If Evolution Were True

[Autodidact]

So to sum it all up, science and religion are both a sham. My truth is based on what and who I know as God.

It always cracks me up when people type their anti-science screeds on the nice computers. If you think science is a sham, go get a nice rock and chisel your opinion into it. Cuz, y'know, computers don't work. They're a sham.

I'm happy, very happy, in my so called delusion,

Ding! And we can stop the conversation right there. This is the reason that this poster is not open to reason; he'd rather be happy inhis delusion.
btw, Remnant, what makes you think this conversation has anything to do with your religious beliefs? Are you under the misapprehension that accepting current scientific thinking would require you to give up your religion? Do you think there are no Christian Biologists?

 

[Greatest I am]

Here is what the courts think of creationism and I D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo&feature=PlayList&p=DDE24BF64A815FCD&index=0

Regards
DL

 

[tumbleweed41]

It always cracks me up when people type their anti-science screeds on the nice computers. If you think science is a sham, go get a nice rock and chisel your opinion into it. Cuz, y'know, computers don't work. They're a sham.
?

He can't chip on a rock, that would involve the Physics of energy and matter, Geology of the rock being chipped, plus the Biology of his own life.

 

[Alceste]

Here is what the courts think of creationism and I D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo&feature=PlayList&p=DDE24BF64A815FCD&index=0

Regards
DL

Propaganda of the most nauseating kind. Creationism is new? Since when? Controversial? To whom? Darwin directly challenged biblical creation "for the first time"? Battle lines??? Darwin's 'dangerous' idea??? The morbid, worrying music when creationists 'lose their battle', followed by the perky fiddle music when the creationists keep fighting???

This disgusts me. The pretense of journalistic objectivity in a video that positively reeks of every tactic of subconscious manipulation in the book.... Blech. You can keep those to yourself, thanks.

 

[RemnanteK]

It always cracks me up when people type their anti-science screeds on the nice computers. If you think science is a sham, go get a nice rock and chisel your opinion into it. Cuz, y'know, computers don't work. They're a sham.

Glad to see you have such a grasp of the obvious, you're retort is so relevant yet circumstantial.
And there is a difference between computer science and the science this thread is based on, Evolutionary Science and Theoretical Science.

Ding! And we can stop the conversation right there. This is the reason that this poster is not open to reason; he'd rather be happy inhis delusion.
btw, Remnant, what makes you think this conversation has anything to do with your religious beliefs? Are you under the misapprehension that accepting current scientific thinking would require you to give up your religion? Do you think there are no Christian Biologists?

Once again off the mark. If this is a thread about If Evolution Were True then I would gather the subjects we would be objecting on would be implied.
But I see you have taken science as 'everything anyone does' like business science, art science, political science, and made it fit into a rebuttal.
:clap
Well I'm going to pray that when I hit [Submit Reply] the message is sent up on a magic prayer beam to heaven and then back to your Commodore 64. :biglaugh: 単純な

But thanks for the fun, I do enjoy making people think. :beach::areyoucra

 

[Alceste]

Glad to see you have such a grasp of the obvious, you're retort is so relevant yet circumstantial.
And there is a difference between computer science and the science this thread is based on, Evolutionary Science and Theoretical Science.

No, there is no difference. Science is a method. It's the same method no matter what the field of study: Hypothesis + empirical research = scientific theory. That's it. This method produced the theory of evolution and also your computer. Evolutionary science IS theoretical science.

Theists can't get past "hypothesis". There are two missing steps. If you insist that the scientific method is inadequate in delivering an understanding of life, you are simultaneously insisting it is inadequate in delivering your computer.

 

[TerranIV]

The first post; no what I am saying is evolution is a mechanism the basics of which is as follows...

Proto-soup amino acids evolved into prokaryotes which evolved into eukaryotes the prokaryotes are "bacteria" and some other things and the eurkaryotes evolved into everything else imaginable (practically).

From these basic supposed "facts" we can argue some things that don't make sense.

1) Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes only once; never to do it again.
2) Viruses do not return into prokaryotes, prokaryotes no longer regress into viruses, and free amino acids no longer evolve into prokaryotes and viruses.

This leads me to the other post to which I simply say... Why not? What has changed that a bacterium no longer regresses into a virophage? What happened that Bacterium no longer combine to form new Eukaryotic cells? And why can we not FORCE this to happen?

This is IF the theory of endosybiosis is correct. It doesn't need to be for evolution to be correct, you are confusing a biological theory which is USING evolution to explain something observed in nature with the theory itself. There could be other ways we don't know about for ekariotic cells to have developed which would also work within the "laws" of evolution.

There is no way to know how many times it prokaryotes came together to form a eukaryote organism, the point is it probably happened AT LEAST once. It could have happened many times, but if it did it doesn't just happen over night. It would take millions of years of prokaryotes being subjected to specific conditions - all of which we don't understand - which is why we can't just make it happen in the lab whenever we want to.

Also, whatever prokaryotic organism which evolved into the organells and mitochondria of cells is long gone. They have changed into their present form and so we don't know what they were like before then became part of a eukariotic cell. It's kind of like looking at a statue and then trying to figure out what the original rock looked like. Not so easy!

Many of organells of eukariotic cells appear very simlar to prokaryotes and contain their own dna so it is reasonable to assume they came first and eukariotic cells evolved from them or at least after them. Just like it is reasonable to assume multi-cellular organisms evolved AFTER single celled eukariotes. Plus the fact there are so many variations of prokaryotes it seems reasonable they have been around for the longest time.

I find it interseting how the level of proof for evolution needs to be so much higher for some people to believe in it than to believe in god. Why is that? There is more reason to believe in endosymbiosis than to believe in some invisible all powerful being. I would love for someone to present HALF the evidence for god as you are refuting for endosymbiosis.

 

[Magic Man]

Glad to see you have such a grasp of the obvious, you're retort is so relevant yet circumstantial.
And there is a difference between computer science and the science this thread is based on, Evolutionary Science and Theoretical Science.

What exactly is theoretical science? All science is the same. It is the method of collecting objective, verifiable and testable data about our universe. The same process is used to give us computers as is used to give us the theory of evolution, physics, biology, geology, etc.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Glad to see you have such a grasp of the obvious, you're retort is so relevant yet circumstantial.
And there is a difference between computer science and the science this thread is based on, Evolutionary Science and Theoretical Science.

Darwin's theory (the greatest scientific insight in the last 200 years) is alive and well in computer science. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation) His theory has remained unchanged since its inception (even Einsteins theory underwent changes) and has been supported by many other fields of study, not the least of which is genetics. It has also influenced virtually all other scientific domains, including IT. It is how we understand why bacteira become resistant to antibiotics. How some businesses succeed while others fail. And a host of other things.

Once again off the mark. If this is a thread about If Evolution Were True then I would gather the subjects we would be objecting on would be implied.
But I see you have taken science as 'everything anyone does' like business science, art science, political science, and made it fit into a rebuttal.

Darwin's imprint is on all of those sciences. His insight is confirmed by them all an is used to understand them all better.

:clap
Well I'm going to pray that when I hit [Submit Reply] the message is sent up on a magic prayer beam to heaven and then back to your Commodore 64. :biglaugh: 単純な

But thanks for the fun, I do enjoy making people think. :beach::areyoucra

....wha?

 

[Magic Man]

His theory has remained unchanged since its inception

Well, that's not quite true. It has undergone some changes, but the main idea has remained the same. Not really contradicting you, just nit-picking. The rest of your post was spot on.

 

[Alceste]

Just musing...

I wish creationists would go the distance. To dismiss evolutionary theory is to dismiss the scientific method, full stop. So why do they obsess about this single, insignificant (in that it is no more significant than any other) aspect of scientific theory? Why not go the distance? Why not believe the earth is flat, and the sun and all the stars revolve around it?

(Actually, as I understand it, many physicists currently hypothesize that everything is expanding away from the earth at the same speed, based on red-shift observations of distant stars, which strikes me as another 'sun revolves around the earth' scale misconception, but I don't know why because I'm not a physicist, and besides which, I digress).

Moving along: to this anti-scientific rabble of biblioophiles, it's fine with me if you don't care for the scientific method. I only wish you would be honest enough to reject the whole enchilada, and not just the single narrow slice of understanding that conflicts with the nonsense in your blasted book. It's outrageously hypocritical that you fly around on planes, have your surgeries, take your antibiotics, microwave your lunches, plan your romantic liaisons for the likeliest time for conception (or not, as the case may be), and yet INSIST that the rest of us respect - even embrace - your hard-headed rejection of one single aspect of the empirical strategy that has blessed you with all of these luxuries.

Live in a hut, grow or hunt your own food, communicate via grunts and smoke signals, defecate in a pit, believe the sun is the hearth fire of whatever gods you worship - I will support you all the way. But revel in the luxury of comforts delivered to you by the scientific method while turning your nose up at science because it conflicts with your ridiculous book, and you'll lose my support.

I'm relieved that this YEC rot doesn't tend to bleed outside the borders of the USA, but concerned (due to Canada's proximity and the UK's inexplicable butt-kissing) that it could.

Anyway, kudos to those heroic Americans who make concerted efforts to contain this nonsense. As your neighbour, I'm ever in your debt.

 

[Magic Man]

(Actually, as I understand it, many physicists currently hypothesize that everything is expanding away from the earth at the same speed, based on red-shift observations of distant stars, which strikes me as another 'sun revolves around the earth' scale misconception, but I don't know why because I'm not a physicist, and besides which, I digress).

Actually, that's an old hypothesis. It's not about things revolving around us. It's just an example of the expansion of the universe. Everything is spreading out, and so getting farther away from us. At least that's how I remember it from A Brief History of Time.

 

[painted wolf]

Hey YEC's reject the whole shebang! Everything science is wrong.

Astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, climatology, geology, history... even geography and medicine are up for grabs.

They go all out on the science is wrong bandwagon. And YEC;s have been invading Canada and Eastern Europe, and Turkey and India have their own breeds.

wa:do

 

[Buttons*]

Moving along: to this anti-scientific rabble of biblioophiles, it's fine with me if you don't care for the scientific method. I only wish you would be honest enough to reject the whole enchilada, and not just the single narrow slice of understanding that conflicts with the nonsense in your blasted book. It's outrageously hypocritical that you fly around on planes, have your surgeries, take your antibiotics, microwave your lunches, plan your romantic liaisons for the likeliest time for conception (or not, as the case may be), and yet INSIST that the rest of us respect - even embrace - your hard-headed rejection of one single aspect of the empirical strategy that has blessed you with all of these luxuries.

Live in a hut, grow or hunt your own food, communicate via grunts and smoke signals, defecate in a pit, believe the sun is the hearth fire of whatever gods you worship - I will support you all the way. But revel in the luxury of comforts delivered to you by the scientific method while turning your nose up at science because it conflicts with your ridiculous book, and you'll lose my support.

I've always wondered that too... to the people who disregard observable, in your hand, for your eyes to see, science - why do they accept modern medicine? Why are they alright with only SOME things we can observe with a telescope and not others?

Evolution can be a bit tricky, since we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle, but we're working on it. However, to discard EVERYTHING that implicates evolution to be at LEAST worth thinking on, well, that's just silly. There is evidence that species change over time, even selective breeding can give you the results you want... and if breeding over time to get new species doesn't convince you that it's at least possible, nothing will.

Leave the whole of science behind if you dont' want to play by the rules. Don't accept help from doctors, live by your book. -----> Actually, this is one of the reasons I LIKE Christian Scientists, they aren't hypocritical... they don't see doctors, they realize that if they don't like one bit of science, they shouldn't accept any of it. Fair enough!

Now, unless your'e a Christian Scientist who doesn't benefit from modern science.... you have no place to talk really.

 

[Alceste]

Actually, that's an old hypothesis. It's not about things revolving around us. It's just an example of the expansion of the universe. Everything is spreading out, and so getting farther away from us. At least that's how I remember it from A Brief History of Time.

Yeah, that's where I read it as well, but I admit the book was way over my head and I didn't read the whole thing. Not even a significant part of it - just a few pages really. In fact, I started it, got stuck on this particular idea, and couldn't continue.

I do intend to try again.

Anyway, assuming you did a better job than me of actually reading the book flirt am I right in recalling the evidence suggests the universe is expanding away from us in every direction?

When I read this I thought there are three way this could appear to be true:

1. The earth is the epicenter of the hypothetical "bang" (this is stupidly unlikely)
2. The speed at which distant stars are moving away from us is exponentially greater than the speed at which we are moving away from the "big bang". (This has serious mathematical problems).
3. The "red-shift" evidence that has been taken to indicate the speed at which distant stars are moving away from us means something else entirely.

Of course there could be more ways, but due to the logical / mathematical problems with 1 and 2, I lean toward 3.

 

[Alceste]

Hey YEC's reject the whole shebang! Everything science is wrong.

Astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, climatology, geology, history... even geography and medicine are up for grabs.

They go all out on the science is wrong bandwagon. And YEC;s have been invading Canada and Eastern Europe, and Turkey and India have their own breeds.

wa:do

True enough - I have met 3 YECs in Canada, total, in all my life (not counting the Prime Minister), but I don't know if it's because of the expansion of American fundamentalism or because I've finally lived long enough to stumble across pockets of stupid Canadians who have always been there.

 

[RemnanteK]

Darwin's theory (the greatest scientific insight in the last 200 years) is alive and well in computer science. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation) His theory has remained unchanged since its inception (even Einsteins theory underwent changes) and has been supported by many other fields of study, not the least of which is genetics. It has also influenced virtually all other scientific domains, including IT. It is how we understand why bacteira become resistant to antibiotics. How some businesses succeed while others fail. And a host of other things.

Darwin's imprint is on all of those sciences. His insight is confirmed by them all an is used to understand them all better.

Interesting, I don't remember any of Darwin's theory of evolution in my 6 years of College for Computer Science. If there was, they never gave him an ounce of credit once again proving science is corrupt.
Then again who need Ohms law anyway, Darwin found it first. :help:

Pointless conversation anyways, long live Fallibilism, Logical Holism, and Underdetermination.

The point I was trying to make.

 

[Autodidact]

Glad to see you have such a grasp of the obvious, you're retort is so relevant yet circumstantial.

Thank you.
And there is a difference between computer science and the science this thread is based on, Evolutionary Science and Theoretical Science.[/quote]
Really? What is it?
You said that science is a sham. Not evolutionary science, not Theoretical Science, science. If science was a sham, how would you be able to use a computer to say so?

 

[Autodidact]

Once again off the mark. If this is a thread about If Evolution Were True then I would gather the subjects we would be objecting on would be implied.
But I see you have taken science as 'everything anyone does' like business science, art science, political science, and made it fit into a rebuttal.
:clap
Well I'm going to pray that when I hit [Submit Reply] the message is sent up on a magic prayer beam to heaven and then back to your Commodore 64. :biglaugh: 単純な

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you were trying to say here. What remains is that you're happy with your delusion, so we'll just leave you to enjoy it.

But thanks for the fun, I do enjoy making people think. :beach::areyoucra

We'll let you know if you succeed.

 

[painted wolf]

The point that you don't understand biology?
Or artificial intelligence research?
Science in general?

wa:do