture must somehow lead one to the assumption that it must have been an ancestor to mankind?


Umm, yea. That's exactly right. That's what higher education does for you. People go to college and study a particular area of science. With enough education they become an expert in their chosen field of study, otherwise known as a scientist. These "experts" are then more capable of understanding their field of study than you are. They study things then make claims or predictions (which may or may not be correct), known as a hypothesis, which other "experts" then review for accuracy.

And it's not quite an assumption (going back to your misunderstanding of what a theory is) but more of an interpretation or deduction after studying the evidence. That's generally how smart people do things, first the learn about something, then they comment.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By quiksilvr on 10/12/2010 4:40:05 PM , Rating: 5
This is so many types of epic pwn, I have to refer to my chart...

http://www.splitreason.com/blog/img/brian/101-2.jp...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Skywalker123 on 10/12/2010 8:27:10 PM , Rating: 5
My bet is that you'll NEVER read anything that compels you to believe anything but fairy tales.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Skywalker123 on 10/12/2010 8:30:16 PM , Rating: 1
"I'm not so weak minded as to be easily taken in like that."

Oh no? Tell us more about your imaginary friend? Do you talk to him? Does he answer back? Do you go on long walks together?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Skywalker123 on 10/12/2010 10:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't hate Christians, I feel sorry for them, as I would any misguided person.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:24:08 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah - I feel sorry for people who feel sorry for people who think differently from them.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Donkey2008 on 10/13/2010 6:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm. Christians show little love of anything these days, especially toward the Judeo-Christian inspired laws and Democratic systems we live under. Just look at the rise in Christian political advocacy in the last 30 years. Jesus would be sick to his stomach if he came back to Earth. Aside from the abortion issue, they have no compassion, no empathy and no love toward their fellow man.

Chistianity is not getting better circa 2010 A.D., it is getting worse and even dangerous. Most of the followers of that religion have lost their way.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hHCN9CD2Bgg/SNAxVCuQhVI/...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 2:14:52 PM , Rating: 4
By the way, just out of curiosity...

What do you think of the Hindu Creation Story? The Hindu Vedea are older than the Bible and have equal standing as reference works since they document the history of the world that we live in and are validated by being Holy Books approved by Vishnu (God).

Please don't say it is untrue because it was written in a Holy Book. Do that and someone might point out the basis of your belief in Creationism :P


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eggman on 10/13/2010 2:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
You said some mean spirited and hateful things to me.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 7:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
Your destiny lies with ME , Skywalker123....Search your feelings, you KNOW it to be true!


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 12:30:05 PM , Rating: 3
Please....shut up...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Try and make me...


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 3:59:46 PM , Rating: 1
That's exaclty the point they want to accomplish. They hate Christianity because it contradicts their religion.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:22:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah - I read the same thing - basically tut-tutting lies about how Darwinian theory has gone unchallenged. Darwin challenged the theory himself.

In fact, the science behind it all would never have gotten to where it has today without being challenged. The theory itself has evolved.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 1:01:45 PM , Rating: 1
pwn? If pwn involves ad hominem and bald-faced lies, then sure.

All I see is a exercise in one-upsmanship and asshattery, used as hyperbole to counter hyperbole.

Evolution has been challenged many times throughout its history.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Micronite on 10/12/2010 4:58:28 PM , Rating: 3
The real argument with evolution is the idea that the science behind evolution somehow disproves the existence of God.

Unfortunately we find those whose narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible lead them to have a narrow-minded view of the science behind evolution.

For example, the Bible says that God created the earth and all things in it, but it doesn't exactly say how that was done.

I, in an interesting way, believe that the science of evolution further confirms my faith in God. I don't believe that God operates outside of the laws of physics, biology, etc... He just understands the laws better than we do.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By morphologia on 10/12/2010 5:08:26 PM , Rating: 3
The actual problem is that from the scientific side of the debate, the existence of God is irrelevant, and from the theological side of the debate the existence of God is the most important factor. Proponents of evolution don't care because God is not necessary for their studies, but opponents of evolution continuously try to make allowances for God by questioning the research.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
As the opponents of Evolution & to a lesser degree of Science are usually willing to admit that there are portions where the translation is not completely true to the original text, they could just say God designed the Universe and claim Evolution as a Divine Engineering tool.

Of course that would leave them with the headache of deciding if we are the ultimate design or simply the equivalent of ENIAC in Gods plans for his Creation. Uncertainty is not something they want to live with :P


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/12/2010 6:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
Well its also interesting that many of these strict interpretationist bible thumpers dont take the time to study the true origins of their holy book. From the simple, and OBVIOUS influences, such as compilation influence (King James, anyone), to other historical data about how stories were "filled in" (entire characters & events fabricated) to help the stories "make sense" by "learned" monks - a practice dating back to the old testament.

Lets not even get into what's lost in language and cultural (metaphorical meanings) translation.

I have yet to meet a creationist who has incorporated these factors into their "faith". But you better believe they'll turn the criticisms outward toward those new-fangled ideas before anything.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Shadowmaster625 on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 10:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
The flagellar motor irreducible, huh? Irrefutable, huh? For someone so confident you haven't spent much time learning about the subject.

Here, I will offer you a quick overview, watch, learn, and dance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 12:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science's television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe's argument.[39] In addition, the Type three secretion system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system.[40][41]

Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.[42]

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

oops?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Darwin recanted his theory of evolution as the origin of man before he died. The science has constantly been in flux. To elevate it to something so unquestionable as you have is just as bad as the young-earth creationists who won't listen to any reason.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 10:28:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
just as bad as the young-earth creationists who won't listen to any reason.

That's pretty bold of you to claim that you know what, how, and why people believe things. I am really sick and tired of being placed in a stereotype!! Your claim that creationists are illogical thick skull-ed fools that refuse to listen to other sides of the story is plain wrong and dishonest. I could create the same scenario by saying that "all atheists and evolutionists refuse to looks at different sides of the equation. But I don't because I can't claim to know what a population of people are thinking.

It's dishonest; so stop it. Just because people refuse to denounce their faith because you hate it does not mean they are "refusing to listen to reason". That is hateful and stupid to say.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
Chill, Quad - I wasn't making this personal. I wasn't implying that all young-earth creationists do not listen to reason. I was referring to those young-earth creationists who don't, whom the OP both addressed, and, ironically, also closely resembles, in his own way.

Cheers.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 11:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
No, he sure didn't. I have no idea why people believe these fairy tales, but to quote Darwin's daughter:

quote:
"I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier… The whole story has no foundation whatever."


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 1:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hadn't realized that. Still - he did have many doubts about it's validity as the origin of man. His journal indicates this.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Anoxanmore on 10/13/2010 1:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Of course he had doubts, the influencial religion at the time (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) still practiced leeching as a form of medicine. (Bleeding people out with leeches).

He was born 200 yrs too early in the scientific world. Same for a lot of great scientists.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
which is why specifically referred to his doubts about its validity. Darwin knew the theory to be incomplete, and it has come a long way since then.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Anoxanmore on 10/13/2010 2:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
The best scientists of all time always doubt their work until it can be verified, like evolution has been for the past 150+ yrs.

I also hate leeches.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 3:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
They are making a comeback. There are legitimate medical uses for leeches where blood needs to be removed from damaged tissues. Maggots also are being used by modern doctors. Since they eat only dead flesh they are very efficient at cleaning the dead meat out of wounds. The illness associated with maggots is actually the bacteria that are sharing the food supply, the maggots themselves are harmless. (not talking about botfly and other types that eat living flesh)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 3:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
??? Evolution hasn't been verified for 150 years in the sense the OP describes. It's been challenged, reassessed, and revised several times - like many theories (e.g. gravity).

My point is that it's retarded to claim the theory is, has been, and forever will be infallible. That's just not a very scientific thing to do.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 3:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the influencial religion at the time (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) still practiced leeching as a form of medicine. (Bleeding people out with leeches).

So you are saying that people used the bible teaching to perform leechings? Fallacy. Total smoke and mirror especially since you cannot point out where the Bible condones this kind of behavior.

Did you know that there is a lot of science in the bible that was waaaay before it's time? Things like washing your hands in running water, sub atomic particles,dead bodies are unclean, etc etc. It even says, "life in in the blood." So leeching was NOT a derivative from the Bible.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By marvdmartian on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 2:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
You know, that has an element of truth in it. In the Book of Genesis it says that Adam and Eve had three children. 1 died and the other 2 brought home wives from neighboring kingdoms. After this Adam and Eve had more children.

I've always wondered what planet the wives came from, as Adam, Eve and the three sons were the only human beings on Earth. Of course if Cain and Seth married monkey maidens, that resolves the question.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 3:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.htm...

Perhaps you were reading the word of God with a negative agenda?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 5:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Nope I was reading the Bible without an agenda. Reading the Bible to search for support for a preconceived idea is a bad idea. Better is to search for evidence both for and against. Best is to read the Bible and learn what it ACTUALLY says without worrying about someone elses interpretation.

I am simply citing one example of the Bible disagreeing with itself. One site I have found this example on had the parallel texts from Bibles dating back to the 14th century with no change in meaning. Another is the 2 different descriptions of the creation of Adam & Eve which gives rise to the enduring tale of Lilith, Adam's first wife.

For other (pro-religion) answers to the same question try:
http://www.dailytech.com/PostComment.aspx?newsid=1...

My favorite is; the 4004 date of Creation is a misinterpretation and the Earth really is billions of years old and therefore the question of who did Cain marry does not matter :P Just one of the alternatives this author posits :)

Another answer given is "Others". In the Bible it is said that humans bred with the giant Anakim and gave birth to 'Men of Renown'. So I guess their brothers really were monkey's uncles (Monkey being the derogatory term for all non-Homo Sapien human species and related apes)

Linked as further reading:
http://everything2.com/title/Biblical+Inconsistenc...
Religious Evolution demonstrated!!!

This site is probably Pro-Christian
"Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies"
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis...
quote:
Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

Many have assumed that Cain took one of his sisters for a wife, but no children are mentioned until Seth was born much later in Genesis 4:25. Eve is said to give birth to "his brother." No mention is made of a sister, and the Bible does not say Cain's wife was "his sister." Cain left Eden alone before he took a wife. How could Cain be afraid of people that would kill him if there are only three people on earth? God set a mark on Cain so that anyone who found him would not kill him. This implies a number of other people were living at this time, or there would be no need of a mark. Cain settled in the land of Nob with enough people to build a city after Cain's wife gives birth to Enoch. Cain names the city after Enoch (Fischer 1996, 231-7; There is some debate over who built this city. See Wenham 1987, 111). There seems to be many more people besides Adam's family. Some divide them as the Adamites and the Pre-Adamic race.


Like the author of the quote I wonder why the Book of Genesis says that all children following the first 3 came after their marriage. And assuming there are undocumented daughters of other children to marry, how did they come to set up complete additional kingdoms independent of Adam and Eve's holding within the first 130 years with no mention whatsoever of these additional settlements? (even assuming that a city state was a kingdom, that is quite a few people)

All agree that the solution to the inconsistencies can be found in the writings of religious scholars who add to the Biblical text their own speculations then declare the resulting mashup to be Revealed Truth that proves the truth of the text they added.

Others refer to Jewish texts that were originally excluded from the Bible for not being acceptable as Christian canon.

I love the apologist you directed me to who says that the Universe requires a Creator, but that God does not based on what we know of God's existence. Interesting idea since there is nothing known about God other than Jews, Christians & Moslems all agree that Vishnu is not the God of Abraham and therefore we are not supposed to worship Him. Some will go on to say that since the God of Abraham is the only one, it is thus proven that Vishnu does not exist. If it is true that the God of Abraham is the one and only God, then how were people able to worship other Gods? It is recorded that God specifically forbid His followers from worshipping other Gods in addition to the rules about Idols and other representations of other Gods.

Questions are the bane of the Fundamentalist believer as was shown at the Scopes Monkey Trial. In Science these same questions are tested and proven tools that lead to the development of what we today call "High Technology".

Personally I will use the tools shown successful and wait for the day when God & The Creation Story can be tested. Until then the Christian Bible and supporting texts will be the "Christian Myths" in the same manner we now call the Norse Holy writings the "Norse Myths" and Greek Holy writings the "Greek Myths".

The word 'myth' simply means a set of religious works that are based on nothing but the belief of the reader. When the reader stops believing, then the Myths become myths.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/12/2010 8:16:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
don't most of you believe that the world would be a peaceful place without religion?

Humans are a violent species. People can find many excuses to ruthlessly kill each other. A world without religion would be a world with one less excuse. I think the world would be much less violent without religion, but I don't for an instance think the world would be peaceful. Humans will find other reasons to kill each other.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/12/2010 8:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you would agree that spewing needless hate for me and my religion does nothing in terms of making this a better place to live?

I don't think "spewing needless hate" will accomplish a lot, but removing religion has a lot more benefits beyond just making the world less violent. Without religion, we wouldn't have to deal with the religious attempting to hold back scientific advancements that disagree with their superstitious beliefs. We also wouldn't have to fight political battles against people with a religious agenda. I'm not saying religion doesn't have benefits, but I personally feel that the world would be overall better off without religion, and I also believe that there isn't really a need for religion in the modern world. But those are personal opinions.
quote:
If the subject is Islam and jihad, then yes the world would be a much less violent place (without Islam), especially in the middle east. I don't ever recall reading a single word in the bible that calls for Christians to be violent.

Not specifically, but it doesn't need to. People just need to believe what they are doing is in the name of their god, even if holy scripture doesn't actually command it. If you remember, the time that Christianity ruled the world was called the "Dark Ages" for a reason. Religion is a powerful political tool.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/12/2010 9:15:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Without religion, we wouldn't have to deal with the religious attempting to hold back scientific advancements that disagree with their superstitious beliefs.

You mean like how billions of people believe that life should be treated as sacred? Things like in vitro/embryotic stem cell manipulation is directly "playing with life". No if, ands, or buts, these types of "sciences" are a perversion and mockery of life.
quote:
We also wouldn't have to fight political battles against people with a religious agenda

What kind of stab in the dark is this? You mean like the types of cases that try to change the definition of murder to "choice"?
quote:
I'm not saying religion doesn't have benefits, but I personally feel that the world would be overall better off without religion,

We're going to have to just disagree then.
quote:
People just need to believe what they are doing is in the name of their god, even if holy scripture doesn't actually command it.

So you are saying that Christians believe it is ok to sin if it's "in the name of God"? LoL that's the most ridiculous thing I have every heard. From cover to cover, the Bible explains how to be a good person and treat your neighbors; Geez man, it even teaches you to LOVE your enemy!
quote:
If you remember, the time that Christianity ruled the world was called the "Dark Ages" for a reason. Religion is a powerful political tool.

I can't see anything in the Bible that promotes atrocious acts that were committed during the dark ages. Will you point these out for me please? If these people would have been reading their Bible, they would have known better.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/12/2010 9:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean like how billions of people believe that life should be treated as sacred? Things like in vitro/embryotic stem cell manipulation is directly "playing with life". No if, ands, or buts, these types of "sciences" are a perversion and mockery of life.
You can have an opinion on these sciences however you please, but base your opinions on facts, not faith and dogma. These sciences are not a "mockery of life", they are attempts to understand life better. Whether the methods are ethical or not should be personal opinion, not ancient superstition.

I was talking more about having to waste time with religions arguing against science that disagrees with their religious views, whether it's evolution, a round earth, helio-centrism, etc (yes, people still exist that argue against the latter two).
quote:
What kind of stab in the dark is this? You mean like the types of cases that try to change the definition of murder to "choice"?

I don't know what you are making a reference to. I'm talking about things like the Kansas Board of Education proclaiming creationism should be taught in science classes, or that gay's shouldn't have rights because they aren't "how god created them"(Yes, this was just said this week. How do they exist the way they are if god didn't create them that way? And no, I'm not taking a side in the gay rights argument, I'm saying opinions on it should be based on facts and evidence, not religion. Think for yourself and decide for yourself.).
quote:
We're going to have to just disagree then.

Fair enough.
quote:
So you are saying that Christians believe it is ok to sin if it's "in the name of God"? LoL that's the most ridiculous thing I have every heard. From cover to cover, the Bible explains how to be a good person and treat your neighbors; Geez man, it even teaches you to LOVE your enemy!

You missed my point. Religion is used as a political tool. It doesn't really matter what the religion actually teaches, as long as someone can convince enough people that the religion wants something done, even if that act goes against what the religion actually teaches. Have you heard of the Salem Witch Trials? Those were good Christians burning people because they believed those people were witches, and god wanted witches burned. I haven't read the Koran, but I doubt it tells Muslims to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people.

quote:
I can't see anything in the Bible that promotes atrocious acts that were committed during the dark ages. Will you point these out for me please? If these people would have been reading their Bible, they would have known better.

Again, it doesn't matter if holy scripture says it or not, all that matters is people come to believe that is what their god desires. It's pretty clear the dark ages happened, along with the crusades. You are arguing that Christianity didn't tell them to do any of the horrible things that those Christians did, and I'd agree with you. But that is not my point. My point is that those people did those terrible things in the name of Christianity because they actually believed that's what needed to be done for god. It also goes to show how interpretation of scripture is very subjective.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 10:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can have an opinion on these sciences however you please, but base your opinions on facts, not faith and dogma.

So you are claiming to know for FACT when a bunch of cells becomes human? Really? So everyone on planet earth has established this as fact? No, the Christians believe (most of them) that life begins at conception. You think just because the definition of murder has changed that you can speak facts.
quote:
These sciences are not a "mockery of life", they are attempts to understand life better.

How about this, YOU can go make a mockery of life if you want to; but don't do it in my country. Go to Russia or China where they don't seem to value life like we do here in the States. Anyway you look at it, they are perverting the sanctity of life.
quote:
..a round earth, helio-centrism, etc (yes, people still exist that argue against the latter two).

You are truly a talking-points regurgitating fool. Please don't tell me that you actually believe what you just said... Every single Christian that reads their Bible should know that 1. the earth is round and 2. the earth is not the center of the solar system. Both topics are covered in the bible, so I'm not going to sit back and watch you distort the words. .00000000000000000001 percent of the population believes that the earth is flat, and you use it as an example for all Christians; good job.
quote:
I'm talking about things like the Kansas Board of Education proclaiming creationism should be taught in science classes

Oh, so now the truth is out. You hate the idea of diversity in education and exposure to different ideas when it involves anything Christian. It's funny that you don't seem to mind teaching anything that already agrees with your beliefs.
quote:
or that gay's shouldn't have rights...I'm saying opinions on it should be based on facts and evidence, not religion.

Marriage was created and defined by God. Gays already have every single right and privilege as a married couple do save for one single thing: They can't use the word/meaning of marriage. They want to pervert the word and meaning that we were blessed with by God, and you think it's appalling that we fight against it?! And how do you say "fact" anything we are discussing extremely emotionally and spiritually charged debates? What "facts" about homosexuality would you like to throw out on the table?
quote:
Religion is used as a political tool. It doesn't really matter what the religion actually teaches, as long as someone can convince enough people that the religion wants something done, even if that act goes against what the religion actually teaches.

Wow, what a beautiful logic fallacy! So you claim that convincing someone that they should do something even though they KNOW that they are not supposed to do is the fault of the religion?! HAHA! NO, it's the fault of the slime-ball that PERVERTS the word of God, not the word of God itself.
quote:
Have you heard of the Salem Witch Trials? Those were good Christians burning people because they believed those people were witches, and god wanted witches burned.

We have talked about this countless times, yet you keep bringing it up like someone myself and others are going to be brainwashed by the crap that comes out of your mouth! I think you are trying to mix laws of the land and the laws of God. Witchcraft was a religion used to murder and harm others; and if the laws of the land (and God) say that these people are not allowed to exist in a free society, then so be it! Should we let murdered have free reign? Are you complaining that we put murdered to death? That's exactly what was happening (also, I think about 99% of them were actually hanged, not burned).
quote:
I haven't read the Koran, but I doubt it tells Muslims to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people.

Well, I HAVE read many parts of the Quran, and it directly and unmistakeably calls for the murder of non-believers. Something of which you will NEVER find while reading the bible. So yes, that is a religion of a false and violent God. You should research before conversing on a subject.
quote:
Again, it doesn't matter if holy scripture says it or not, all that matters is people come to believe that is what their god desires.

That is a very stupid way of thinking. So my religion tells me to EXACTLY what NOT to do, but somehow I find ways around it? Being a Christian does not give you a right to fight "lawyer loopholes" in the system. You are creating a false stereotype because you plain and simply hate Christians.
quote:
My point is that those people did those terrible things in the name of Christianity because they actually believed that's what needed to be done for god.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ARGUE LOL! So by the same logic, do you blame the gun for someone getting show in the back? "Well, if there were no guns, then that person would have not murdered the other!" Dumbest thing I have ever heard. If someone is going to commit murder, they will use anything and everything at their disposal. Blaming the religion for the actions of a few bad apples is stupid. ; some people just refuse to cooperate with the rest of humanity when peace and love for one another is concerned.
quote:
It also goes to show how interpretation of scripture is very subjective.

Funny how you say that the interpretation for scripture is up to interpretation (which it is to a varying degree), but you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to see that evidence for evolution/young earth/creation isn't subjective. You can't see past your blind hypocrisy concerning this.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By smyrgl on 10/13/2010 10:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every single Christian that reads their Bible should know that 1. the earth is round and 2. the earth is not the center of the solar system.


Oh really? Isaiah 40:22 refers to the Earth as a circle (not a sphere). In Job it is described as being on pillars suspended over nothing. I assume you will choose not to take this literally but then why should we take ANYTHING in the Bible literally including your definition of life or evolution?

quote:
Oh, so now the truth is out. You hate the idea of diversity in education and exposure to different ideas when it involves anything Christian. It's funny that you don't seem to mind teaching anything that already agrees with your beliefs.


Science class is not about diversity of ideas, it is about teaching scientifically valid theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all, nor is Intelligent Design (i.e. Creationism in a clown suit) because it uses an unknown mechanism and violates the principle of parsimony.

The minute that creationists come up with an actual scientific theory that they are willing to subject to peer review then they will be allowed in a science class. But they never will since their is zero scientific validity to creationism or ID.

quote:
Wow, what a beautiful logic fallacy! So you claim that convincing someone that they should do something even though they KNOW that they are not supposed to do is the fault of the religion?! HAHA! NO, it's the fault of the slime-ball that PERVERTS the word of God, not the word of God itself.


It's actually YOU who is engaged in the logical fallacy here. It's called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy--look it up. It's a favorite of religious apologists everywhere.

quote:
We have talked about this countless times, yet you keep bringing it up like someone myself and others are going to be brainwashed by the crap that comes out of your mouth! I think you are trying to mix laws of the land and the laws of God. Witchcraft was a religion used to murder and harm others; and if the laws of the land (and God) say that these people are not allowed to exist in a free society, then so be it! Should we let murdered have free reign? Are you complaining that we put murdered to death? That's exactly what was happening (also, I think about 99% of them were actually hanged, not burned).


If they could have actually proven that then these people would have been charged with murder, not witchcraft. But obviously this was not the case and this is yet again an example of ridiculous religious apologism.

quote:
Well, I HAVE read many parts of the Quran, and it directly and unmistakeably calls for the murder of non-believers. Something of which you will NEVER find while reading the bible. So yes, that is a religion of a false and violent God. You should research before conversing on a subject.


You never find it when reading the Bible eh? I quoted two passages where the god of the Bible explicitly called for the extermination of people PURELY because they didn't believe in him. There are dozens of examples like this, your reading comprehension must be extremely poor.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 11:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isaiah 40:22 refers to the Earth as a circle (not a sphere).

The bible CLEARLY teaches that the earth is round.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.ht...

It is evident that you are purposefully distorting the word of God. I refuse to debate with anyone who blatantly lies.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
At least one Catholic Pope has disagreed with you. By implication many more Catholic Popes have disagreed with you as Galileo was not exonerated until just a few short years ago.

His crime...He said that Earth revolves around the sun based on his Scientific Investigation. The Church said that the Earth is the center and jailed Galileo for disagreeing and refusing to recant. Up until the end of the 20th Century, the official stance of the Church had been that Galileo was wrong based on the evidence of the Pope's beliefs.

The Arabic word jihad has an exact translation in English "crusade". Media generally ignores this translation due to Crusaders having been fine upstanding citizens who murdered infidels in the name of God whereas Jihadis are lowlife terrorist scum who murder infidels in the name of God.

Of course the popular view of the Crusades ignores the reality of brutality, viciousness and general nonChristian behavior of these exemplary Christian soldiers, just as modern media fails to notice that Jihadis tend to be Fundamentalists out of touch with mainstream Islam.

The witch trials also drowned witches. One reliable test was to tie heavy rocks into the suspects clothes and then throw the suspect into a lake or river. If they lived they were innocent. The beauty of this trial system is that you never have to worry about how to confine those convicted :P

One part of the Bible says the world is a disc, another says it stands on pillars. You disagree with the Bible and say that Earth is a free floating sphere and base this disagreement with the Bible on the truth of the Biblical account...Is it just me or was there something wrong with that last sentence???


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/13/2010 7:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you are claiming to know for FACT when a bunch of cells becomes human? Really? So everyone on planet earth has established this as fact?

I never claimed anything. You are asserting that you know my opinion on the subject when you don't. I simply said to base your opinion on the subject on fact, not religion.
quote:
No, the Christians believe (most of them) that life begins at conception.

What facts do you have to back up that stance?
quote:
You think just because the definition of murder has changed that you can speak facts.

You don't know what I think.
quote:
How about this, YOU can go make a mockery of life if you want to; but don't do it in my country.

Didn't realized you owned the country.

quote:
Every single Christian that reads their Bible should know that 1. the earth is round and 2. the earth is not the center of the solar system. Both topics are covered in the bible, so I'm not going to sit back and watch you distort the words.


"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" Revelations 7:1. Sorry bud, spheres don't have corners. Have you actually read this book?

quote:
Oh, so now the truth is out. You hate the idea of diversity in education and exposure to different ideas when it involves anything Christian.

No, I don't like the idea of religion being taught in science classes. I have no problem with Christian ideas being taught in schools, but they belong in mythology classes. If ID was a valid scientific theory, I would have no problem with it being taught in science classes. It isn't a scientific theory, it is just a way for the church to push religious dogma on the rest of us. Keep religion out of science, and we will keep thinking out of churches.
quote:
Marriage was created and defined by God.

Fail. You clearly missed the point I was attempting to make as clearly as I possibly could. You also assume that you know my stance on these subjects, and you obviously don't.

quote:
Well, I HAVE read many parts of the Quran, and it directly and unmistakeably calls for the murder of non-believers. Something of which you will NEVER find while reading the bible. So yes, that is a religion of a false and violent God. You should research before conversing on a subject.

You are kidding right? Deuteronomy 17:2-7 plainly says you should kill anyone who worships another god. Seriously, have you even read the bible you praise so much? You show a severe lack of knowledge of what it actually says.
quote:
but you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to see that evidence for evolution/young earth/creation isn't subjective.

Because it isn't subjective. I've explained this to you many times. You being too dense to understand this is not my problem.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/14/2010 10:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: No, the Christians believe (most of them) that life begins at conception. What facts do you have to back up that stance?

quote:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13, 16).

If they read in their Bible, you can clearly see how life begins at conception.
quote:
Didn't realized you owned the country.

Yep. I'm a tax paying, land owning, US citizen :)
quote:
"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" Revelations 7:1. Sorry bud, spheres don't have corners. Have you actually read this book?

Have you ever heard of cardinal directions? You obviously did not even bother to visit the link that describes this in detail.
quote:
No, I don't like the idea of religion being taught in science classes.

Evolution is a religion, since it requires mostly faith to believe; yet it is taught as fact in the science classes.
quote:
I have no problem with Christian ideas being taught in schools, but they belong in mythology classes.

You are such a jerk. I hope you eventually grow up and stop with the callous and snide remarks.
quote:
If ID was a valid scientific theory, I would have no problem with it being taught in science classes. It isn't a scientific theory, it is just a way for the church to push religious dogma on the rest of us.

Who are you to say that ID isn't a valid theory? Thankfully, you do not dictate what the rest of the world think; however I could imagine that you wish you had the power of the thought police.
quote:
Keep religion out of science, and we will keep thinking out of churches.

The more remarks that you make like this, the less of a man you become. It takes a real coward to sling hate and brute remarks at Christians while on the internet. Big man you are...
quote:
You are kidding right? Deuteronomy 17:2-7 plainly says you should kill anyone who worships another god. Seriously, have you even read the bible you praise so much? You show a severe lack of knowledge of what it actually says.

The Old Testament has been discusses elsewhere in this forum; do a ctrl-f search because I'm not going to type/copy paste pages that have already been talked about.
quote:
Because it isn't subjective. I've explained this to you many times. You being too dense to understand this is not my problem.

This is the stopping point right here. We have different opinions about life and the way of the world, and when I express mine your only response is: "you are wrong. you are stupid. I am right. You should change your belief because I am right." Calling someone "dense" just because they don't agree with your opinions is childish, selfish, and telling of your overpowering superiority complex. I'm pretty sure that this is the last time I talk to you about this because of that smug, arrogant attitude.
You don't want to discuss, you want to insult Christians and show your brute force mentality.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Calindar on 10/15/2010 6:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they read in their Bible, you can clearly see how life begins at conception.

Yep, that's crystal clear. Don't really see the point of that though?

quote:
Evolution is a religion, since it requires mostly faith to believe; yet it is taught as fact in the science classes.

No it isn't Evolution relies on empirical evidence. Religion has no evidence.

quote:
You are such a jerk. I hope you eventually grow up and stop with the callous and snide remarks.

Why do you have to stoop to calling names? What was so offensive about recommending Christianity be taught in Mythology? Should we also teach about the Greek gods in science class? What is the difference between your Christian beliefs and those of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, etc? The only difference is that they believed those things a long time ago, and you believe what you believe now. The gods may be different, but the motivations, reasoning, and superstitions are all very similar.

quote:
Who are you to say that ID isn't a valid theory? Thankfully, you do not dictate what the rest of the world think; however I could imagine that you wish you had the power of the thought police.

The fact that "Intelligent Design" was only created as a global find and replace of "Creationism" in a Christian science book after a court ruling said that creationism wasn't science and couldn't be taught in class, it doesn't have a very legitimate beginning. Also, since ID is really just an attempt to wrap a little science around creationism, they violated a fundamental ideology of science by starting with their conclusion(creationism), and attempting to find evidence to prove it, instead of starting with the evidence, and reaching a conclusion that supports it all(evolution).

Beyond that, the fact that they must rely on an unobservable, untestable, never seen entity with absolutely no evidence for it's existence in order for their "theory"(it isn't a theory) to work knocks it out of the realm of science and into religion. Luckily, real scientists, and the courts, agree with me.

quote:
We have different opinions about life and the way of the world, and when I express mine your only response is: "you are wrong. you are stupid. I am right. You should change your belief because I am right." Calling someone "dense" just because they don't agree with your opinions is childish, selfish, and telling of your overpowering superiority complex.

It isn't different opinions about life, it's different opinions about how science, observation and experimentation actually work.
I have already explained to you that evidence is only subjective when there is a small amount of it, because multiple theories could be supported by said evidence. With a single piece of evidence, many different explanations could be a plausible conclusion to explain how that evidence came to be. As the amount of evidence grows, it becomes less subjective, weeds out the wrong theories as the body of evidence as a whole doesn't support it any more, while sustaining plausible theories while the body of evidence still completely supports them.

The best theory is the one that is supported by the entire body of evidence with little contradiction. Theories that cannot support the entire body are dismissed. With a large body of evidence, the evidence is no longer subjective.

You aren't wrong because you have a different opinion than mine, and you aren't wrong because you see the evidence differently. You are wrong because the entire body of evidence as a whole supports evolution, while little evidence can be used to support creation. You are wrong because the evidence says you are.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eggman on 10/13/2010 3:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
it even teaches you to LOVE your enemy!

Hmmm, I thought that it taught to torture your enemy!


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By smyrgl on 10/13/2010 8:26:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:

If the subject is Islam and jihad, then yes the world would be a much less violent place (without Islam), especially in the middle east. I don't ever recall reading a single word in the bible that calls for Christians to be violent.


You must not have been reading it very hard then. The Bible is absolutely FULL of god telling his followers to commit acts of horrific violence against non-believers. Just a few examples:

quote:
Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (NIV): However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.


God orders his followers to murder everyone (including women and children) for nothing other than the crime of worshiping a different god. You can see this again during the fall of Jericho.

quote:
Joshua 6:17-21 (NIV): The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD ... But keep away from the devoted things ... All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury. When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.


Once again killing everyone. There are literally DOZENS of examples like this...you really want to say that the Bible doesn't have an examples of violence?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 9:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
His original assertion stands unrefuted. He originally said

quote:

I don't ever recall reading a single word in the bible that calls for Christians to be violent.


All of your examples were from the Old Testament, where God was giving instructions to a NATION of people on how to survive and preserve their culture in a region full of hostile neighbors. That is vastly different from the instructions God gives in the New Testament, where God instructs a CHURCH on how to interact with the world.

For example:

Jesus said in Matthew 26:52

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Jesus also taught in Matthew 5:38

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."

So, especially when contrasted to Islam, Christianity is actually a very pacifist religion.

Even if you wanted to make the case that Christians were somehow still obligated to follow the old testament commands given to the nation of Israel, by and large we don't see this happening in the world, as the vast majority of religious violence comes from adherents of Islam.

So your attempts to disparage Christianity and portray it as a violent religion fall woefully short.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By smyrgl on 10/13/2010 10:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
His original assertion stands unrefuted.


So in your mind the Old Testament morality no longer applies then? So you'd gladly say that those actions were wrong?

quote:
All of your examples were from the Old Testament, where God was giving instructions to a NATION of people on how to survive and preserve their culture in a region full of hostile neighbors. That is vastly different from the instructions God gives in the New Testament, where God instructs a CHURCH on how to interact with the world.


By murdering men, women and children for nothing more than the crime of not believing in the same god. And you think this was morally justified I assume?

quote:
So, especially when contrasted to Islam, Christianity is actually a very pacifist religion.


I guess you missed the lesson in history class where they taught about the Crusades and the Inquisitions.

quote:
Even if you wanted to make the case that Christians were somehow still obligated to follow the old testament commands given to the nation of Israel, by and large we don't see this happening in the world, as the vast majority of religious violence comes from adherents of Islam.


No question that this is the case today, but the greater history of Christendom is replete with violent oppression. We aren't talking ancient history either, or weren't you aware that Hitler was a Christian and the Nazi ideology was heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalism? It's all right there in Mein Kampf:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml

Of course I'm sure you'd say that Hitler wasn't a "real Christian" just like moderate Muslims would say the same about their fundamentalists. But essentially both sides are equally as violent.

quote:
So your attempts to disparage Christianity and portray it as a violent religion fall woefully short.


Only for those who never bothered to pick up a history book.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
> So in your mind the Old Testament morality no longer applies then? So you'd gladly say that those actions were wrong?

Historians aren't Monday Morning Quarterbacks - they observe historical context. Context was given. Judging actions executed millenia ago by today's standards seems unreasonable.

> By murdering men, women and children for nothing more than the crime of not believing in the same god. And you think this was morally justified I assume?

I'm a bit rusty on my OT, but I seem to recall the Jewish people generally being provoked or enslaved through that time, when bloodshed was involved. You could be right, though (and I wouldn't lose any sleep)

> I guess you missed the lesson in history class where they taught about the Crusades and the Inquisitions.

Touche`. A blight and a tragedy. Something everyone can be glad is behind us.

>No question that this is the case today, but the greater history of Christendom is replete with violent oppression. We aren't talking ancient history either, or weren't you aware that Hitler was a Christian and the Nazi ideology was heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalism? It's all right there in Mein Kampf:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml

Of course I'm sure you'd say that Hitler wasn't a "real Christian" just like moderate Muslims would say the same about their fundamentalists. But essentially both sides are equally as violent.


...and? Hitler didn't base his holocaust on scripture. He didn't start a world war with Europe and Russia because it was a holy war commissioned by God. That's kind of like saying that Rush Limbaugh is a Democrat because he voted for one 40 years ago.

> Only for those who never bothered to pick up a history book.

No, this time you made some points (Inquisition, Crusades, etc.), but last post you actually did fall short.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 10:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
Apologies in advance - it's tough to follow the entire chain you guys had going, when half f it is here & there, and the other half is collapse under a 0 rating.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By smyrgl on 10/13/2010 10:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Historians aren't Monday Morning Quarterbacks - they observe historical context. Context was given. Judging actions executed millenia ago by today's standards seems unreasonable.


I agree, except that Christians still worship the Bible and look to it as a beacon of morality. If you want to discard the OT then fine, but if you quote from it to try and demonstrate modern morality (as Christians do to vilify things like Homosexuality and Evolution) then you have to take the whole package.

quote:
I'm a bit rusty on my OT, but I seem to recall the Jewish people generally being provoked or enslaved through that time, when bloodshed was involved. You could be right, though (and I wouldn't lose any sleep)


Read my quotes above.

quote:
...and? Hitler didn't base his holocaust on scripture. He didn't start a world war with Europe and Russia because it was a holy war commissioned by God. That's kind of like saying that Rush Limbaugh is a Democrat because he voted for one 40 years ago.


You haven't actually read Mein Kampf have you? Hitler's beliefs and how they influenced the Holocaust are laid out in detail and they didn't change at all when he came to power. Anyone who thinks the Nazis weren't a fundamentalist Christian movement are engaged in historical revisionism.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 11:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to discard the OT then fine, but if you quote from it to try and demonstrate modern morality (as Christians do to vilify things like Homosexuality and Evolution) then you have to take the whole package.

Wgbutler actually did a great job in explaining the skewed view of the OT that you share with many scoffers. I can bet that you have never actually read the bible,(the whole thing) instead of doing a google search of anti-religious talking points and posting them here.
quote:
Hitler's beliefs and how they influenced the Holocaust are laid out in detail and they didn't change at all when he came to power. Anyone who thinks the Nazis weren't a fundamentalist Christian movement are engaged in historical revisionism.

You blaming the nazi holocost on Christians is just laughable. There is NOWHERE in God's word that accounts for what Hitler did.

It's impossible to debate with someone who changes definitions while confusing opinions with facts.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By smyrgl on 10/13/2010 11:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wgbutler actually did a great job in explaining the skewed view of the OT that you share with many scoffers. I can bet that you have never actually read the bible,(the whole thing) instead of doing a google search of anti-religious talking points and posting them here.


I've read a heck of a lot more of it then you apparently have. Six years of Catholic school tends to make someone intimately familiar with the subject.

You want to deny Old Testament morality then fine, admit that the Israelites murdering the Canaanites (including women and children) purely for the worship of another god was morally wrong. While you are at it, also decry Moses for murdering his own people just for the crime of worshiping a false idol.

quote:
You blaming the nazi holocost on Christians is just laughable. There is NOWHERE in God's word that accounts for what Hitler did.


Hitler and Goebbels thought so, maybe you should actually read Mein Kampf. So did much of the Nazi upper echelon, and there were plenty of supporters for the Third Reich from within the church. The fact that not all Christians believed in Hitler's particular flavor of Christianity is totally irrelevant.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By clovell on 10/13/2010 1:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
> I agree, except that Christians still worship the Bible and look to it as a beacon of morality. If you want to discard the OT then fine, but if you quote from it to try and demonstrate modern morality (as Christians do to vilify things like Homosexuality and Evolution) then you have to take the whole package.

Fair point.

> Read my quotes above.

I have, now. Joshua's leadership of the Isrealites and the ensuring wars were justified at the time as the reclamation of their land following their enslavement in Egypt. I don't care to moralize on that, but I feel my assertion that they were generally provoked (whether enough to justify war, again, is not what I'm debating), still stands.

> You haven't actually read Mein Kampf have you? Hitler's beliefs and how they influenced the Holocaust are laid out in detail and they didn't change at all when he came to power. Anyone who thinks the Nazis weren't a fundamentalist Christian movement are engaged in historical revisionism.

No, I never took the time to read Mein Kampf. I just don't understand how Christianity influenced many of Hitler's wartime decisions - such as attacking Russia. If anything he was a fringe radicalist, and he was most certainly more aligned with the Eugenics movement than any traditional religion. I find that attempts to demonize traditional Christianity by tying it to Hitler equally revisionist, particularly when considering there are far better examples available (Inquisition, Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc.)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By eggman on 10/13/2010 3:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, except that Christians still worship the Bible and look to it as a beacon of morality. If you want to discard the OT then fine, but if you quote from it to try and demonstrate modern morality (as Christians do to vilify things like Homosexuality and Evolution) then you have to take the whole package.

Oh no, you can't do that! How would I have been created?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 5:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Read the Bible. If you accept the Bible and all that it teaches as infallible, then the question of your Creation is answered by the portion covering that subject.

I find it strange that you will cite the Bible as the unerring foundation of your beliefs alongside disbelief in those portions you don't agree with.

If your only standard is your agreement or lack of agreement with the lesson, then you have nothing but a lot of excuses printed in a book. If the Bible is infallible, then ALL of it is. If any portion of the Bible is discredited then the ENTIRE text is not infallible. In this case, the question becomes 'which other sections are incorrect and are awaiting identification as such?'


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 11:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

So in your mind the Old Testament morality no longer applies then? So you'd gladly say that those actions were wrong?


I don't think so. You have to keep in mind that God has the advantage of being able to see into the future and see the consequences of action or inaction. If allowing survivors from the nearby pagan cultures would mean that Israel would become morally contaminated by their pagan practices (some of these cultures practiced child sacrifice) which would eventually mean more death in the long run then it would have been a morally plausible command to give the Israelites.

Think of it like a quarantine situation. By openly tolerating and promoting homosexuality, for example, we have allowed millions of people to die due to AIDS and other problems which were largely introduced into the population through the gay population. If we had not adopted this widespread acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, there is a good chance that many people would have been spared.

Also remember that since it is God who gives life, He is in a unique position to take life. Hence it would not have been immoral for God to command the Israelites to wipe out various people groups He saw as a threat to the nation He was trying to establish.

quote:

By murdering men, women and children for nothing more than the crime of not believing in the same god. And you think this was morally justified I assume?


See my previous post. And they were not "murdered" for their unbelief, but for their immoral practices. The Old Testament specifically mentions many of their abominable practices, such as child sacrifice, that God wanted to completely eliminate.

quote:

I guess you missed the lesson in history class where they taught about the Crusades and the Inquisitions.


A couple of things about the Crusades:

1) They were really more of a poltical response to Islamic aggression than they were a holy war. The fact that the Catholic Church sanctioned the war is ancillary to the real case.

2) There were atrocities committed by the European forces during the Crusades, but to lay these at the feet of Christianity is extremely unfair, as there is nothing in the teachings of Christ or the apostles that would have sanctioned the atrocities. Some of the victims of the Crusaders were Christians! They wiped out the city of Constantinople during the fourth Crusade because the Crusaders wanted to sack the city and loot its riches. Here is a prime example of the real motivation for the war not being a religious fervor, but instead simple greed. Christianity was merely a convenient excuse to justify some of these immoral deeds.

So it is a logical fallacy to judge a belief system by its adherents.

quote:

No question that this is the case today, but the greater history of Christendom is replete with violent oppression. We aren't talking ancient history either, or weren't you aware that Hitler was a Christian and the Nazi ideology was heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalism? It's all right there in Mein Kampf:


This is a seriously bad argument. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler paid lip service to Christianity when he was running for office in order to get elected (in much the same way as Obama does) but the fact is that he detested Christianity.

For example, Hitler said:

quote:

It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself. -Hitler's Table Talk, pg 61

As far as we are concerned, we've succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. -Hitler's Table Talk, pg 394

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity. -Hitler's Table Talk, pg 418

But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation... -Hitler's Table Talk, pg 144

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. -Hitler's Table Talk, pg 46

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. -Hitler's Table Talk, pg 51


This is just a sampling of the way Hitler felt about Christianity. There are many more quotes I could give. But you can get a sense for his views by simply reading some of the comments in this blog. The viewpoints on Christianity from the typical atheists here and Hitler are eerily similar to each other.

quote:

Only for those who never bothered to pick up a history book.


To get a real taste of how Christians endured the 2nd world war, I suggest you read up on Corrie ten Boom, who was a devout Christian who risked her life to help Jews escape Nazi Germany. Many of her family members were murdered by the Nazis, but her Christian convictions gave her the strength and courage to persevere and help as many people as she could.

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


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 5:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
So it was acceptable for the followers of the God of Abraham to murder people based on their not sharing the same Faith (Mosaic Jews stealing someone else's lands)

But it is unacceptable for the followers of the God of Abraham to murder people based on their not sharing the same Faith (Islamic Jihadis defending their lands)

So which side do you really defend. The belief of worshippers of the God of Abraham that the infidel neighbors should be murdered or the belief of worshippers of the God of Abraham that the infidels should be shown tolerance?

Remember that both viewpoints regard the other as wrong. Remember also that both base their opinion for/against murder on exactly the same basis...My God, The God of Abraham, ordered it!

Catholics and Protestants still murder each other around the world on the basis of the Old Testament also.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/14/2010 7:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

So it was acceptable for the followers of the God of Abraham to murder people based on their not sharing the same Faith (Mosaic Jews stealing someone else's lands)

But it is unacceptable for the followers of the God of Abraham to murder people based on their not sharing the same Faith (Islamic Jihadis defending their lands)

So which side do you really defend. The belief of worshippers of the God of Abraham that the infidel neighbors should be murdered or the belief of worshippers of the God of Abraham that the infidels should be shown tolerance?


It doesn't really matter what any group of worshippers think. What matters is what God Himself thinks. That is the only opinion that counts.

It's unacceptable for anyone to kill anyone based on a subjective opinion of what they think God wants them to do. But if God actually materializes right in front of you, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it is a manifestation of God, and then and commands you to do something, even something like sacrificing your only child on an alter (like He told Abraham to do with Isaac) then you do it.

Some people think the God of Abraham commands them to fly airplanes into buildings to kill innocent people. I disagree. Some people think the God of Abraham says its ok to murder unborn children. I disagree with them too. Opinions are worthless. Truth is priceless.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/14/2010 9:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Exact quote of WGButler's statement as to the value of unsubstantiated opinion.
quote:
Opinions are worthless. Truth is priceless

So we do agree on something. Those here who are arguing that it is true because "I say so" are incorrect and

Those who are arguing that it is true because "We observe the world we live in" are correct.

On that basis you have proven your belief in Evolution and disbelief in Creationism.

Creationism in all it's forms is based on "It is true because I believe"
Evolution in all it's forms is based on "It is true because it is the best explanation of what we observe"

If you feel that your opinion as to the existence of God disproves the physical observation of the world in which you live. Well you have already declared that such a belief is "worthlesss". Remember that your expressed opinions are based on stories of unknown provenance. Many of which have older variations attributed to religions other than Christianity.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By wgbutler on 10/15/2010 8:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

So we do agree on something. Those here who are arguing that it is true because "I say so" are incorrect and


First you say you agree with me about opinions being worthless and then you go off and express your opinions on a variety of issues. Very strange.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/17/2010 6:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
You missed the modifier. I based my opinion on your statements. You say you base your opinion on text in an "infallible" book that contains internal inconsistencies (this is usually evidence of fallibility)

When you can provide support for the unerring Truth of the Bible, I will probably modify my opinion.

So far your arguments and many of the replies ( both for and against your argument) support a Bible replete with falsehoods, that Bible in turn is your basis for your opinion that the Bible is unerringly True.

Finally The Theory of Evolution does not depend on my opinion. Even bacteria believe in and make use of evolution.

Belief in God is a personal opinion and there are millions in this world who are willing to explain the error of your ways and bring you to the True Faith which requires abandoning your God and adopting theirs. Their belief is every bit as valid as your own and is equally untestable.

I am a Christian who chooses to study God's Creation rather than telling God what He is permitted to do :)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Skywalker123 on 10/12/2010 8:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
College doesn't make you educated? There's a lot of people wasting their time then. You've been in college many years now? Where is that? Liberty college?


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/12/2010 9:27:28 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I said that correctly. College does not "give" you anything. Are you exposed to ways to farther your education, yes; but you can graduate with a doctorate and still be a total idiot.
quote:
Where is that? Liberty college?

For the most part, society despises bullying.

I'm not sure if you are aware of how much indoctrination is in the school systems nowadays. It's so distorted and biased that I can't even take a psychology class without having to suffer through "guest lectures" about how we should not eat meat and drive cars because of global warming(and yes, I'm serious).


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Skywalker123 on 10/12/2010 10:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
"but you can graduate with a doctorate and still be a total idiot."

Yeh, but thats only at Bible College.


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Quadrillity on 10/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh sh1t
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 6:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why there is so much hostility to your anti-science postings :)


RE: Ohhh sh1t
By roadhog1974 on 10/12/2010 8:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
frankfurt is a long way away from the olduvai gorge.

just saying.


SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Cbeyond on 10/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By drando on 10/12/2010 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
most of the people on this site are just D-bags trying to push their views on everyone else.


quote:
Scientists are just the modern day version of a Dark Age priest. I believe back then they told people whatever they wanted because most of the population could not read nor understand half the crap they where spewing. Now it’s Science turn to do the same crap, prove little and have a lot of theories.


Self referral?


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Cbeyond on 10/12/2010 4:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
As an evolutionary biologist it makes me upset that we are not being honest with the world, just like religion. When you do not have to chance to sit in the classes with half of these so called logical people you do not get to see half the crap they say. When you ask how did life begin, instead of getting a logical answer or even a decent guess, you get same response as any religion "MAGIC" (I was told once maybe of the backs of crystals or cooling lava bubbles, seriously :( . The truth is we just do not know, evolution starts after creation not before. If you wanted to know my views then ask, which is a simple answer both sides are in it for self glory and based of mostly faith. :| apologies for the d-bag post but if you ever listen to Jorn Hurum you'll know what I mean.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By clovell on 10/13/2010 3:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
The Uncertainty Principle is the new MAGIC.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 6:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
The first step in basic research is brainstorming. You collect as many ideas as you can get, no matter how wild or unlikely. The second step is throwing out anything immediately provable as incorrect. The third step is to take the surviving ideas and test them (they have graduated to hypotheses usually by this point)

The ideas that survive those steps are either tested hypotheses or theories and will be subjected to centuries of testing and refinement until a better theory replaces them. So yes when discussing a new field there will be a lot of disagreement on what should be examined closely.

Even in mature fields there is a lot of disagreement on the edges where research is learning new things. If you want settled dogma and few or no disagreements, then stay out of research and go into an Engineering field that avoids the bleeding edge tech.

Even in studying the human body where it can be assumed that everything is accessible for study, there is a lot of disagreement when new things are discovered. An example of this is "Dark Energy" a term that was recently applied to the background noise in the brain. One study was immediately ridiculed when it was found that the amount of activity was REDUCED by some conscious activities. The reason was that in the past the background noise was filtered out due to it not being brain activity. It is now known that the background noise is what a computer programmer would call operating system overhead or interrupt processing. The background activity was reduced when the conscious activity required the use of the portions of the brain doing the background processing.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By MozeeToby on 10/12/2010 4:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
The difference is that if you want to, you can get educated and understand the scientists. You don't even need to go to an expensive university anymore, there's enough information, classes, and experiments posted for free online that you can become quite educated in everything from computer science to evolution to astronomy without setting foot inside a classroom.

But go ahead and keep blaming the scientists for your willful ignorance (I don't mean that as an insult, it is merely a description of your current state). Ignore all the resources out there that go into any amount of detail from layman to expert, just complain about how complicated it all is on forum boards.

But please, if there is really something that you can't wrap your head around, ask the forum! For every snarky jerk who comes back with an insult there will be at least one other person willing to answer your question politely if it is asked politely. So I'm asking you, right now, if there is a particular aspect of evolution that you have trouble with ask it right here, and I will personally do my best to answer it for you as succinctly as I can.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Shadowmaster625 on 10/13/2010 9:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
You are right. You dont need an expensive university to get educated. You should get educated on the flagellar motor. There are some excellent cgi videos on youtube now that clearly put the debate to rest in a way that even a 12 year old can understand. The flagellar motor is not a product of evolution.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 10:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'll put $100 on the table that not one single person here will touch your post with a 50 ft pole since there isn't even a shred of logic that can answer for all of the millions of irreducibly complex organs/organisms/mechanisms in this universe.

Another one that's funny to see them play with is this: Which came first, the chemicals to make the stars, or the stars to make the chemicals? Afterall, if there is no God that created this universe, then something had to come from literally nothing!


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 12:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
As I linked to in the other section of this thread where he brought up the idea of irreducible complexity, here's a quick video for you on the subject of the flagellum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

Even a very swift and cursory Google search on irreducible complexity and the flagellum in specific would have showed you how ridiculous both of the above posts are. You should really be more careful with your money.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 12:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature...

You are a fool if you think thinks like the eye/brain/flagellum could evolve. I don't see anything in that video other than fairy-tail daydreams with music blasting instead of someone talking about the subject.

All they have done is make up this elaborate scheme about how it "could" have happened, yet they have NO PROOF of the "early versions" of the motor. You want me to just trash my belief system because a scientists has a day dream of how it "could have happened". This is a good example of terrible and destructive science. They have absolutely no evidence to support it, yet they shovel it down our throat.

Any credible expert will tell you that irreducible complexities are a major problem of evolution. To deny this is dishonest.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 1:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm denying it right now, and no it's not dishonest. What 'credible experts' are these? (I'll prepare for a flurry of quote mining now) I can rattle off dozens of experts that see no problem with irreducible complexity, because they don't believe that it even exists in a form that challenges evolution.

You really need to work on understanding the terms that you are using. Do you understand how argument and debate work? You endorsed a positive statement that the flagellum was irreducibly complex. That means that there cannot be a single way for the flagellum to have evolved through normal evolutionary processes. If there is even ONE way, it is by definition not irreducibly complex.

That video just showed you how by modifying only a single protein at a time you could create exactly your irreducibly complex structure, with each intermediate stage providing an evolutionary advantage. Therefore, your argument is incorrect.

Your belief system is not being trashed, your attempt to adhere to junk science is being trashed. If you would just admit that your belief in creationism is based solely upon religion and not on science, people would just ignore you and move on. It's your constant attempts to distort science and reality to serve your religious fanaticism that make people attack you.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 1:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
You did not answer my question of showing proof for these "imagine IF it happened this way" scenarios. I asked for proof, and you completely dodge the question because you know there is nothing but daydreaming going on here.

And here we find the point where floods of flaming come in the form of telling me that I am: crazy, unqualified, stupid, uneducated, too dumb to "understand", not using logic blah blah blah.

I have opinions, and you have your own. Somehow yours are better than mine? No. Evidence does not change facts, and there are VERY FEW FACTS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT ON THIS PLANET. The rest is just our best guess; and sometimes your guess is completely different from mine. That does NOT make you a supreme overlord of the great nation of holy science.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 2:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have to prove any of these scenarios. You said it was irreducibly complex. That means, BY DEFINITION, that there can be no scenario by which evolution can account for this. I just showed you one. Are you going to admit that it's not irreducibly complex, or not?

Whether or not it DID happen the way that video describes, your statement says that no such ways are even allowed to exist. Your continued appeals to ignorance aside, you made a positive statement. Either back it up by showing that my example violates evolutionary principles in some way, or admit you were wrong.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 2:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just showed you one. Are you going to admit that it's not irreducibly complex, or not?

I'm not going to budge one single bit on this. There are thousands of irreducibly complex structures that cannot be accounted for.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 2:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you aren't. No matter how many could be explained to you, you would simply reach into your bag and pull out a new one saying "NOW EXPLAIN THIS!".

You guys brought out your ironclad example (and one of the most commonly cited) and it was blown out of the water. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you just entrench further.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 3:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead of admitting you were wrong, you just entrench further.

I wish this was a live public debate, you would walk away with your tail tucked after looking like a fool because you are trying to "win" and debate that has no chance of a winner.

I'm waiting for you to get the last word in just one more time...


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 4:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about winning or losing, it's about right and wrong. You made a statement that was not only wrong, but easily provably wrong. You just aren't adult enough to admit it. And trust me, you don't wish this were a public debate. If it feels like a dogpile on you now, it would be way worse in person.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
This has transformed into nothing more than a childish, "yeah huh! Nuh uh!" screaming match.

You would rather die then not get the last word in...


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 4:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
You're just retreating towards some sort of false equivalence, it's standard operating procedure for you.

Grow up.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You would rather die then not get the last word in...

quote:
You're just retreating towards some sort of false equivalence, it's standard operating procedure for you. Grow up.

LOL


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 6:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he gave you "credible" proof documented by "credible" experts whose work was peer reviewed to discover and document mistakes.

YOUR response on the other hand denied the evidence on the basis of your religion. You failed to provide any basis other than your personal religious beliefs to invalidate the answer you received.

You asked for an example of how the *irreducible* component could have evolved.
You were given a credible explanation with examples of all the intermediate steps taken from REAL WORLD examples (Not tales published in a Holy Book) and you refuse to accept them because your interpretation of the Holy Book disagrees with reality.

Now without resorting to "I BELIEVE therefore it is" please document your claim. The opposition has done this, now waiting for you to do so as well. When we have your testable evidence then we can go on. Until then your version has been discredited.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Calindar on 10/13/2010 8:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want me to just trash my belief system because a scientists has a day dream of how it "could have happened".

Seeing as how your entire belief system is based on a day dream some ancient man had thousands of years ago, even if what he showed you was a "day dream" of some scientist, it would still be a step forward from where you are now.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and about your 'something from nothing' argument, it's not difficult at all either. In fact, it's closely related to the stupid argument of 'well then who created god?'

You can believe in the eternity of matter/energy or you can believe in an eternal god. I'll stick with the one I'm typing on.

One important difference though is that if someone were to come up with an alternate and better proven explanation for how matter came to be, I would readily accept it. Something tells me that the degree of evidence put before you won't alter your belief in god.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2010 1:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Based on similarity in structure and partial similarity in amino acid sequence, it is generally accepted among scientists that the eukaryotic flagellum and cilium have evolved from the cytoskeleton, while the eubacterial flagellum has evolved either from the type III secretion system or from a more ancient secretion system from which the type III secretion system has evolved as well. The archaeal flagellum has probably evolved from the type IV pili. More details appear under Evolution of flagella.

In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, under funding from the Templeton Foundation, cited the bacterial flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex structure that could not have evolved through naturalistic means. Behe argued that the flagellum becomes useless if any one of its constituent parts is removed, and thus could not have arisen through numerous, successive, slight modifications; therefore, it is hopelessly improbable that the proteins making up the flagellar motor could have come together all at once, by chance.[34] Mark Perakh explained that while Behe popularized the idea, biologist Hermann J. Müller had already explored it (under the slightly different name of “interlocking complexity”) and more than a decade before Behe’s book the same idea was explored by A. Graham Cairns-Smith, but neither claimed that “irreducible complexity” was a “marker” of a supernatural design.[35]

While Behe discussed the immune system and the blood clotting cascade in greater detail, the bacterial flagellum has become a "poster child" for intelligent design proponents and other creationists, as during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial of 2005.[36] It is one of two identified rotary structures found in nature (the other being ATP synthase)[37] and it is billions of years older than Behe's other two examples, which exist in many homologous forms, simplifying the explanation of their origin.[38]

Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science's television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe's argument.[39] In addition, the Type three secretion system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system.[40][41]

Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.[42]

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


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By wgbutler on 10/13/2010 2:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
Since we're going to get into copy and paste wars, I'll go ahead and copy the response to the type III secretion system explanation as the origin for the bacteria flagellum.

quote:

Has Miller disproved Behe's notion of irreducible complexity? It sure seems like he has - at first glance anyway. However, what Miller seemingly fails to consider is that the function of flagellar motility is still irreducibly complex regardless of other subsystems functions are or are not maintained with various flagellar system reductions. Without a sizable number of specifically arranged protein parts the function of flagellar motility cannot exist. In fact, all systems of function are irreducibly complex. It doesn't matter if subsystem function is maintained. This is like arguing that the motility function of an automobile is not irreducibly complex because the lights still work even if the engine or tires or drive shaft are removed.

But, what about Miller's notion that the working subsystems can be easily added together to form functions with greater and greater minimum structural threshold requirements? This notion is in fact true up to a point. There are many examples of low-level evolution in action. Miller himself points out a few of these in his book, Finding Darwin's God, to include an experiment by Barry Hall. Hall's experiment is in fact very interesting. What Hall did was delete the genes in a type of bacteria called E. coli that produce a protein enzyme called lactase. Without this lactase enzyme the bacteria could no longer digest the sugar lactose for energy. Hall wondered if these bacteria, if grown in a lactose-rich environment, would evolve the lactase function back again using some other aspect of their gene pool. And, they did! In just a few generations (probably a single generation) the colony of a few billion bacteria evolved a brand new lactase enzyme with just a single point mutation to another gene. This gene product did not have the lactase function before. So, this would seem to be real evolution of a novel function in observable time.

Of course, this is where Miller's descriptions of Hall's experiments end. However, what Hall did next is most interesting. Hall wondered what would happen if he deleted the newly evolved lactase gene. Would the bacteria evolve yet another novel lactase enzyme? Hall carried out this experiment and observed the bacteria for over 40,000 generations - - and they didn't evolve another lactase enzyme despite a very high mutation rate in a large population living in a highly selective environment. Frustrated, Hall referred to this colony as having "limited evolutionary potential".[3]

Now, what is it that limited the evolutionary potential of Hall's bacteria? How is it that such a relatively simply function could not be found by random mutation and function-based selection many times in such a large colony living in such a highly selective environment?

The answer, is found in the expansion of non-beneficial gaps between potentially beneficial genetic sequences as one considers functions with greater and greater minimum structural threshold requirements. As it turns out, evolution proceeds quite easily and very rapidly when it comes to functional systems that only require very few structural threshold requirements or a loss of a pre-existing system of interaction (most forms of antibiotic resistance). Occasionally evolutionary mechanisms produce higher level functions where a few hundred loosely specified amino acid residues are required (lactase, nylonase, etc). However, there are no observable examples of evolution in action produce any novel system of function that requires over 1,000 specifically arranged amino acid residues working together at the same time. There's not one example of evolution beyond this level in all of scientific literature - not one example.[4]

Now, consider that the flagellar motility system requires around 10,000 fairly specifically arranged amino acid residues all working together at the same time. The next closest beneficial "steppingstone" subsystem function is not remotely close at this level of functional complexity. Even if two such subsystems could be put together to make the flagellar system, the odds that only a few residue changes would be required are extremely poor. More likely many dozens of residue changes would be required. The odds of having the needed amino acid residue changes present in one bacteria within a huge population at the same time are extremely remote this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time. Such gaps may not seem like much at first glance, but when considered more closely, the odds of their being crossed in what anyone would consider a reasonable amount of time are pretty much impossible.

In this light, consider that the TTSS system is now thought to have evolved from the fully formed flagellum - not the other way around. In 2000, Nguyen et. al. published a paper in Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology titled, Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems[5] In this paper the authors argue strongly that the TTSS system evolved from the flagellum. Of course, those like Miller fail to point out such conclusions published in mainstream scientific literature. But such conclusions should have been obvious from the beginning. Which came first? - - a cavefish without eyes or a fish in a pond with eyes? Clearly it is much easier to loose something that was already there than it is to create it in the first place. Remember Humpty Dumpty and all the kings men?


http://creationwiki.org/Flagellum


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 2:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Which part of the motor evolved first? Or did the whole thing just spring to life?

Which part of the eye formed first?

Thousands (probably millions) of complex structure exist, yet no-one can provide any proof for the "early" forms. Why do we not have any proof of transitions? And why does their seem to be so many things that have the same structure?

We have a finite amount of sensory organs here on earth, why is that? It's awful convenient that life here seem to follow the same patterns over and over. Having said that, why aren't there organisms that grow metal appendages instead of bone? A light titanium-like armor plate would be much more useful to all of the armored animals out there...

And from all of this, the odds of life even forming from non life are less than a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a working car; Why are we the only intelligent beings on earth?

These complex structures were designed.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 2:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Is this a parody post?

Did you even watch the video I showed you? Limited function outcompetes no function. This is not difficult. If you are interested in the evolution of the eye, there are plenty of resources just a google search away. (they may be plants by satan though)

It's not awfully convenient that life follows the same patterns, it's a founding principle of modern biology, unity in diversity. They share common structures because they share common ancestors.

Animals don't grow titanium instead of bone because there is no known biological method with which to 'grow' titanium. What sort of idiotic question is that?

Your 'tornado through a junkyard' betrays your utter ignorance of the basic principles of evolution. How can you spend so much time arguing about it and still know so little? Evolution is the EXACT OPPOSITE of random. Its entire premise is through the SELECTION of traits.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 2:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
instead of answering my questions, you tell me to google it then call me an idiot. Great job! You can't answer a single one of those questions can you?


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Anoxanmore on 10/13/2010 3:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
We aren't the only intelligent beings on earth, we are just the most intelligent.

Dolphins will be the next humans, probably another ten million years, if even that long.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 3:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
I did answer them, this lack of reading comprehension explains a lot.
quote:
What part of the motor evolved first?


Easily explained by the video you claim to have watched. A pilus of bound proteins is the most likely answer.

quote:
Thousands (probably millions) of complex structure exist, yet no-one can provide any proof for the "early" forms. Why do we not have any proof of transitions? And why does their seem to be so many things that have the same structure?


First part of the question is vague to the point of meaninglessness. What structures? What forms? What transitions?

Second part, as answered previously, is a founding principle of modern biology. Sharing of structures is part of the unity and diversity of life.

quote:
Having said that, why aren't there organisms that grow metal appendages instead of bone? A light titanium-like armor plate would be much more useful to all of the armored animals out there...


Sure would. Evolving an AK-47 for an arm would be a great evolutionary benefit as well. Just because you can imagine something that would be advantageous doesn't mean that evolution has produced it. We have almost limitless examples of evolution doing a crappy job at one thing or another.

I also already answered your junkyard metaphor as a (deliberate?) ignorance of basic evolutionary theory.

These answers were contained in previous posts, but your culture of victimhood appears to be preventing you from reading them.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 3:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also already answered your junkyard metaphor as a (deliberate?) ignorance of basic evolutionary theory.

I'm sick of this kind of arrogance, so I'm done here. You arrogance is disgusting; You haven't given a straight answer to any one of my challenges.

The "transitional" eye does not exist; and you cannot account for it. "a patch of light sensitive cells" Yeah, that's good imagination and all, but it doesn't answer any proof baring charges.

A good illustrated daydream does not magically provide proof. Evolution of the eye/flagellum is STUPID, and does not work. You refuse to see that you are daydreaming these problems away...


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 3:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
I gave you explicitly straight answers to your questions, they were just really bad questions. Hell, you don't even seem to understand how the burden of proof works. (PROTIP: if you claim something is irreducibly complex, it's up to you to prove it)

A transitional eye in what way? You can't even answer what you mean. No 'transitional' eye exists? Have you even bothered to check out wikipedia before making such a ridiculous claim?

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

Or were you expecting some sort of eye fossil? (liquid structures like eyes don't fossilize)

You're obviously really worried about evolution as it threatens your fanaticism. You've resorted to raving about how evolution is stupid and how everyone is mean to you.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Quadrillity on 10/13/2010 3:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
So now I'm supposed to be visiting Wikipedia in order to answer my questions about extremely controversial topics?
quote:
Or were you expecting some sort of eye fossil? (liquid structures like eyes don't fossilize)

So you condemn me for making statements without proof, then turn right around a say that you don't have any for the hair-brained idea about an evolving eye?

You hate Christians; and that's why you are so adamant in defending YOUR religion of evolution.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By eskimospy on 10/13/2010 4:11:19 PM , Rating: 3
Jesus, you don't have to take wikipedia's conclusions as gospel (har), but if you were say... wondering if there were examples of a transitional eye, you could go there and see them with your own two (highly evolved) eyes! Are you doubting that the nautilus exists? Are you doubting that it has an eye structure that is at an intermediate stage of complexity between a highly complex eye with a lens and the light spot? It's exactly the sort of thing you claimed didn't exist, and it would have taken you all of 30 seconds to learn better.

What are you talking about that I don't have any evidence for the evolution of the eye? Where on earth did you get that from? Hell, you seem to think of intermediate forms as being evidence of evolution, so you were staring at it while you wrote that question. Like I said before, with each new structure that is explained to you, you will simply go back to your bag and choose a new one, not for a second acknowledging that you were wrong before, and not being swayed in the slightest.

Save us your christian persecution complex, it has nothing to do with it. Why is it so hard to see that we don't hate christians, we just have contempt for you and your hilariously inept attempts to play science?


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By Fritzr on 10/13/2010 6:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
The so-called transitional eye is either the original that was not preserved as a soft tissue fossil or the modern versions of 'eye' that run the gamut from light sensitive tissue to fully functional eyes that are both "better designed" and more resistant to damage.

We have the eyes that we consider 'normal' due to the branches of the evolutionary experimentation being pruned.

Of course the failures and those poorer in function don't exist in the humans of today, they were replaced by versions that did a slightly better job.

In other creatures there are examples of other solutions to the problem. Also a lot of shared genes demonstrating sequences that have a very high survival value.


RE: SCIENCE religion 2.0
By sviola on 10/13/2010 12:40:46 PM , Rating: 3
From wikipedia:

"Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science's television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe's argument.[39] In addition, the Type three secretion system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system."


Mobile machines
By ss2010 on 10/12/2010 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
it seems skeletons of tiny mobile machines and mobile works of art.

"Is it at all possible that although he has included a whole world in a machine the size of a box, there could be anything in it that was purposeless or could be attributed to chance? That means that howevever many skillfully fashioned machines you can see, each is like a seal of that hidden one."




RE: Mobile machines
By foolsgambit11 on 10/12/2010 4:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Is it at all possible that although he has included a whole world in a machine the size of a box, there could be anything in it that was purposeless or could be attributed to chance?"
Yes.


RE: Mobile machines
By ss2010 on 10/13/2010 7:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
Then can you say that the computer(or other products) in front of you may be emerge from the result of chance(if you wait). However it is a product of millions of educated genius scientists works with necessary materials.

"you will understand that to make a word of power, for example, a honey-bee, a minute index of most things, and to write in one page, for example in man, most of the matters in this book of the universe, and to include in one point, for example in a tiny fig seed, the programme of the mighty fig-tree, and to display in a single letter, for example in the human heart, the works of all the Divine Names manifested in the pages of the macrocosm which encompass it, and to make written in the human faculty of memory, which is situated in a place the size of a lentil, writings enough to fill a library, and to include in that tiny faculty a detailed index of all events in the cosmos —to do all things is most certainly a stamp particular to the Creator of All Things, the Glorious Sustainer of the universe.-- from The Light of Quran"


RE: Mobile machines
By foolsgambit11 on 10/14/2010 5:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Without refuting the postulated natural cause of speciation, you insist it must be an unnatural cause. The best logical systems will begin with what we know, and refuse to accept explanations without positive evidence (a la Descartes - in order to determine if there is anything we can know with certainty, we must first doubt everything we think we know), rather than simply hold onto tenets formed based on negative evidence, even in the face of contradicting positive evidence.

A watch cannot make a watch offspring. Therein lies the key difference, and the point at which Paley's (and your updated) analogy breaks down. To turn Paley on his head, when you find a rock in a field, you may marvel at the natural forces which sculpted it and placed it there, and when you find a swan in the same field, you may marvel at the same natural forces which sculpted it and placed it there. When you find an anthill, you may marvel at the ants' ability to manipulate their environment to suit their needs, and when you find a watch, you may marvel at humanity's ability to manipulate its environment to suit its needs.


Fools
By kontorotsui on 10/12/2010 4:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Fools, God has placed a perfectly realistic set of fossils to confuse the infidels.




RE: Fools
By roadhog1974 on 10/12/2010 8:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what I would do.


RE: Fools
By ss2010 on 10/13/2010 7:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
They are only the fossils,traces of the true creatures of God created in the past time.


Just a bunch of Evolutionary Hype
By jahwarrior on 10/12/2010 3:06:04 PM , Rating: 5
That critique is considered a non-debate among "educated" researchers in the biosciences, despite it being a lively topic of debate among the "less-informed" general public. Mickism at its best.

What a joke. IDa is nothing but media hype.

As has been the case with every other supposed missing link, there is controversy over Ida's place in the evolutionary story. One reason that published opinions on the subject are consistently inconsistent could be that all the evolutionary researchers involved are laboring under a false paradigm. If Ida's "missing link" status were remotely discernible by an objective comparison of features, then Chris Beard, an expert on primate phylogeny, would not have told Nightline, "This fossil is not as close to monkeys, apes, and humans as we are being led to believe."3 Many other evolutionary scientists are expressing frustration over the unjustified hype accompanying Darwinius.

Adding injury to insult, anatomically modern lemurs have been found in rock strata below Ida.9 Likewise, monkeys have been found in lower layers, which evolutionists believe represent eons of time before Ida's appearance. Thus, Ida is too completely formed and was found in a layer, according to evolutionary timescales, that is too young for her to be the link connecting the earliest primates to descendants that supposedly led to humans. Underneath all the fanfare, Ida's evolutionary status is just more hype.




???
By scottymyboy on 10/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: ???
By RugMuch on 10/12/2010 3:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
Could it be that mick as usual needs to get his ratings up and talks about guns god and gay. Basically, finds things that need no debate but there are somehow superstitious tards still having debate with their Christian Magic.


RE: ???
By eskimospy on 10/12/2010 4:34:31 PM , Rating: 2