NationStates Jolt Archive

First, created existence and matter (Gen 1:1-2)

What is existence?

Pretty complex word to be throwing around so lightly.

If it didn't exist prior to God creating it, are we lead to believe that God didn't exist before its existence?

Isn't Inbreeding both considered morally and counter-productive to evolution?

That minor point aside, I do agree that the Bible is not mutually exlusive to evolution.

not yet, it isn't yet abominable in God's eyes (incest that is). This is in Genesis, before the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Besides, Noah's family technically included the non-related wives of his sons. There are enough people to recreate that many effects of incest are avoided.

Now, this close family reproduction is not yet abominable to God because many of the codes and laws established in Deuteronomy and Leviticus were for health related interest. Reducing sexual activity reduces many communicable diseases (not just the sexual ones, there weren't many back then). Not eating certain things could keep bad bacteria out of the systems of people. Things that may seem like dogma and doctrine were really just hygeine.

As far as the Bible being mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory, I strongly believe that it perfectly agrees with evolutionary theory.

Isn't Inbreeding both considered morally and counter-productive to evolution?



Inbreeding is a basic of evolution. That is why islands have such unusual animals. A couple birds get blown to an island. They breed with each other and with their offspring (much like the first humans in Genesis). A genetic variation takes place in one animal that helps it survive on the island. That animal breeds with the small family group. Those that have the benificial change survive to breed with others that have inherited that trait from that first individual. All of those close relatives pass on the trait. Then another trait...then another...etc.

What is existence?

Pretty complex word to be throwing around so lightly.

If it didn't exist prior to God creating it, are we lead to believe that God didn't exist before its existence?

Simply enough, it's a progression of logic. I do throw existence around, but so do people who claim there is no God.

Existence is just existence: it can't be further simplified. No amount of circular philosophy can bring any more conlusion than that.

We define God by what He has done, but God has no boundary. God is always and God was always and God will be always, so God is not linearly defined. In essence, we feel compelled to put a timeline to God. There isn't an exact date to count to, He had no conception since He was the original.

If the extremely long lives seem absurd, remember this: God created man in his likeness. God is eternal and humans were supposed to be eternal. The reason people die of "old age" is called apoptosis. Cells of organisms will only reproduce so many times. Apoptosis nowadays tends to kick in anywhere from 100 to 120 years of age, thousands of years after creation, but right after the fall apoptosis had only just been in place.

To call that an argument would be overly generous.

The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.

(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).

Not eating certain things could keep bad bacteria out of the systems of people. Things that may seem like dogma and doctrine were really just hygeine.



This is a common misbelief. Actually the food laws were to teach the people how they were to live. They were to live like the example of the things they eat. So each meal was a reminder of how they were to live. For example: They could eat chickens because they lived on seeds, but not eagles because they lived on the suffering of others. They could eat fish with scales because they lived a clean life in the upper water, clams and fish without scales lived an unclean life in the mud. Sheep and cows lived in herds and protected each other, pigs naturally live a loner life and worry only about themselves and their children.

Existence is just existence: it can't be further simplified. No amount of circular philosophy can bring any more conlusion than that.

We define God by what He has done, but God has no boundary. God is always and God was always and God will be always, so God is not linearly defined. In essence, we feel compelled to put a timeline to God. There isn't an exact date to count to, He had no conception since He was the original.

The state of existing didn't exist prior to God creating it.

Thus, prior to God creating the state of existence nothing possessed the state of existence.

Thus, God either came into being simultaneously with His creation of the state of existence, or God did not possess the state of existence prior to His act of creating it.

To call that an argument would be overly generous.

The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.

(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).

Apoptosis has to do with a certain limit on how many times the cells can reproduce until they can no longer reproduce. This is in one individual organism. When a cell reaches this limit, it will simply cease functioning and it has yet to be explained by science. It is a type of PCD (programmed cell death). Their are other types of apoptosis that are necessary for development, such as for the spaces between human fingers. The fingers are separated by apoptosis occuring with the cells in between the fingers.

Apoptosis that causes death I called old age to save myself the time for explanation. The death (or lack of controlled cell death, as is inherent in cancer) of cells manifests itself as a disease, something which has been attributed to "old age," which is attributable to apoptosis.

I didn't articulate all of that in my previous post.

This is a common misbelief. Actually the food laws were to teach the people how they were to live. They were to live like the example of the things they eat. So each meal was a reminder of how they were to live. For example: They could eat chickens because they lived on seeds, but not eagles because they lived on the suffering of others. They could eat fish with scales because they lived a clean life in the upper water, clams and fish without scales lived an unclean life in the mud. Sheep and cows lived in herds and protected each other, pigs naturally live a loner life and worry only about themselves and their children.

Where did you assume this symbolism? Is it from Biblical text or from original Jewish philosophy and study? Philosophy is that which is inspired and breathed by man, but holy writ is what is God breathed.

Apoptosis isn't responsible for death by old age, though. Loss of telomeres is.

Apoptosis has to do with a certain limit on how many times the cells can reproduce until they can no longer reproduce.

...

I didn't articulate all of that in my previous post.

None of which resolves the initial question: why should apoptosis onset earlier and earlier with each generation?

To call that an argument would be overly generous.

The bit you left out which would make it all hang together: a particular reason why apoptosis should onset earlier and earlier as generations go by.

(Leaving aside this whole notion of people dying of 'old age' rather than any identifiable individual cause).

I forgot to address why apoptosis occurred gradually earlier and earlier in humans. Evolution justifies this one. Natural selection must have favored those who could reproduce quickly, which meant that people must have reproduced earlier in life and increased competition. Beyond that, it's probably just population drift.

Apoptosis isn't responsible for death by old age, though. Loss of telomeres is.

Fatality linked to apoptosis is, though. It generally occurs in old age, which is how I reference it.

I forgot to address why apoptosis occurred gradually earlier and earlier in humans. Evolution justifies this one. Natural selection must have favored those who could reproduce quickly, which meant that people must have reproduced earlier in life and increased competition. Beyond that, it's probably just population drift.

And the connection between earlier reproduction and earlier onset of apoptosis is?

The state of existing didn't exist prior to God creating it.

Thus, prior to God creating the state of existence nothing possessed the state of existence.

Thus, God either came into being simultaneously with His creation of the state of existence, or God did not possess the state of existence prior to His act of creating it.

God has always existed. That was poor wording on my part.

thread is total bs but fun fact, as an agnostic who goes to a catholic school i was greatly surprised to be taught eveolution in bio....(im the only agnostic in my family if ur wondring why i go to a catholic school)

And the connection between earlier reproduction and earlier onset of apoptosis is?

Earlier reproduction means more people will be around to reproduce quicker. Since many people weren't dying for quite some time, population would grow.

Larger population and a development of separate social communties. These communities are formed by some social semblance, typically ancestry in the Bible, and would be likely candidates for the effects of population drift.

Any way, so long as the population grows, social development is a logical progression.

God has always existed. That was poor wording on my part.

So He didn't create existence then?

Where did you assume this symbolism? Is it from Biblical text or from original Jewish philosophy and study? Philosophy is that which is inspired and breathed by man, but holy writ is what is God breathed.

I came across it in a study of Jewish beliefs. But if you think about it the whole purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to live in love. This is why Jesus was able to attack those who obeyed the law but forgot why they were doing what they were doing. The actions became more important than the lesson. Jesus said to remember the lesson rather than the action. What lesson could he have been talking about to these people that had detailed their actions.

thread is total bs but fun fact, as an agnostic who goes to a catholic school i was greatly surprised to be taught eveolution in bio....(im the only agnostic in my family if ur wondring why i go to a catholic school)

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that you could discover anything from your own introspection? The Greek root of agnosticism means unknowable, though the more literal without knowledge is a little more practical for an inexperienced introspect, which all seems somewhat contradictory to the science based argument you're about to present.

Earlier reproduction means more people will be around to reproduce quicker. Since many people weren't dying for quite some time, population would grow.

You're still avoiding the question: why should apoptosis onset earlier and earlier over generations? You mention population drift, but why should it cause earlier onset, rather than later?

So He didn't create existence then?

His own existence always was, but he created physical existence if that is what you're getting at. But the matter of existence isn't pertinent to the concept of evolution (not on the "when was God?" level).

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Sounds like another born again teenage evangelist! Show me reasons why your god exists and I will refute them.

His own existence always was, but he created physical existence if that is what you're getting at. But the matter of existence isn't pertinent to the concept of evolution (not on the "when was God?" level).

So, when you claimed he created existence that was an untruth?

And when you said...

Existence is just existence: it can't be further simplified.

... you meant 'existence can be further simplified into physical and non-physical existence', yes?

You're still avoiding the question: why should apoptosis onset earlier and earlier over generations? You mention population drift, but why should it cause earlier onset, rather than later?

I answered the question. Population drift describes not the physical drifting but the genetic drifting inherent to an independent gene pool. I cite Darwin's observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands.

So, when you claimed he created existence that was an untruth?

His very being is existence. You're just trying to corner me with semantics.

Sounds like another born again teenage evangelist! Show me reasons why your god exists and I will refute them.

Read the last four pages and you can participate in a meaningful way. I presented my argument and feel free to refute it.

His very being is existence. You're just trying to corner me with semantics.

Nope: I'm trying to understand your logic. See the edit at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12028552&postcount=272 for further clarification.

I came across it in a study of Jewish beliefs. But if you think about it the whole purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to live in love. This is why Jesus was able to attack those who obeyed the law but forgot why they were doing what they were doing. The actions became more important than the lesson. Jesus said to remember the lesson rather than the action. What lesson could he have been talking about to these people that had detailed their actions.

Okay, cabbala or something? Jewish philosophical studies. They applied whatever symbolic license they felt would honor God, but they aren't the reason for the laws, just a meaningful little analogous application to another characteristic of life.

I answered the question. Population drift describes not the physical drifting but the genetic drifting inherent to an independent gene pool. I cite Darwin's observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands.

So through attaining the lifespan of Methusalah would just be a matter of genetics?

Nope: I'm trying to understand your logic. See the edit at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12028552&postcount=272 for further clarification.

Ahhh, okay. I see your point. It's philosophical to that extent. The Bible says that God always was, always is, and always will be, so that seems to clarify existence. Physical existence didn't happen until creation, but God's non-physical existance did. I did say that existence cannot be simplified further. For us, it can't be. For God, it really can't be explained further (even with what I've said in this post).

This speculation of existance is that of mine from an applied extension of the biblical linear description of God and there is neither biblical nor historical reference for further explanation.

So through attaining the lifespan of Methusalah would just be a matter of genetics?

It seems so to me, but the genetic characteristics and the environment would have to permit such a case.

There's another environmental condition in Genesis that would have contributed to long life spans. It's called the "vapor canopy" which was basically very thick layer of atmosphere that had tremendous amounts of water vapor in it. This is also what probably caused the flood of creation.

It may have extended lifespans because of reduced ultra violet radiation.

Is it just me or does someone with all of three or four posts just interject some "Oh, look at how biased I am" statement at nearly equal intervals?

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

why cant we just get off the topic of ID/creationism vs. evolution?!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

There's another environmental condition in Genesis that would have contributed to long life spans. It's called the "vapor canopy" which was basically very thick layer of atmosphere that had tremendous amounts of water vapor in it. This is also what probably caused the flood of creation.

It may have extended lifespans because of reduced ultra violet radiation.

It also would have raised global temperatures by several hundred degrees.

It seems so to me, but the genetic characteristics and the environment would have to permit such a case.

Now, kindly explain how Methusalah could reach over 900 years of age without dying for the massive cancers caused by severe genetic damage after the loss of his telomeres.

It also would have raised global temperatures by several hundred degrees.

That depends on how much thermal energy can get through the barrier in the first place. Thermodynamics would dictate that most of the heat would be trapped within that layer.

Now, kindly explain how Methusalah could reach over 900 years of age without dying for the massive cancers caused by severe genetic damage after the loss of his telomeres.

What determines how long a telomere is? That is something that can be affected by genetic heredity and mutation. Once again, God is omnipotent.

I admit that I did NOT read all of the posts in this thread. But I read enough to see that there are FAR too many people around here that think that they can refute anti-evolutionists by saying something along the lines of: we did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor, and then they act like they've won some sort of debating point.

However, evolution DOES say that we evolved from monkeys, only different monkeys than modern day monkeys. One should be careful when they repeat bumper sticker arguments.

Humans are a member of the family Hominidae which is believed to have diverged about 5 million years before the present (mybp) from the other members of the Old world monkeys. At least 20 mybp the Hominoids split off from the other old world monkeys. The dates are rough and get changed now and then.
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/39.Human.Evolution.HTML

if anyone is further interested in this evolution topic specifically relating to how the Bible AGREES with it, go to

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12028760#post12028760

Okay, since this apparently disappeared into the void when I made the post on page 7 (and we're now on 20), I'll try it again.

I've been through more evolution threads than I can count and I finally got sick and tired of typing the same thing over and over (which amounts to evolution explained in kindergarten terms) and even though people continue to not be able to wrap their heads around these basic biological concepts, I get drawn back in. But, to alleviate my cramped fingers and bruised forehead, I've put it into an easy-to-follow link so I don't have to sit here and type the same things over and over.

Evolution is a basic biological concept. It's biology, not religion. What I can't fathom is why people are so into arguing it when they don't know anything about it. Not to mention, it's really boring. Not to me, but then, I'm a scientist so I'm fascinated by all sorts of dull things. I see people who slept through biology suddenly come to life when the dreaded e-word is mentioned and suddenly it's the most interesting thing in the world and they can't wait to voice their opinion on a subject they have no authority to weigh in on. It would be like me telling a structural engineer that the building will collapse when I have no grasp of engineering concepts. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, here it is:
Evolution Basics in Kindergarten Terms (http://rants.lackofoxygen.net/evolution.html) (minus the safety scissors)

That depends on how much thermal energy can get through the barrier in the first place. Thermodynamics would dictate that most of the heat would be trapped within that layer.

It doesn't matter. As long as some gets in, the temperature is going to skyrocket. It'd be worse than Venus.

never mind...it just got locked. Go ahead and go there even if you can't respond in that thread. All of the argument I present is there.

I admit that I did NOT read all of the posts in this thread. But I read enough to see that there are FAR too many people around here that think that they can refute anti-evolutionists by saying something along the lines of: we did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor, and then they act like they've won some sort of debating point.

However, evolution DOES say that we evolved from monkeys, only different monkeys than modern day monkeys. One should be careful when they repeat bumper sticker arguments.

Some of us already pointed this out. ;)

What determines how long a telomere is? That is something that can be affected by genetic heredity and mutation.I'd suggest that a man that lives 900 years has a few more kids than the poor saps that live only a fraction of that. I think that at least would be selected for. Why don't we see people like that anymore?

Once again, God is omnipotent.Yes, everyone knows he can save any argument by waving his metaphorical hands. Pull that card and no one will even bother talking to you because it will clearly be a useless persuit.

It doesn't matter. As long as some gets in, the temperature is going to skyrocket. It'd be worse than Venus.

Not necessarily, probably though. Very likely, but the thing is, the temperature apparently didn't skyrocket, or else everyone would be dead. There must have been a layer of nothingness somewhere between that layer and the earth.

Some of us already pointed this out. ;)

Thank you, my apologies then, please carry on, as you were :cool:

I'd suggest that a man that lives 900 years has a few more kids than the poor saps that live only a fraction of that. I think that at least would be selected for. Why don't we see people like that anymore?

Yes, everyone knows he can save any argument by waving his metaphorical hands. Pull that card and no one will even bother talking to you because it will clearly be a useless persuit.

But for how much of that lifespan will he be fertile? Who's to say what other genes he might have had either? Details no one knows. Go back and look at my previous posts on apoptosis and telomeres. I don't need to argue that again.

And as far as the useless pursuit of talking to me, look and see that my entire argument so far has been the one based on scientific theories and evolution? I include "God's metaphorical hands" to approve of the theories, not to support points.

Thank you, my apologies then, please carry on, as you were :cool:

It's funny (as someone who doesn't bother considering creationism as worthy of debate, silly myth being silly myth) to find myself arguing with other "evolutionists" (aka: rational people) over essentially them revising evolutionism to make it more palatable for stupid people who aren't willing to recognize man as just another animal.

"No we didn't come from apes/monkeys/earlier primates, we just share a common ancestor." Well, if it wasn't an ape/monkey then what do you call it? A non-simian simian ancestor? Stop beating around the bush kids. :mad: :D

Now, kindly explain how Methusalah could reach over 900 years of age without dying for the massive cancers

because god wanted him to drown in the flood

It's funny (as someone who doesn't bother considering creationism as worthy of debate, silly myth being silly myth) to find myself arguing with other "evolutionists" (aka: rational people) over essentially them revising evolutionism to make it more palatable for stupid people who aren't willing to recognize man as just another animal.

"No we didn't come from apes/monkeys/earlier primates, we just share a common ancestor." Well, if it wasn't an ape/monkey then what do you call it? A non-simian simian ancestor? Stop beating around the bush kids. :mad: :DClearly it was an ape-like common ancestor. The point with making that distinction is to refute the rhetorical "why aren't people born out of monkeys then now ??!!1111" question that creationists often throw out there.

You can't say humans evolved from monkeys anymore than you can say humans evolved from bananas. Do we share a common ancestor? Yes, but that's not the same as saying humans evolved from monkeys. That's just stupid.

Evolution makes sense. We know that genes change overtime by adapting to different environments. After millions of years, I'd be surprised if something didn't evolve.

And what alternative is there to evolution? Are you suggesting that one day, millions of years ago, all the cells in the ocean clustered together to create all the species on Earth, and out they crawled onto the land to multiply.

NOW THAT'S just stupid.

I don't think this is a real question. I think people just enjoy making outrageous comments so people will argue over it.

Not necessarily, probably though. Very likely, but the thing is, the temperature apparently didn't skyrocket, or else everyone would be dead. There must have been a layer of nothingness somewhere between that layer and the earth.

Which wouldn't have helped one bit.

There's another environmental condition in Genesis that would have contributed to long life spans. It's called the "vapor canopy" which was basically very thick layer of atmosphere that had tremendous amounts of water vapor in it. This is also what probably caused the flood of creation.

It may have extended lifespans because of reduced ultra violet radiation.

so this vapor canopy - it went away after the flood, yeah?

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

What about the dinosaurs, Riknaht?

But for how much of that lifespan will he be fertile?As of right now the oldest fertile men have been around 94ish. Even that would be lots of time to create a big family and select for it - large families were very in vogue at the time, or so I understand. And by the way - Lamech, his son, was supposedly fathered at age 187.

Who's to say what other genes he might have had either?Methuselah is not the only one that apparently lived a really long time. Evidently they were a inheiritable trait.

Details no one knows. Go back and look at my previous posts on apoptosis and telomeres. I don't need to argue that again.Why would the lengths of the telomeres change so significantly in 6000 years? Selected out, perhaps, but why? Noah himself supposedly lived some 350 years after the flood. He also had his sons with him. You'd think the long life genes would stick around; they would obviously help the repopulation efforts.

And as far as the useless pursuit of talking to me, look and see that my entire argument so far has been the one based on scientific theories and evolution? I include "God's metaphorical hands" to approve of the theories, not to support points.If they're truly scientific then they need no approval of a god because science doesn't address that idea. To put said approval in is unnecessary. What's the point?

Why would the lengths of the telomeres change so significantly in 6000 years? Selected out, perhaps, but why? Noah himself supposedly lived some 350 years after the flood. He also had his sons with him. You'd think the long life genes would stick around; they would obviously help the repopulation efforts.

Huh. I think you just won that part of the argument for him. Supposing there is a 'long-life gene' then who is to say that Noah's sons had it, and that they passed it down? Perhaps it was a recessive trait, and their wives did not have it. Assuming the Flood happened, the genetic pool was very limited for a bit: perfect breeding ground for wiping out recessive genetic traits. (Or even dominant ones that failed to get passed on)

Huh. I think you just won that part of the argument for him. Supposing there is a 'long-life gene' then who is to say that Noah's sons had it, and that they passed it down?

well, considering that 9 of abraham's 10 post-flood direct male ancestors are reported to have been alive at the time of his birth, i'd say it looks like it got passed on just fine for a couple more generations. noah's son shem only barely missed out on the birth of abraham's great-grandson joseph. that would be shem's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granson

one of the things that confuses me about the story is that the great-great-etc-granddads didn't get invited along to the promised land with abraham and pals. hell, noah himself was still kicking around at the time they first set out. apparently nobody liked the elderly, even then.

Huh. I think you just won that part of the argument for him. Supposing there is a 'long-life gene' then who is to say that Noah's sons had it, and that they passed it down? Perhaps it was a recessive trait, and their wives did not have it. Assuming the Flood happened, the genetic pool was very limited for a bit: perfect breeding ground for wiping out recessive genetic traits. (Or even dominant ones that failed to get passed on)I agree. That's fairly reasonable. However, was there such a breeding ground? The most recent common patrilineal male ancestor is estimated to be 60 000 to 90 000 years ago. I'd say this kinda cuts out the times of the flood. Given that Noah and his sons were supposed to be the only male humans on the boat, I'm not sure how that's to be resolved.

Additionally, showing the Flood actually occurred is another matter... I had posted elsewhere about the oldest living trees being 5000 years old (at least one was until it was chopped down in the 60s), etc. The next youngest is ~4800 years old. I'm not sure how these are explained by a flood. Why would they be alive? Additional clonal colonies, like that of the Quaking Aspen tree Pando in Utah, may be older still, having estimates range from 80 000 years to 1 000 000 years. It just seems to me that there would be some kind of difficulty for a single plant to survive during a flood type cataclysm - but there they are.


EDIT: I looked up the ages for Noah's descendants and the age genes clearly weren't gotten rid of all that quick. Certainly they survived the initial population bottleneck.

Shem 500
Arphaxad 403
Shelah 403
Eber 430
Peleg 209
Reu 207
Serug 200
Nahor 119
Terah 205
Abram 175

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

And let me guess, its more believable that God appeared from the clouds on the back of a dear and created Man?

one of the things that confuses me about the story is that the great-great-etc-granddads didn't get invited along to the promised land with abraham and pals. hell, noah himself was still kicking around at the time they first set out. apparently nobody liked the elderly, even then.

Probably for the same reason Noah allegedly wasn't chosen to be the patriarch of God's chosen people - he annoyed God somehow with the vineyard incident.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

The Catholic Church agree with evolution.

HA! In you face! In your zealous Christian face. :p

The Catholic Church agree with evolution.

The Catholic Church holds that evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine, not that it is true or false.

one of the things that confuses me about the story is that the great-great-etc-granddads didn't get invited along to the promised land with abraham and pals. hell, noah himself was still kicking around at the time they first set out. apparently nobody liked the elderly, even then.

Well, perhaps like any other great story, the leading characters had played their part, and now it was time for the younger generations to take the torch. Feels like Tolkien, with Bilbo and Frodo; Bilbo had done the part allotted to him, and passed the burden onto Frodo, who completes the cycle.

Huh. I think you just won that part of the argument for him. Supposing there is a 'long-life gene' then who is to say that Noah's sons had it, and that they passed it down? Perhaps it was a recessive trait, and their wives did not have it. Assuming the Flood happened, the genetic pool was very limited for a bit: perfect breeding ground for wiping out recessive genetic traits. (Or even dominant ones that failed to get passed on)

Well, if I remember correctly, the thing about old age is that we do not continuously get older, at least our bodies don't. At a certain point, our bodies actually stop aging(Up somewhere in the old age), and it is due to irreversible damage to the body(Which is weakened due to old age) that is what causes natural death. Thus, it is perhaps possible that how old someone can live is related to genetics, and it is supposedly possible for some to have the genetics to live to very old age.

However, this is rather unproven, at least the genetics part.

The Catholic Church holds that evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine, not that it is true or false.

Which is an extremely sensible stance that shows they actually understand science.

The Catholic Church holds that evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine, not that it is true or false.

And since, IMO, it's pretty much a given that evolution is real, they're agreeing with the theory.

Which is an extremely sensible stance that shows they actually understand science.

I agree.

And since, IMO, it's pretty much a given that evolution is real, they're agreeing with the theory.

It is indeed "a given," but that doesn't stop people from disagreeing with it. Nor does Catholic doctrine.

explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from. Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.
See the Miller-Urey experiment. Organic Amino Acids from (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). Which was evaporated, and mixed with electricity formed simple Carbon based Organic Amino acids.

Now what gave it the 'push' to be able to divide... That has no explaination...

[QUOTE=

"Religion is mans way of explaining things he cannot explain with science." Are you kidding me? So, in your words, theories which "explain" things in science, EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT BE VERIFIED MUST BE RELIGION.

QUOTE]

no, what I'm saying is that if man cannot came up with a scientific explanation or proof of something, he explains it via some higher power

Okay, convince me that the Blutarmut in Africa has nothing to do with evolutionary advantages. It's my favorite example for natural selection and survival of the fittest:

There is a disease of which I only know that term which is genetic and deforms the red-bloodcells. They can not transport as much oxygen as normal but people with that disease are immune to malaria. If the genes on both chromosones have it, it is lethal, but if only one chromosone is affected, you can live normally. While nearly everywhere, this chromosone is not found (found in less than 1% of the population), in the regions with many malaria infections, it is an advantage and can be found in 15% of the population.

How would that have worked with ID?

See the Miller-Urey experiment. Organic Amino Acids from (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). Which was evaporated, and mixed with electricity formed simple Carbon based Organic Amino acids.

Now what gave it the 'push' to be able to divide... That has no explaination...

Nor does it need one. Evolution in no way cares about how life began. The two are completely seperate. Evolution only cares about how life changed after it began.

[QUOTE=

"Religion is mans way of explaining things he cannot explain with science." Are you kidding me? So, in your words, theories which "explain" things in science, EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT BE VERIFIED MUST BE RELIGION.

QUOTE]

no, what I'm saying is that if man cannot came up with a scientific explanation or proof of something, he explains it via some higher power

learn how to properly use quote tags.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Heh heh.

ROFLMAO!!

I'm sorry, were you being serious? In that case, fuck off and go play with your Mohammed doll.

Heh heh.

ROFLMAO!!

I'm sorry, were you being serious? In that case, fuck off and go play with your Mohammed doll.Heh heh.

ROFLMAO!!

I'm sorry, were you being serious? In that case, play off and go fuck with your Mohammed doll. :eek:

Elovution is a myth.

Elovution is a myth.

Hey, thanks for that very constructive post! My views have been totally changed by this profound statement.:rolleyes:

Hey, thanks for that very constructive post! My views have been totally changed by this profound statement.:rolleyes:Yeah, it was about time. Why didn't all the other posts change your views?

Yeah, it was about time. Why didn't all the other posts change your views?

Because all of the others were just as poor as yours.

Oh, wait...

Huh, I guess nothing changed at all then.

Really, I thought the "roll eyes" smily would have shown my sarcasm...

There is a disease of which I only know that term which is genetic and deforms the red-bloodcells.
Sickle Cell Disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell). It has several variations:
sickle-haemoglobin C disease
sickle beta-plus-thalassemia
sickle beta-zero-thalassemia
hemoglobin ss
sickle cell anemia

Because all of the others were just as poor as yours.

Oh, wait...

Huh, I guess nothing changed at all then.

Really, I thought the "roll eyes" smily would have shown my sarcasm...You think there's sarcasm in elovution? :eek:

Sickle Cell Disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell). It has several variations:
sickle-haemoglobin C disease
sickle beta-plus-thalassemia
sickle beta-zero-thalassemia
hemoglobin ss
sickle cell anemia
And thus: How would that have worked with ID?

You think there's sarcasm in elovution? :eek:

Evolution. Not Elovution. Evolution.

Evolution. Not Elovution. Evolution.You religious folks try to turn everything around, huh... :rolleyes:

And thus: How would that have worked with ID?
It wouldn't have because ID is total bunk.

And thus: How would that have worked with ID?

Like everything else in ID, it works with God Magic(tm).

It wouldn't have because ID is total bunk.Damn, and I hoped someone could tell me about his experiences with dinosaurs... :(

Damn, and I hoped someone could tell me about his experiences with dinosaurs... :(

Dr. Mc Ninja (http://drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=12&issue=5) can!

Like everything else in ID, it works with God Magic(tm).Hmm. When I look at some people, I have doubts about the intelligence in this design...

Dr. Mc Ninja can!Have his skype ID?

Have his skype ID?

I made with the editing.

Here's something for the evolutionists to laugh at, and for the creationists believe devoutly.

There is a disease of which I only know that term which is genetic and deforms the red-bloodcells. They can not transport as much oxygen as normal but people with that disease are immune to malaria. If the genes on both chromosones have it, it is lethal, but if only one chromosone is affected, you can live normally. While nearly everywhere, this chromosone is not found (found in less than 1% of the population), in the regions with many malaria infections, it is an advantage and can be found in 15% of the population.

How would that have worked with ID?

It's called Sickle Cell, If both have it it causes Sickle Cell anemia, in which when the Blood cells are so deformed that they do not function well, it isn't 'lethal' but the people who get it are weaker from less oxgyen being transported.

It's also a very specific gene. Malaria was never a major problem in acient Europe so decendents from Europe tend to no carry it.

It's called Sickle Cell, If both have it it causes Sickle Cell anemia, in which when the Blood cells are so deformed that they do not function well, it isn't 'lethal' but the people who get it are weaker from less oxgyen being transported.

It's also a 'race specific' gene. Malaria was never a major problem in acient Europe.
Right, my Biology books are sleeping at my parents'.

This can mean it was totally eliminated if you believe humanity descended from Africa or developed later. Also in part of Africa with less of a Malaria problem it is far more seldom. Explain that, creationists

so this vapor canopy - it went away after the flood, yeah?

It came down and caused the flood. It was separated from the rest of the atmosphere and the earth by a layer of just void expanse.

As of right now the oldest fertile men have been around 94ish. Even that would be lots of time to create a big family and select for it - large families were very in vogue at the time, or so I understand. And by the way - Lamech, his son, was supposedly fathered at age 187.

Methuselah is not the only one that apparently lived a really long time. Evidently they were a inheiritable trait.

Why would the lengths of the telomeres change so significantly in 6000 years? Selected out, perhaps, but why? Noah himself supposedly lived some 350 years after the flood. He also had his sons with him. You'd think the long life genes would stick around; they would obviously help the repopulation efforts.

If they're truly scientific then they need no approval of a god because science doesn't address that idea. To put said approval in is unnecessary. What's the point?

The oldest men have been fertile at around 94ish, but it isn't when they're fertile that matters so much as how long they are fertile and the social obligations of family composition (which was to have as many kids as you could). That doesn't matter, though, because Noah's descendents are the only ones that mattered in the end.

An inheritable trait, yes, I agree. But the only trait present to be inherited? No. Population drift.

The continued-life population adaptation may have been so drastically reduced because of linked genes associated with life duration that may have made certain people undesirable for mating. The Bible shows a continued lineage of long-living people but those people apparently lost the genetic trait probably in a way no different than that of an organ gradually becoming vestigial.

Whether or not the gene is helpful for reproduction is seperate from whether or not the gene is passed down. Since it may not have been an entirely dominant trait, variation is possible after mutation. Possibly mutation derived from the sudden new exposure of UV rays. The rapid decrease in life length during the pre-flood time is anyones guess, but it can't be disproven.

The said "biblical approval of God" I put in my posts isn't to justify science. If it were, it would be a meaningless entry for the likes of you. God means nothing to you. For the Christian and religious communities, however, it bears weight because it reiterates the scientific-religious agreement.

It came down and caused the flood. It was separated from the rest of the atmosphere and the earth by a layer of just void expanse.

and thus the generations after the flood should have shortened in more of a jump than a gradual decline, yeah?

[QUOTE=

"Religion is mans way of explaining things he cannot explain with science." Are you kidding me? So, in your words, theories which "explain" things in science, EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT BE VERIFIED MUST BE RELIGION.

QUOTE]

no, what I'm saying is that if man cannot came up with a scientific explanation or proof of something, he explains it via some higher power

And a theory has supporting evidence, but cannot be proved, thusly I imly that you personally define "theories" as religion.

and thus the generations after the flood should have shortened in more of a jump than a gradual decline, yeah?

Maybe just a more drastic decline. It's case specific, though, I think someone posted a lifeamount thing earlier.

Maybe just a more drastic decline. It's case specific, though, I think someone posted a lifeamount thing earlier.

well if this vapor canopy was responsible for life extensions, then one would think that once it went away the life extending benefits of it would cease too, yeah? so normal aging would take over from that point on, right?

well if this vapor canopy was responsible for life extensions, then one would think that once it went away the life extending benefits of it would cease too, yeah? so normal aging would take over from that point on, right?

I said it could help, not that it was entirely responsible for the long lives.

I said it could help, not that it was entirely responsible for the long lives.

well, what else changed between methuselah and jacob?

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Similarities in anatomy and, sometimes, in behaviour.

It came down and caused the flood. It was separated from the rest of the atmosphere and the earth by a layer of just void expanse.the firmament?

well, what else changed between methuselah and jacob?The average IQ of humans dropped by 75%.

I just logged in and don't have the patience to read through all those pages of posts, so I am going to go off topic, and hopefully nobody broght this out. First off quit quoting wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. In many cases, the evolutionary articles offer no evidence to support some of their claims. I anyone familiar with irreducible complexity? It is simply the state in which a machine cannot function if one of its components are missing. The human eye is an excellent example. Even Darwin said that the eye evolving was absurd. Darwin also said that everything that evolves must have some purpose to it and that evolution must happen gradually. A part of a complex mechanism would then have to evolve on step at a time, but then that one step would fulfill no function as Darwin asserted that it must. Our closed circulatory system is another great example. Our veins and arteries would not have evolved without something to support them. That something is our skeletal system, which wouldn't evolve unless it had something to support. Another good example is DNA. DNA is made up of 4 nucleotides (abbreviated T, A, C, G) and proteins. The nucleotides form a code which denote the arrangement of amino acids into the proper combination, so that the ribosomes can assemble them into proteins which make up part of the DNA structure. The newly assembled proteins are transported by another molecular structure designed solely for that purpose. Each of these things is designed for a specific purpose that works in conjunction with something else. One of these would not have evolved on its own since it would serve no purpose by itself.

That something is our skeletal system, which wouldn't evolve unless it had something to support.

Nope: evolution is not a teleological process.

I just logged in and don't have the patience to read through all those pages of posts, so I am going to go off topic, and hopefully nobody broght this out. First off quit quoting wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. In many cases, the evolutionary articles offer no evidence to support some of their claims. I anyone familiar with irreducible complexity? It is simply the state in which a machine cannot function if one of its components are missing. The human eye is an excellent example. Even Darwin said that the eye evolving was absurd. Darwin also said that everything that evolves must have some purpose to it and that evolution must happen gradually. A part of a complex mechanism would then have to evolve on step at a time, but then that one step would fulfill no function as Darwin asserted that it must. Our closed circulatory system is another great example. Our veins and arteries would not have evolved without something to support them. That something is our skeletal system, which wouldn't evolve unless it had something to support. Another good example is DNA. DNA is made up of 4 nucleotides (abbreviated T, A, C, G) and proteins. The nucleotides form a code which denote the arrangement of amino acids into the proper combination, so that the ribosomes can assemble them into proteins which make up part of the DNA structure. The newly assembled proteins are transported by another molecular structure designed solely for that purpose. Each of these things is designed for a specific purpose that works in conjunction with something else. One of these would not have evolved on its own since it would serve no purpose by itself.Evolution needs and serves no purpose.

The average IQ of humans dropped by 75%.

100 - 100(75/100) = 100.

The average IQ of humans dropped by 75%.

hehe, and I suppose that leaves you and a few thousand others the last truly intelligent humans left. I'm also curious as to how the human race grew more technologically advanced even as they became increasingly retarded

100 - 100(75/100) = 100.arithmetic problems? 100 - 100(75/100) = 25.

arithmetic problems? 100 - 100(75/100) = 25.

Ah, but IQ is defined so that the average score in any given global population will be 100 - it is the value given to the centre of the bell curve.

Thus at generation A the average human IQ will be 100, simialrly at generation B, generation C... regardless of whether those generations become more or less capable of providing correct answers in a test.

Just one question- Why all the evolution threads now?

And let me guess, its more believable that God appeared from the clouds on the back of a dear and created Man?

That would be a religious statement, since it is something people accept on faith. Evolution is also religious since it must be accepted on faith.

Just one question- Why all the evolution threads now?

Memetics. I guess politics evolved in to religion, which evolves in to evolution, which will somehow deevolve back to politics. The world of memes is the most fucked up evolutionary environment imaginable, probably because humans are involved.

Hmm. When I look at some people, I have doubts about the intelligence in this design...

In short: "You're stupid because God was wrong after all"

(editing note: It is my intent to summarize all of United Belerliand's statements, as they are [for the most part] too complex for the ordinary mind. The above statement is not an insult to him, but a summary of his bewildering insight)

That would be a religious statement, since it is something people accept on faith. Evolution is also religious since it must be accepted on faith.

No, evolution is not accepted on faith. We see the evidence, and draw conclusions from it. If someone comes up with a better explanation that fits the data, we discard the theory and go from there. Science is inherently mutable and willing to change in light of new, viable ideas.

The only faith science requires is the faith in the fundamental axioms of reality that everything in human civilization has.

Ah, but IQ is defined so that the average score in any given global population will be 100 - it is the value given to the centre of the bell curve.

Thus at generation A the average human IQ will be 100, simialrly at generation B, generation C... regardless of whether those generations become more or less capable of providing correct answers in a test.So what do you say when you compare generation A to generation C ?

Elovution is a myth.

Summary: This one is a bit of a poser. On one hand he could be tryiong to say "Evolution is entirely fantasy". Its far more likely that he is making an entirely different and important statement altogether, because he offers little proof for the statement previously mentioned. It would be correct to assume that "Elovution" Is most definitely a myth, and would require just as much evidence as he has already given

hehe, the irony is that I misspelled "trying" in order to describe his efforts to spell "evolution". Its good stuff :D

Summary: This one is a bit of a poser. On one hand he could be tryiong to say "Evolution is entirely fantasy". Its far more likely that he is making an entirely different and important statement altogether, because he offers little proof for the statement previously mentioned. It would be correct to assume that "Elovution" Is most definitely a myth, and would require just as much evidence as he has already given??

volvo, volvere, volvi, volutus = to cause to revolve, roll, turn about, turn round
evolvo, evolvere, evolvi, evolutus = to roll out, roll forth, unroll, unfold

oy, ok, I'll spell it out for you:

You offer no new evidence (none of any value), so I refuse to believe you're referring to evolution. It is my belief that you've fallen into a "straw man fallacy" and have created an entirely new enemy ("elovution") in order to avoid a serious arguement.

oy, ok, I'll spell it out for you:

You offer no new evidence (none of any value), so I refuse to believe you're referring to evolution. It is my belief that you've fallen into a "straw man fallacy" and have created an entirely new enemy ("elovution") in order to avoid a serious arguement.There has never been any serious arguement or argument in this thread. The title already hints that this was not the intent of this thread.

I am, of course, not being entirely serious. I actually do believe you have a problem with evolution, but that you have so little knowledge about the subject (or its alternatives) that you can only spew reactionary garbage at people who do have their own ideas.

I was seriously interested in this thread when I started reading it, because Kohlstein and his opponents actually were dealing in cold-hard facts. I haven't heard anything interesting from your perspective aside from the occaisional I-think-you're-stupid jabs at people who actually have opinions and the means to back them up.

oy, ok, I'll spell it out for you:

You offer no new evidence (none of any value), so I refuse to believe you're referring to evolution. It is my belief that you've fallen into a "straw man fallacy" and have created an entirely new enemy ("elovution") in order to avoid a serious arguement.

The correct term is "evillution".

The correct term is "evillution".

lol. My mistake

There has never been any serious arguement or argument in this thread. The title already hints that this was not the intent of this thread.

yes, I realize that this is not a life-and-death policy debate on whether or not these things are important, but this was being taken seriously. Kohlstein and many of the others here (aside from you and I) referrred to scientific and historical evidence, and they obviously take this whole thing seriously.

I am, of course, not being entirely serious. I actually do believe you have a problem with evolution, but that you have so little knowledge about the subject (or its alternatives) that you can only spew reactionary garbage at people who do have their own ideas.

I was seriously interested in this thread when I started reading it, because Kohlstein and his opponents actually were dealing in cold-hard facts. I haven't heard anything interesting from your perspective aside from the occaisional I-think-you're-stupid jabs at people who actually have opinions and the means to back them up.Pfffft. There are no cold-hard facts on the religious side. I really see no point in explaining the mechanisms of evolution to religious folks in an internet forum. They won't get it anyway.

So what do you say when you compare generation A to generation C ?

You don't use IQ as a measurement: you could compare the average amount of correct answers that they gave in a test though.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Got a better idea? We evolved from mud, perhaps - like it says in the 'good' book?

Got a better idea? We evolved from mud, perhaps - like it says in the 'good' book?

No, we were the unplanned sideeffect of a masturbation session of the great Egyptian god Atum.

You don't use IQ as a measurement: you could compare the average amount of correct answers that they gave in a test though.OK, then the average amount of correct answers that would have been given in a test dropped by 75% in the period between Methuselah and Jacob. The more religious they got, you know.

err, I don't remember ever reading in his statements that he proposed a religious alternative to evolution (though I'm sure he has religious motivation, but whatever).. He's just trying to disprove it, and unfortunately he's trying to do it by calling science a religion

I personally don't believe Kohlstein is correct, but I have to give him credit for trying. He's trying to prove a negative, and even if he isn't doing that good of a job he's doing a lot better than most ID/Creationists I've listened to.

I've also noticed that Kohlstein rarely goes back to address things that others have disproven (unless you count his demand that people stop using wikipedia). He isn't sounding all that credible because of the holes some of the Evolutionists have opened up.

err, I don't remember ever reading in his statements that he proposed a religious alternative to evolution. He's just trying to disprove it (though I'm sure he has religious motivation, but whatever).

I personally don't believe Kohlstein is correct, but I have to give him credit for trying. He's trying to prove a negative, and even if he isn't doing that good of a job he's doing a lot better than most ID/Creationists I've listened to.

I've also noticed that Kohlstein rarely goes back to address things that others have disproven (unless you count his demand that people stop using wikipedia). He isn't sounding all that credible because of the holes some of the Evolutionists have opened up.

I'm not saying he (is it a 'he'?) is trying for a religious explanation.

If you have a system which you are trying to describe, and you hav discovered one mechanism that seems to work most of the time... should you junk that mechanism just because it might not be 100%?

No - of course that would be illogical... you work with the mechanism you have, until you find one better. Your mechanism would have to be pretty useless to be worthy of being junked without an alternative.

And, that is the point - we have a mechanism which comfortably explains most of what we witness in our system, which we call 'evolution'. There is no logical purpose in removing such a mechanism, without finessing the principle, or replacing it.

Thus - our friend is either being controversial for the sake of it, or somewhat academically dishonest... since I find it hard to believe he/she would wish to 'destroy' the concept of evolution if he/she did not believe they had a better explanation.

And, that's what I'm asking - if we junk this mechanism, what 'better' mechanism do we have to replace it?

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys but from a common ancestor. And I don't believe the alleged humans who drive around this town at midnight screaming abuse at pedestrians have evolved from anything, much less something as pleasant as a monkey.:)

I'm not disagreeing with you on that Grave_n_Idle. I'm a lover of irony, and the ironic thing about this is that if Kohlstein is religiously motivated but offers no other explaination or theory to replace it then he's simply being nihilistic which is exactly the sort of thing religious people accuse evolutionists of being. I really hope he doesn't offer any alternative at all, because then it would be all the more amusing.

And, that's what I'm asking - if we junk this mechanism, what 'better' mechanism do we have to replace it?

Several millions. Devised by religions, philosophers, people using their imaginations and so on. All capable of explaining everything, for a certain definition of explaining.

Pity that most people only wish to look at one, rather dull and uninmaginative, religious story. Especially since it is in no way better than those millions of others.

err, I don't remember ever reading in his statements that he proposed a religious alternative to evolution (though I'm sure he has religious motivation, but whatever).. He's just trying to disprove it, and unfortunately he's trying to do it by calling science a religion

I personally don't believe Kohlstein is correct, but I have to give him credit for trying. He's trying to prove a negative, and even if he isn't doing that good of a job he's doing a lot better than most ID/Creationists I've listened to.

I've also noticed that Kohlstein rarely goes back to address things that others have disproven (unless you count his demand that people stop using wikipedia). Your friend Kohlstein has no comprehension of evolution whatsoever and I won't waste time to set him on the right track.

He isn't sounding all that credible because of the holes some of the Evolutionists have opened up.Such as?

Several millions. Devised by religions, philosophers, people using their imaginations and so on. All capable of explaining everything, for a certain definition of explaining.

Pity that most people only wish to look at one, rather dull and uninmaginative, religious story. Especially since it is in no way better than those millions of others.Tell us those better alternatives, please.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that Grave_n_Idle. I'm a lover of irony, and the ironic thing about this is that if Kohlstein is religiously motivated but offers no other explaination or theory to replace it then he's simply being nihilistic which is exactly the sort of thing religious people accuse evolutionists of being. I really hope he doesn't offer any alternative at all, because then it would be all the more amusing.

Agreed. I'm personally thinking Kohl is religiously motivated, if for no other reason than I have met hardly anyone who has ever tried to debate against evolution without being religiously motivated.

I can understand how he/she might not want to reveal their religious bias if that is the case, but it makes the whole exercise somewhat dishonest. There should at least be full disclosure.

Several millions. Devised by religions, philosophers, people using their imaginations and so on. All capable of explaining everything, for a certain definition of explaining.

Pity that most people only wish to look at one, rather dull and uninmaginative, religious story. Especially since it is in no way better than those millions of others.

There are a number of alternatives.

I don't know that any are 'better' at explaining what we can observe.

Regardless of which, our OP doesn't suggest an alternative, we are just supposed to think he/she is setting out to tear down evolution with no ulterior motive.

Tell us those better alternatives, please.

Other religious explanations than Christianity ? Simply read up on other religions. I quite like the ancient Egyptians, but the Greco-Roman story is intruiging too. The Hindus and Buddhist have visions, as do the scientologists and Sikhs. And all those wonderful tribal religions.. wonderfully imaginative :)

For nonreligious explanations a visit to the SF part of your library will prove very useful. As will drinking copious amounts of beer.

Of course, if you want an explanation that can actually be tested and has some practical applications, you are stuck with evolution. The scientific method has disproven all other serious contenders currently known.

But if you do not accept evolution, limiting yourself to Genesis is a waste.

Assuming that this guy isn't just a troll that the mods haven't bothered to DEAT yet...

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Why should we give you reasons? If you want to understand the real theory behind it, read a science book.

Of course, you don't want to understand the real theory behind it, because you'd have to admit that you're wrong

I'll be back in an hour. I'm just posting now so I can write in response to United's post a little closer to when he posted the question.

Also, United, I'm not siding with Kohlstein. It wasn't I who said (or tried to say) "elovution is a myth" heheh :D

Other religious explanations than Christianity ? Simply read up on other religions. I quite like the ancient Egyptians, but the Greco-Roman story is intruiging too. The Hindus and Buddhist have visions, as do the scientologists and Sikhs. And all those wonderful tribal religions.. wonderfully imaginative :)

For nonreligious explanations a visit to the SF part of your library will prove very useful. As will drinking copious amounts of beer.

Of course, if you want an explanation that can actually be tested and has some practical applications, you are stuck with evolution. The scientific method has disproven all other serious contenders currently known.

But if you do not accept evolution, limiting yourself to Genesis is a waste.I wasn't limiting myself to anything. I was asking for alternatives that explain the status quo better than the scientific model dubbed evolution.

Other religious explanations than Christianity ? Simply read up on other religions. I quite like the ancient Egyptians, but the Greco-Roman story is intruiging too. The Hindus and Buddhist have visions, as do the scientologists and Sikhs. And all those wonderful tribal religions.. wonderfully imaginative :)

For nonreligious explanations a visit to the SF part of your library will prove very useful. As will drinking copious amounts of beer.

Of course, if you want an explanation that can actually be tested and has some practical applications, you are stuck with evolution. The scientific method has disproven all other serious contenders currently known.

But if you do not accept evolution, limiting yourself to Genesis is a waste.

Gotta say, I like the sound of the beer-induced creation story. It kinda reminds me of the old norse mythology, which is almost as good as the Greek stuff.

Other religious explanations than Christianity ? Simply read up on other religions. I quite like the ancient Egyptians, but the Greco-Roman story is intruiging too. The Hindus and Buddhist have visions, as do the scientologists and Sikhs. And all those wonderful tribal religions.. wonderfully imaginative :)

For nonreligious explanations a visit to the SF part of your library will prove very useful. As will drinking copious amounts of beer.

Of course, if you want an explanation that can actually be tested and has some practical applications, you are stuck with evolution. The scientific method has disproven all other serious contenders currently known.

But if you do not accept evolution, limiting yourself to Genesis is a waste.

My favourite is one that suggested the entirety of the world was crapped into existence... maybe by Raiden, I can't recall.

The argument wasn't that there are no alternatives... more along the lines of there is nothing worth killing the evolutionary theory for... nothing 'better' at explaining the observable phenomena.

I wasn't limiting myself to anything. I was asking for alternatives that explain the status quo better than the scientific model dubbed evolution.

There aren't any.

Tell us those better alternatives, please.

Well, I'm a Tolkienite. :D His Creation story is the best I've ever come across.

Heh heh.

ROFLMAO!!

I'm sorry, were you being serious? In that case, play off and go fuck with your Mohammed doll. :eek:

You have successfully repeated what I have said, Sherlock. :rolleyes:

I wasn't limiting myself to anything. I was asking for alternatives that explain the status quo better than the scientific model dubbed evolution.

As I said - that depends on what you want. If you want something with practical applications, supported by observational fact - there currently isn't one.

If one however insists that evlution is wrong, or wish to be creative, they should not automatically assume the Christian story is right - since that is only one of millions.
And they all explain everything perfectly. Through (magical) handwaving arguments, but still.

Well, I'm a Tolkienite. :D His Creation story is the best I've ever come across.Agreed. :D I used to run a Tolkien website.

You have successfully repeated what I have said, Sherlock. :rolleyes:I didn't, Watson. :rolleyes:

As I said - that depends on what you want. If you want something with practical applications, supported by observational fact - there currently isn't one.
If one however insists that evlution is wrong, or wish to be creative, they should not automatically assume the Christian story is right - since that is only one of millions.
And they all explain everything perfectly. Through (magical) handwaving arguments, but still.Are you kidding me? Of course I want an explanation that is supported by observational fact, by practical applications (where possible), and by logic.

Are you kidding me? Of course I want an explanation that is supported by observational fact, by practical applications (where possible), and by logic.

So do I. But a significant part of the worlds population -probably even a majority- prefers stories.

So do I. But a significant part of the worlds population -probably even a majority- prefers stories.

They are free to prefer them. That doesn't make evolution untrue, or provide a sound reason to tear it down as a scientific model.

They are free to prefer them. That doesn't make evolution untrue, or provide a sound reason to tear it down as a scientific model.

The first part of your statement is quite correct.
I am however uncertain if that majority of the worlds population agrees with the second part. Considering I refuse to believe that all those priests that tell the twisted "humans came from monkeys" evillution stories really do not know any better, it seems quite a few are more than willing to lie to let their truth prevail.

Yes, that scares the [censored] out of me. But I doubt we can stop them.

Why can't we see evolution taking place today.

We can. I don't have wisdom teeth. Some of my friends are also lacking them. This is a very recent happening - within the past 100 years this has become fairly common.

So do I. But a significant part of the worlds population -probably even a majority- prefers stories.The preferences of a significant part of the world's population -probably even a majority- are no concern of mine as they have no influence on the circumstances of the nature's development.

The preferences of a significant part of the world's population -probably even a majority- are no concern of mine.

It should be - since they have power. And what the powers wish to be the truth usually gets enforced as the truth. Regardless of objective criteria.

The first part of your statement is quite correct.
I am however uncertain if that majority of the worlds population agrees with the second part. Considering I refuse to believe that all those priests that tell the twisted "humans came from monkeys" evillution stories really do not know any better, it seems quite a few are more than willing to lie to let their truth prevail.

Yes, that scares the [censored] out of me. But I doubt we can stop them.

Ah - I didn't say they won't use it as an excuse... I just said it isn't a sound reason. :)

As far as i can tell, our history has largely been a morass of superstition and it's use to control or oppress - very rarely punctuated with noticable flashes of illumination that are rapidly stifled. It's always been that way, and probably always will. It's just important to make a personal decision to make a personal quest for truth.

The first part of your statement is quite correct.
I am however uncertain if that majority of the worlds population agrees with the second part. Considering I refuse to believe that all those priests that tell the twisted "humans came from monkeys" evillution stories really do not know any better, it seems quite a few are more than willing to lie to let their truth prevail.

Yes, that scares the [censored] out of me. But I doubt we can stop them.

That is being a little uncharitable, to say the least. People believe in their religions wholeheartedly; it is a large part of their life, and who they are inside. Thus they have a truth they feel wholeheartedly to be true.
It is more of misunderstanding the scientific theory, rather than intentionally lying.

Remember that belief in an omnipotent being is neither rational or irrational; it is simply a choice. And if you commit to the choice that god exists, then you introduce uncertainties and possibilities that are not possible in an athiestic worldview.

Ah - I didn't say they won't use it as an excuse... I just said it isn't a sound reason. :)

According to you and me. But who determines what is considered "sound" and what is not ?

Somehow I fear it will not be us.

It should be - since they have power. And what the powers wish to be the truth usually gets enforced as the truth. Regardless of objective criteria.Now cut it, will you? What gets enforced as truth? What BS is that? Since when does reality depend on what ideas are enforced about it? There is no way to approach truth without objective criteria.

There is no way to approach truth without objective criteria.

That in itself is a subjective viewpoint. ::wink::

It is more of misunderstanding the scientific theory, rather than intentionally lying.

You vastly underestimate the level of "misunderstanding" most preachers against "evillution" show.

Now cut it, will you? What gets enforced as truth? What BS is that? Since when does reality depend on what ideas are enforced about it? There is no way to approach truth without objective criteria.

In a world run by logic and rational thinking - yes.
We do not live there.

That in itself is a subjective viewpoint. ::wink::Yeah, for mentally twisted philosophers maybe.

You vastly underestimate the level of "misunderstanding" most preachers against "evillution" show.

Conspiracy theory.

In a world run by logic and rational thinking - yes.
We do not live there.I do.

Yeah, for mentally twisted philosophers maybe.

Hardly. That has been one of the greatest debates in philosophy--- for thousands of years!

Is there an objective truth?
Or is truth relativistic?

It is more of misunderstanding the scientific theory, rather than intentionally lying.

what word would you use to describe somebody that says false things, gets called on them, admits to them being false, and then says them again anyways?

Hardly. That has been one of the greatest debates in philosophy--- for thousands of years!And for thousands of years folks knew nothing of genes.

what word would you use to describe somebody that says false things, gets called on them, admits to them being false, and then says them again anyways?A mor(m)on.

what word would you use to describe somebody that says false things, gets called on them, admits to them being false, and then says them again anyways?

Stubborn and beligerent. ::grin:: However, I do not think your situation an accurate description of the 'majority' of preachers.

And for thousands of years folks knew nothing of genes

What's that have to do with a philosphical concept? Knowledge has been increasing; we are becoming more aware and better equipped to describe the reality in which we exist.

Yet this does not in any way reflect upon the existence or non-existence of an absolute Truth. Hence, the validity of philosophical debate.

That would be a religious statement, since it is something people accept on faith. Evolution is also religious since it must be accepted on faith.

No. You are free to gather evidence and use that evidence to support or criticize a scientific theory, as long as the evidence gathered is scientifically accurate and all experiments are repeatable. You should never take anything on faith. It just to happens that that vast majority of available evidence supports the scientific theory of evolution. If you can find evidence that does not support it, share it with the world.

What's that have to do with a philosphical concept? Knowledge has been increasing; we are becoming more aware and better equipped to describe the reality in which we exist.
Yet this does not in any way reflect upon the existence or non-existence of an absolute Truth. Hence, the validity of philosophical debate.Evolution is not a philosophical concept. It's a process in nature/the universe. To determine whether or not assertions about this process are true or not a certain level of knowledge is indeed required, otherwise any debate is pointless and also any attempt to describe the reality in which we exist. Thousands of years ago philosophers surely could not make any meaningful assertions about how an individual manages to get his/her genes into the next generation, no matter what their respective idea of truth was.

Evolution is not a philosophical concept. It's a process in nature/the universe. To determine whether or not assertions about this process are true or not a certain level of knowledge is indeed required, otherwise any debate is pointless and also any attempt to describe the reality in which we exist. Thousands of years ago philosophers surely could not make any meaningful assertions about how an individual manages to get his/her genes into the next generation, no matter what their respective idea of truth was.

Their assertions were certainly meaningful in the context of their society. It explained matters to the best of their observations. Who's to say that in a thousand years from now our proteges won't be laughing at our misguided truths?

I never claimed that evolution is a philosophical concept. But neither is philosophy a scientific one.

Evolution, and all scientific evidence for that matter, can only explain reality as we observe it.

1) There is no proof that reality is as our senses perceive
2) Our observations are necessarily limited by our current technology and knowledge.

1) There is no proof that reality is as our senses perceive


Errr. yes. There is. Lots of it.

The only problem is, it would rely on the assumption that we can perceive what is 'real'...

But, there is far from 'no proof'.

Evolution, and all scientific evidence for that matter, can only explain reality as we observe it.And? That's exactly why it's there. But science is more than just that. The ultimate goal in the search for knowledge is to make assertions that do not depend on individual perspectives but combine the data from all available perspectives. That's what science is about and that's why there is no real alternative to scientific methods. It's the best possible way to explain reality as we observe it. Every other method (religious, philosophical, or else) of obtaining knowledge is inevitably bound to a certain perspective. That's also why those other approaches are devoid of any proof and in fact incapable of proof.

Errr. yes. There is. Lots of it.

The only problem is, it would rely on the assumption that we can perceive what is 'real'...

But, there is far from 'no proof'.

So, your arguement is this:
1. Assume what we perceive is real
Therefore: What we perceive is real.

That's not a very convincing argument.
What proof are you referring to? It all relies upon the assumption, which is quite circular. No proof. Therefore, it falls under the realm of belief.

My favourite is one that suggested the entirety of the world was crapped into existence... maybe by Raiden, I can't recall.




That actually clears up a lot for me.

So, your arguement is this:
1. Assume what we perceive is real
Therefore: What we perceive is real.

That's not a very convincing argument.
What proof are you referring to? It all relies upon the assumption, which is quite circular. No proof. Therefore, it falls under the realm of belief.
You're running into a philosophical argument here. That said, we can still take perception (eg, that our data isn't being fabricated by a wizard) as a postulation and still not have belief. It's more an application of Ockham's razor then belief (yes, it's possible that perception is false, but that would require a fuck load more assumptions then assuming that it is true, and as the explanation that requires the least postulations, all else equal, is most likely the best, then assuming that preception is true is a better explanation)

So, your arguement is this:
1. Assume what we perceive is real
Therefore: What we perceive is real.

That's not a very convincing argument.
What proof are you referring to? It all relies upon the assumption, which is quite circular. No proof. Therefore, it falls under the realm of belief.I wonder how you find your bed at night, since your perception of it cannot be trusted as it is all just belief.

And? That's exactly why it's there. But science is more than just that. The ultimate goal in the search for knowledge is to make assertions that do not depend on individual perspectives but combine the data from all available perspectives. That's what science is about and that's why there is no real alternative to scientific methods. It's the best possible way to explain reality as we observe it. Every other method (religious, philosophical, or else) of obtaining knowledge is inevitably bound to a certain perspective. That's also why those other approaches are devoid of any proof and in fact incapable of proof.

I must admit I'm enjoying myself! I'm arguing for the position I normally tear to shreds.:D

I do not doubt science's value, but I am not blind to its limitations. The whole point of my last posts was to point out that somewhere along the line you have to choose what you want to believe.

There are assumptions and beliefs inside a purely scientific belief system.

I do tend to believe however, that the concepts behind philosophy are less narrow than the concepts behind science. Philosophy is when all possibilities are possible, and you narrow it down from there, utilizing the other methods, including science.

I must admit I'm enjoying myself! I'm arguing for the position I normally tear to shreds.:D

I do not doubt science's value, but I am not blind to its limitations. The whole point of my last posts was to point out that somewhere along the line you have to choose what you want to believe.

There are assumptions and beliefs inside a purely scientific belief system.

I do tend to believe however, that the concepts behind philosophy are less narrow than the concepts behind science. Philosophy is when all possibilities are possible, and you narrow it down from there, utilizing the other methods, including science.Science is not a belief system, it's a collection of knowledge and experience. A mere lookup what's out there. Its limitations are well known and are in fact part of the knowledge and experience.

You're running into a philosophical argument here.

Did you just notice? ::wink::
Postulation is just a fancy word for assumption, no? And assumptions are based upon belief. Belief is a negatively stereotyped word in this science-steeped ideology, but it's really not a negative. It's more of a fact of life.

I find Ockham's razor not a very reliable form of proof; and often it's just used as this debate-winner trump card. If you wish to use Ockham's razor, then wouldn't it require less postulates to assume that God exists, and he created everything, rather than coming up with this complex system of how the universe came to be, how abiogenesis works, and evolution?

Or how about a real-life example. We know now that a lipid membrane is formed in a bilayer. The original hypothesis was that it existed in a monolayer. This is the simpler argument, since only one layer must be postulated. Yet it was untrue. Furthermore, lipid membranes are even more complex than that-- the current theory is that it exists in this fluid mosaic model, with proteins interspersed throughout, and non-rigid sheets of lipid.


Oh, and I am able to find my bed because:
1. I don't subscribe to the ideology that reality is not as we perceive it.
2. Even if I did believe that reality is different from our perceptions, I know that my perceptions work within the reality I experience.
3. And, in my experience, my bed has not moved, even though sometime in the future it could not exist there.

Science is not a belief system, it's a collection of knowledge and experience. A mere lookup what's out there. Its limitations are well known and are in fact part of the knowledge and experience.

I agree with this definition of science. It is certainly not a system of beliefs, but rather a system of observations. It does not mean, however, that it is devoid of assumptions.

Did you just notice? ::wink::
Postulation is just a fancy word for assumption, no? And assumptions are based upon belief. Belief is a negatively stereotyped word in this science-steeped ideology, but it's really not a negative. It's more of a fact of life.

I find Ockham's razor not a very reliable form of proof; and often it's just used as this debate-winner trump card. If you wish to use Ockham's razor, then wouldn't it require less postulates to assume that God exists, and he created everything, rather than coming up with this complex system of how the universe came to be, how abiogenesis works, and evolution?

Or how about a real-life example. We know now that a lipid membrane is formed in a bilayer. The original hypothesis was that it existed in a monolayer. This is the simpler argument, since only one layer must be postulated. Yet it was untrue. Furthermore, lipid membranes are even more complex than that-- the current theory is that it exists in this fluid mosaic model, with proteins interspersed throughout, and non-rigid sheets of lipid.Assumptions are not made based on belief. They are made based on the pieces of knowledge one already has. Test scenarios, if you will.
Oh, and I am able to find my bed because:
1. I don't subscribe to the ideology that reality is not as we perceive it.
2. Even if I did believe that reality is different from our perceptions, I know that my perceptions work within the reality I experience.
3. And, in my experience, my bed has not moved, even though sometime in the future it could not exist there.1. So what were you saying in all your posts then?
2. How could you possibly know that if your perception cannot be trusted?
3. Oh, now you through experience into the game. But science is not allowed to do that?

I agree with this definition of science. It is certainly not a system of beliefs, but rather a system of observations. It does not mean, however, that it is devoid of assumptions.But in science assumptions are labeled and treated as such, while in other approaches assumptions are often arbitrarily intermixed with knowledge or with singular perspectives.

Mutations are possible, but in every case mutations are harmful to the creature and never help

hes right, if it weren;t for mutations, men wouldn't exist and we'd have a world of asexual female things... but it would be a lot less screwed up

Assumptions are not made based on belief. They are made based on the pieces of knowledge one already has. Test scenarios, if you will.

I have presented one assumption which is taken for granted. Assumptions have the element of belief since they are not proven, but are used as fact for the duration of the 'test scenario'. (good turn of phrase there!) However, since all of science is based upon the assumption that reality is how we perceive it, then all of science is still within this 'test scenario'. Unless you just accept that this is a belief.

1. So what were you saying in all your posts then?
2. How could you possibly know that if your perception cannot be trusted?
3. Oh, now you through experience into the game. But science is not allowed to do that?
1. For the sake of argument. It's boring when everyone agrees with each other. It also strengthens my debating skills if I can argue a postion I don't hold myself, and deepens my knowledge of where the 'other side' is coming from.
2. Think about it. Our perceptions have held true over a period of time. So the only way to attack this fact is by assuming that there is consistent deception. This consistent deception can be called the "reality" we live in, even though it is not the true reality.
3. I never said that science can not use experience; I only claimed that somewhere in the beginning an assumption and a choice had to be made.

But in science assumptions are labeled and treated as such, while in other approaches assumptions are often arbitrarily intermixed with knowledge or with singular perspectives.

Very true. Nice distinction! However, there is at least one assumption science makes which is not even acknowledged. These un-acknowledged assumptions are the most sneaky, and least noticed, since they often are beliefs taken for granted by the entire populace.

Okay, convince me that the Blutarmut in Africa has nothing to do with evolutionary advantages. It's my favorite example for natural selection and survival of the fittest:

There is a disease of which I only know that term which is genetic and deforms the red-bloodcells. They can not transport as much oxygen as normal but people with that disease are immune to malaria. If the genes on both chromosones have it, it is lethal, but if only one chromosone is affected, you can live normally. While nearly everywhere, this chromosone is not found (found in less than 1% of the population), in the regions with many malaria infections, it is an advantage and can be found in 15% of the population.

How would that have worked with ID?

Because what you describe is adapation - i.e. the gene exists, and of course people living in malarial areas with the gene stand more chance of surviving and passing the gene one. Hence the gene presence will build up in that area.

What you've not described is evolution - i.e. the creation of new genetic material where none previously existed.

Isn't it amazing the evolutionists always take things to a dna level in their arguements, but expect us to swallow without question that cognitiv thinking and opposable thumbs were the result of new genetic material in descendants, that evolved out of a simpler being over and over again until we were all single-celled organisms?

If you're going to prove evolution, then do it without something worth proving - not with funny blood cells. Next you'll be telling us that the high red-blood count in people living in elevation is also the result of evolving to cope with the environment...

Did you just notice? ::wink::
Postulation is just a fancy word for assumption, no? And assumptions are based upon belief. Belief is a negatively stereotyped word in this science-steeped ideology, but it's really not a negative. It's more of a fact of life.

I find Ockham's razor not a very reliable form of proof; and often it's just used as this debate-winner trump card. If you wish to use Ockham's razor, then wouldn't it require less postulates to assume that God exists, and he created everything, rather than coming up with this complex system of how the universe came to be, how abiogenesis works, and evolution?
No, because it would require that all of the research that suggests evolution is wrong (God is playing games with data). It postulates a whole abstraction upon our reality that is completely without support and full of conjecture.

Or how about a real-life example. We know now that a lipid membrane is formed in a bilayer. The original hypothesis was that it existed in a monolayer. This is the simpler argument, since only one layer must be postulated. Yet it was untrue. Furthermore, lipid membranes are even more complex than that-- the current theory is that it exists in this fluid mosaic model, with proteins interspersed throughout, and non-rigid sheets of lipid.


Anyone who thought that the lipid membrane was a monolayer wasn't paying too much attention to the structure of the phospholipid. You miss the second part of Ockham's Razor, namely "all else being equal". In this case, the hydrogen and london forces acting on the phosphate head of the lipid pull them to the outside with the fatty acid tails on the inside. A monolayer would make no sense (a micelle would, but as the cytoplasm is mostly water...) under this context, so attempting to equate the two theories (a monolayer and a bilayer) and use ockham's razor fall apart.

Because what you describe is adapation - i.e. the gene exists, and of course people living in malarial areas with the gene stand more chance of surviving and passing the gene one. Hence the gene presence will build up in that area.

What you've not described is evolution - i.e. the creation of new genetic material where none previously existed.

Isn't it amazing the evolutionists always take things to a dna level in their arguements, but expect us to swallow without question that cognitiv thinking and opposable thumbs were the result of new genetic material in descendants, that evolved out of a simpler being over and over again until we were all single-celled organisms?

If you're going to prove evolution, then do it without something worth proving - not with funny blood cells. Next you'll be telling us that the high red-blood count in people living in elevation is also the result of evolving to cope with the environment...
Duplication of the HOX gene clusters.

No, because it would require that all of the research that suggests evolution is wrong (God is playing games with data). It postulates a whole abstraction upon our reality that is completely without support and full of conjecture.
It wouldn't require that all of evolution is wrong-- evolution occurs on the pre-formed organisms; It's just a shift in the starting point of evolution. The existence of god can not be proven; it's existence is just One postulate, not multiple.

Anyone who thought that the lipid membrane was a monolayer wasn't paying too much attention to the structure of the phospholipid. You miss the second part of Ockham's Razor, namely "all else being equal". In this case, the hydrogen and london forces acting on the phosphate head of the lipid pull them to the outside with the fatty acid tails on the inside. A monolayer would make no sense (a micelle would, but as the cytoplasm is mostly water...) under this context, so attempting to equate the two theories (a monolayer and a bilayer) and use ockham's razor fall apart.

This is not really paying attention to the natural progression of science. Hindsight is 20/20, no? A monolayer would make no sense, knowing what we know now, but at the time it was proposed it was the most logical idea out there.

I have presented one assumption which is taken for granted. Assumptions have the element of belief since they are not proven, but are used as fact for the duration of the 'test scenario'. (good turn of phrase there!) However, since all of science is based upon the assumption that reality is how we perceive it, then all of science is still within this 'test scenario'. Unless you just accept that this is a belief.Reality is a black box. However we can run tests to determine the properties of reality. That's what we do with our senses and their interaction and their combination all the time. Science works in exactly the same way. We even extend our senses by technical means, so does science. Once we have ascertained that an action always provokes the same reaction, i.e. we have gained experience, and we also have deducted an explanation why the same reaction is always triggered, the result of this test is knowledge. There is no belief involved in this. An assumption is not a belief (with its strange connotation of emotion), it is a deduction from the knowledge already gained. And we know that assumption is not knowledge and still requires testing. Beliefs on the other hand are almost never put to the test. E.g. there is no test to find out whether or not there is an intelligent designer at work in the universe. That's a belief, a gut feeling, but not an assumption.
1. For the sake of argument. It's boring when everyone agrees with each other. It also strengthens my debating skills if I can argue a postion I don't hold myself, and deepens my knowledge of where the 'other side' is coming from.
2. Think about it. Our perceptions have held true over a period of time. So the only way to attack this fact is by assuming that there is consistent deception. This consistent deception can be called the "reality" we live in, even though it is not the true reality.
3. I never said that science can not use experience; I only claimed that somewhere in the beginning an assumption and a choice had to be made.1. whatever.
2. you suspect a universal conspiracy?
3. yep, the choice to test what you assume.
Very true. Nice distinction! However, there is at least one assumption science makes which is not even acknowledged. These un-acknowledged assumptions are the most sneaky, and least noticed, since they often are beliefs taken for granted by the entire populace.I normally don't give a fart for what the populace takes for granted. I am used to question and test out everything.

It wouldn't require that all of evolution is wrong-- evolution occurs on the pre-formed organisms; It's just a shift in the starting point of evolution. The existence of god can not be proven; it's existence is just One postulate, not multiple.

The existence of god is the first postulate. That god interferes with human affairs is a second. That god fiddles with data is an Nth postulate (each fiddle happens to be a postulate). etc.


This is not really paying attention to the natural progression of science. Hindsight is 20/20, no? A monolayer would make no sense, knowing what we know now, but at the time it was proposed it was the most logical idea out there.
I'd like to see who said that there was a phospholipid monolayer and when.

United, nothing you wrote disputed anything I wrote. You just rephrased your previous argument. You keep on saying that science uses experience and observations to gain understanding of the world we live in. I have never, not once, disputed this. Observations are great. Yippee. Science is great. Yippee. But...

Science can never prove that true reality is as we perceive it. Ever. But since it aims to give knowledge about reality through observation, then it assumes that these observations reflect the reality.

This is an assumption, pure and simple.

United, nothing you wrote disputed anything I wrote. You just rephrased your previous argument. You keep on saying that science uses experience and observations to gain understanding of the world we live in. I have never, not once, disputed this. Observations are great. Yippee. Science is great. Yippee. But...

Science can never prove that true reality is as we perceive it. Ever. But since it aims to give knowledge about reality through observation, then it assumes that these observations reflect the reality.

This is an assumption, pure and simple.These observations reflect the observable reality, pure and simple. This is not an assumption. And the point is: science doesn't say anything about the rest. Although it makes predictions, i.e. assumptions, it always waits until the issue of assumption becomes observable and verifiable, falsifiable, overall testable. Science is thus always on secure ground (as long as it labels assumptions as such). And here's the difference to other approaches such as religion and philosophy. Science evolves with mankind. Religion on the other side is dead and frozen, there is no room for the acquisition of knowledge.

The existence of god is the first postulate. That god interferes with human affairs is a second. That god fiddles with data is an Nth postulate (each fiddle happens to be a postulate). etc.
Who said anything about fiddling with data? Don't say that god, in order to be the creator had to fiddle with data, because that would be an assumption; an assumption that I did not use in my original analogy.

I'd like to see who said that there was a phospholipid monolayer and when.
Brave soul. I just had an exam over this.
1890's: Overton hypothesizes the existence of a solid like gel of lipids covering the surface of cells.

1900's: Langmuir discovers that phospholipids have a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic end, thus hypothesizing a monolayer of lipids with the polar head group facing out, and the non-polar tail facing inwards.

1925: Gorter and Grendel: When trying to measure how many lipids exist in the red blood cell membrane, they discovered that it was twice the amount that they predicted. They were the first to suggest a lipid bilayer.

Who said anything about fiddling with data? Don't say that god, in order to be the creator had to fiddle with data, because that would be an assumption; an assumption that I did not use in my original analogy.

If we can't hold what our data tells us as fact, then there must be fiddling with data on individual levels millions of times over a day. Holding that all data is false because there is some entity changing it is a joke and an immense postulation.

Brave soul. I just had an exam over this.
1890's: Overton hypothesizes the existence of a solid like gel of lipids covering the surface of cells.

1900's: Langmuir discovers that phospholipids have a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic end, thus hypothesizing a monolayer of lipids with the polar head group facing out, and the non-polar tail facing inwards.

1925: Gorter and Grendel: When trying to measure how many lipids exist in the red blood cell membrane, they discovered that it was twice the amount that they predicted. They were the first to suggest a lipid bilayer.

[/quote]
They had incomplete data and were wrong. That's the secondary beauty of science, that even though Ockham's razor would suggest that one hypothesis (or in the case of creationism and evolution, one wild fuck guess and a theory) over another is correct, there still needs to be research done before it can be taken seriously. The early 1900's was in the real dawn of cellular biology, and it isn't surprising that some of the assumptions were wrong. That's what science aims to do.

These observations reflect the observable reality, pure and simple. This is not an assumption. And the point is: science doesn't say anything about the rest. my emphasis

Ding ding! You've got it. That was the hole in my argument I'd been waiting for someone to find. Very enjoyable debating with you, sir!

I do have a legitimate question. How has the Big Bang been verified?

But I have to go. Have a good evening.

Because what you describe is adapation - i.e. the gene exists, and of course people living in malarial areas with the gene stand more chance of surviving and passing the gene one. Hence the gene presence will build up in that area.

Thanks for telling me that natural selection exists. :) I was asking how this would happen without natural selection. now we can assume that the gene simple mutated into place, can't we? the difference here is not too big.

Why we take it to a genetic level? Because we can! Now opposable thumbs... it is not that evolution intended to make them, you see? same mechanism like with the sickle-cells. A certain mutation gave more advantage by making it easier to grasp things, the next one made it even easier and so on... of course this is like a lottery: We only see the winning tickets and not the millions of losing ones...

and yes, I am far too tired and should be sleeping but need to solve the sliding-tile puzzle problem in PSPACE...

my emphasis

Ding ding! You've got it. That was the hole in my argument I'd been waiting for someone to find. Very enjoyable debating with you, sir!

I do have a legitimate question. How has the Big Bang been verified?

But I have to go. Have a good evening.

Cosmic background radiation? :)

my emphasis

Ding ding! You've got it. That was the hole in my argument I'd been waiting for someone to find. Very enjoyable debating with you, sir! And I'm not even in a debating mood.
BTW please save your dismissiveness for someone else.

I do have a legitimate question. How has the Big Bang been verified? It hasn't. But there are certain indications that lead one to assume, you know...

But I have to go. Have a good evening.It's 1:25 AM on my side of the planet.

It's 1:25 AM on my side of the planet.

/me high-fives the fellow CET-ler.

my emphasis

Ding ding! You've got it. That was the hole in my argument I'd been waiting for someone to find. Very enjoyable debating with you, sir!

I do have a legitimate question. How has the Big Bang been verified?

But I have to go. Have a good evening.

Some scientists haven't verified it, but they have a theory that there are more than three dimensions. They think that the Big Bang was caused by our dimension coliding with another dimension which would give enough energy for the Big Bang. Here (http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/) is the full story, but it is 6 pages long for those interested.

Thanks for telling me that natural selection exists. :) I was asking how this would happen without natural selection. now we can assume that the gene simple mutated into place, can't we? the difference here is not too big.

Why we take it to a genetic level? Because we can! Now opposable thumbs... it is not that evolution intended to make them, you see? same mechanism like with the sickle-cells. A certain mutation gave more advantage by making it easier to grasp things, the next one made it even easier and so on... of course this is like a lottery: We only see the winning tickets and not the millions of losing ones...

and yes, I am far too tired and should be sleeping but need to solve the sliding-tile puzzle problem in PSPACE...

Oh.. Yes.. The problem with your view of "Natural Selection" is whether you're proving that "defunct" genes are naturally selected out, or that "good/useful" genes are brought to the fore, you're not changing the basic make up. A little like doing a Rubicks Cube. You can make one side completely red, and then with a number of movements (read generations) make the same side completely red. Well done, but you haven't actually "created" anything new - you've only brought some different quality (in this case the colour red) to the fore.

All of which means, is that your example proves natural selection - and in answer to your second question, no, what you describe in Africa is not possible without natural selection. However, you asked about evolutionary advantages and now you've run into the same problem Darwin had - namely that natural selection doesn't actually create new creatures, or new features, or new anything.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest exists - and I don't know a creationist, IDer or religious fanatic who would argue otherwise. They kenyans don't run so fast because they've been chased by hordes of armadillos all these centuaries :P

Evolution on the other hand doesnt - no one has yet been able to prove that it works. Which is why it remains the "Theory of Evolution" despite being peddled as fact in our schools, churches and society as a whole. The fact remains you can not find an example of a generaltional difference in any animal or plant species which is the result of NEW genetic material. It's simply the blocks on the Rubick's Cube being moved around. I.e. No matter how often you moved the rows and columns, make pretty patterns, or whole faces a single colour you will still have a Rubicks Cube and not a Rubicks Decahedron or even a Rubicks Cylinder. To do that, you would have to introduce, or remove components of the block - and an example of that nature does not exist.

Oh.. Yes.. The problem with your view of "Natural Selection" is whether you're proving that "defunct" genes are naturally selected out, or that "good/useful" genes are brought to the fore, you're not changing the basic make up. A little like doing a Rubicks Cube. You can make one side completely red, and then with a number of movements (read generations) make the same side completely red. Well done, but you haven't actually "created" anything new - you've only brought some different quality (in this case the colour red) to the fore.Rubiks cubes are a bit simple to be compared to genes.

All of which means, is that your example proves natural selection - and in answer to your second question, no, what you describe in Africa is not possible without natural selection. However, you've now run into the same problem Darwin had - namely that natural selection doesn't actually create new creatures, or new features, or new anything.Actually, it does. Given enough generations, changes in species can occur. And we've had a lot of time for that to happen.

Evolution on the other hand is supposed to - but no one has yet been able to prove that it works. Which is why it remains the "Theory of Evolution" despite being peddled as fact in our schools, churches and society as a whole. From the list of "Arguments we think Creationists should not use" by Answers in Genesis:
The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions.
The fact remains you can not find an example of a generaltional difference in any animal or plant species which is the result of NEW genetic material. It's simply the blocks on the Rubick's Cube being moved around. I.e. No matter how often you moved the rows and columns, make pretty patterns, or whole faces a single colour you will still have a Rubicks Cube and not a Rubicks Decahedron or even a Rubicks Cylinder. To do that, you would have to introduce, or remove components of the block - and an example of that nature does not exist.Actually, no. There are plenty of environmental influences that mess up your genes, such as radioactive radiation or UV light. This would be the equivalent of changing a few pieces on a rubiks cube, removing a few, or adding a few.

Some scientists haven't verified it, but they have a theory that there are more than three dimensions. They think that the Big Bang was caused by our dimension coliding with another dimension which would give enough energy for the Big Bang. Here (http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/) is the full story, but it is 6 pages long for those interested.

a dimension is not a physical thing, but a concept, so it can't collide with anything. Just like time. There is no physical time. It's just a convenient way of thinking about things.

Some scientists haven't verified it, but they have a theory that there are more than three dimensions. They think that the Big Bang was caused by our dimension coliding with another dimension which would give enough energy for the Big Bang.

Here (http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/) is the full story, but it is 6 pages long for those interested.

It's interesting, but the problem is that it's entirely unverifiable. If we really wanted to get technical, it's only a little more supported than any of the creation stories.

Even so, it says nothing about what created those dimensions, which eventually leads to infinite regress without some starting point.

Just read the whole article and you'll understand.

I have no hope that this will be posted in time for anyone to see it and it when it finally is, it will be posted so far back that no one will be reading it. Which is why I haven't replied to anything because by the time it does get through, the conversation has shifted. Yay.

Evolution Basics in Kindergarten Terms (http://rants.lackofoxygen.net/evolution.html) (minus the safety scissors)

Just read the whole article and you'll understand.

An unobservable infinity of extraphysical dimensions colliding to give birth to our universe sounds pretty damn close to God if you ask me.

A few people on this thread have stated that science need not prove anything, rather scientists should hypothesize something and assume it to be true if they cannot disprove it. So my question is, what happens if there are two theories concerning the same subject that contradict each other, but neither theory can be disproven. Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy. It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.

Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true?

No, you use Occam's Razor to select the better theory and go with it. If new evidence appears that changes everything, you adjust the theories accordingly.

Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy.

Oh, it is? Which logical fallacy is it?

A few people on this thread have stated that science need not prove anything, rather scientists should hypothesize something and assume it to be true if they cannot disprove it. So my question is, what happens if there are two theories concerning the same subject that contradict each other, but neither theory can be disproven. Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy. It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.

Not necessarily. Under science, basically, one would tend to go with the explanation that had a more solid backing. If neither is disproven, that does not mean that both have equal evidence.

That, and they will be continued to be tested until the more likely hypothesis is deemed as what is more likely, and thus be accepted as fact.

If both have equally sound footing, then more testing must be done(as well as new hypothesis' which may arise).

If both still are on sound footing, then they are both equally likely, and thus both are taught as such.

In basics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kohlstein
Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true?


No, you use Occam's Razor to select the better theory and go with it. If new evidence appears that changes everything, you adjust the theories accordingly.


Is this like the question that arose of whether light was a particle or a wave?

A few people on this thread have stated that science need not prove anything, rather scientists should hypothesize something and assume it to be true if they cannot disprove it. So my question is, what happens if there are two theories concerning the same subject that contradict each other, but neither theory can be disproven. Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy. It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.You're getting "cannot be disproven" and "hasn't been disproven" mixed up. "Cannot be disproven" refers to "infalsifiable", meaning there is no way it can ever be tested. "Hasn't been disproven" refers to a falsifiable hypothesis that has withstood sufficient testing and not been proven false.

A few people on this thread have stated that science need not prove anything,

That is correct. Something "proven" may be discredited later on.

Science attempts to explain. Nothing more.


rather scientists should hypothesize something and assume it to be true if they cannot disprove it.

Ok. If you can't disprove it, then......


So my question is, what happens if there are two theories concerning the same subject that contradict each other, but neither theory can be disproven.


What will usually happen is that the two camps will continue arguing theirs is right while testing the hell out of the others in an attempt to prove it invalid!

Rather useful approach.


Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy. It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.

There is no logical fallacy since the theories attempt to explain something. The problem is getting everybody to accept your explanation. As such the infighting.....

And I'm not even in a debating mood.
BTW please save your dismissiveness for someone else.

It's 1:25 AM on my side of the planet.

Damn...chill out.

Cosmic background radiation? :)

That ain't verification: science works on the principle of falsification.

If there had been no cosmic background radiation detected then a case could be made for the falsification of the big bang hypothesis. Instead we detected something which had been predicted by our theory - supportive evidence, if you will, but not verification.

It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.
Not actually. To prove something based upon observations is to assume that just because something happened before, it will always happen thus. Science does not make that assumption.

In any case, in trying to disprove something what is actually occuring is a prediction is being made to test something, then an experiment is run to see if x does or does not happen. That's the difference between evolution and creationism. Evolution CAN be tested as such, and has many times (which is why the particulars have changed over time). Creationism however relies on God, which cannot be tested (And you shouldn't test Him after all).

Not understanding how science works is fairly sad, and downright dangerous in todays world. Perhaps you should consider taking some science courses to actually 'get' the method.

A few people on this thread have stated that science need not prove anything, rather scientists should hypothesize something and assume it to be true if they cannot disprove it. So my question is, what happens if there are two theories concerning the same subject that contradict each other, but neither theory can be disproven. Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy. It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.

How does one go about 'proving' something outside of mathematics?


Isn't it amazing the evolutionists always take things to a dna level in their arguements, but expect us to swallow without question that cognitiv thinking and opposable thumbs were the result of new genetic material in descendants, that evolved out of a simpler being over and over again until we were all single-celled organisms?

If you're going to prove evolution, then do it without something worth proving - not with funny blood cells. Next you'll be telling us that the high red-blood count in people living in elevation is also the result of evolving to cope with the environment...

I think the problem in your assumption is that there is not cognitive thinking or opposable thumb 'gene'. Let's just say a single coding point in DNA. There are a large amount of coding points required to make a thumb or a brain capable of human thought.

As for new coding, DNA is only coded one way like binary code. Nothing new is introduced. It is combinations of this 4 part code and how they are interpreted when genetic material is being translated into proteins that matters.

I anyone familiar with irreducible complexity? It is simply the state in which a machine cannot function if one of its components are missing. The human eye is an excellent example. Even Darwin said that the eye evolving was absurd. Darwin also said that everything that evolves must have some purpose to it and that evolution must happen gradually. A part of a complex mechanism would then have to evolve on step at a time, but then that one step would fulfill no function as Darwin asserted that it must.

I think you're taking what Darwin said out of context. Yes, I have read Origin of Species and I remember the content. Darwin made some extremely eloquent arguments in it and didn't seem to doubt his hypothesis.


The problem with irreducible complexity is that it assumes that natural selection doesn't act to get rid of inefficient or unnecessary aspects of some organ.
Because something appears to need something else now does not mean that it has always needed that to exist. Organisms that can perform the same function using less energy are superior evolutionarily. So, whoever eliminates the most obsolete machinery from the works is more successful.

Also, stone arches are also irreducible complex. If you remove any stone they collapse. So therefore, stone arches must have always existed as they have now. No, we know that stone arches can be created using tools and supports that are later removed because they are no longer necessary upon the completion of the arch.

Oh.. Yes.. The problem with your view of "Natural Selection" is whether you're proving that "defunct" genes are naturally selected out, or that "good/useful" genes are brought to the fore, you're not changing the basic make up. A little like doing a Rubicks Cube. You can make one side completely red, and then with a number of movements (read generations) make the same side completely red. Well done, but you haven't actually "created" anything new - you've only brought some different quality (in this case the colour red) to the fore.

All of which means, is that your example proves natural selection - and in answer to your second question, no, what you describe in Africa is not possible without natural selection. However, you asked about evolutionary advantages and now you've run into the same problem Darwin had - namely that natural selection doesn't actually create new creatures, or new features, or new anything.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest exists - and I don't know a creationist, IDer or religious fanatic who would argue otherwise. They kenyans don't run so fast because they've been chased by hordes of armadillos all these centuaries :P

Evolution on the other hand doesnt - no one has yet been able to prove that it works. Which is why it remains the "Theory of Evolution" despite being peddled as fact in our schools, churches and society as a whole. The fact remains you can not find an example of a generaltional difference in any animal or plant species which is the result of NEW genetic material. It's simply the blocks on the Rubick's Cube being moved around. I.e. No matter how often you moved the rows and columns, make pretty patterns, or whole faces a single colour you will still have a Rubicks Cube and not a Rubicks Decahedron or even a Rubicks Cylinder. To do that, you would have to introduce, or remove components of the block - and an example of that nature does not exist.

When a species becomes split, geographically or otherwise, evolution can occur. For example, if you take a single species of sqiurells, and seperate the population into two different geographic locations, the two new populations of the same species will experience natural selection over millions of years until the point where they are so different that they cannot reproduce to produce viable offspring, and speciation has occurred.

Human evolution is similar to this example, except that one group of the precursor species tended toward living in trees, and one group tended toward living on the ground, bringing forth different characteristics and creating the humans and modern primates we have today.

How does one go about 'proving' something outside of mathematics?

Use logic.*








* which, of course, tells you nothing about the real world.

A few people on this thread have stated that science need not prove anything, rather scientists should hypothesize something and assume it to be true if they cannot disprove it. So my question is, what happens if there are two theories concerning the same subject that contradict each other, but neither theory can be disproven. Are we to assume that both contradictory theories are true? That is a logical fallacy. It is much more logical to try to prove something based on observations.


There was good evidence for light as particle

There was also good evidence for light as a wave

So for a good period there light was seen as both a particle and a wave... even though they were both seen as contradictory. But proposing the theory that it was a wave and a particle gave scientists plenty of opportunity to formulate tests. If only the particle or only the wave theory had been followed up then lots of good experiments would have been overlooked

The story is of course much more complicated (as it usually is) than either explanation.

So yes that is kind of the way that science works..

Scientific proposals are formulated based on the existing evidence but they usually have to attempt to extend out from the existing data. If they didn't, how would you know what to look for in future experiments? You have to make predictions and then attempt to disprove them otherwise you will be stuck only with the evidence you have already...

Oh.. Yes.. The problem with your view of "Natural Selection" is whether you're proving that "defunct" genes are naturally selected out, or that "good/useful" genes are brought to the fore, you're not changing the basic make up. A little like doing a Rubicks Cube. You can make one side completely red, and then with a number of movements (read generations) make the same side completely red. Well done, but you haven't actually "created" anything new - you've only brought some different quality (in this case the colour red) to the fore.

All of which means, is that your example proves natural selection - and in answer to your second question, no, what you describe in Africa is not possible without natural selection. However, you asked about evolutionary advantages and now you've run into the same problem Darwin had - namely that natural selection doesn't actually create new creatures, or new features, or new anything.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest exists - and I don't know a creationist, IDer or religious fanatic who would argue otherwise. They kenyans don't run so fast because they've been chased by hordes of armadillos all these centuaries :P

Evolution on the other hand doesnt - no one has yet been able to prove that it works. Which is why it remains the "Theory of Evolution" despite being peddled as fact in our schools, churches and society as a whole. The fact remains you can not find an example of a generaltional difference in any animal or plant species which is the result of NEW genetic material. It's simply the blocks on the Rubick's Cube being moved around. I.e. No matter how often you moved the rows and columns, make pretty patterns, or whole faces a single colour you will still have a Rubicks Cube and not a Rubicks Decahedron or even a Rubicks Cylinder. To do that, you would have to introduce, or remove components of the block - and an example of that nature does not exist.Evolution is Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. How could you separate this? Within any species there are genetic variations within any generation, a variety of properties. Some have long hair, some have short hair, some grow taller, some don't, some have deformed red blood cells, some don't. None of those features will gain the individual any advantage or disadvantage, they will all get their genes into the next generation with the same probability. But if out of chance any changes in the environment take place that constitute a disadvantage for individuals with certain features, so their probability of getting their genes into the next generation is diminished (because they die), a shift in the average genetic setup of the species is the result. Not necessarily a new but a different species has evolved. That's Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. Just that. The long term process of which is dubbed Evolution. There is nothing mysterious in all that.

*shakes head* people argued against natural selection already... it would make no sense in ID meaning the number of species is constantly declining.


Evolution on the other hand doesnt - no one has yet been able to prove that it works. Which is why it remains the "Theory of Evolution" despite being peddled as fact in our schools, churches and society as a whole.
You do not understand what a theory is, in science. It is the highest quality, an idea can reach. "Its only a theory" (misspeeling intended) in science is like "he is only the president".

The fact remains you can not find an example of a generaltional difference in any animal or plant species which is the result of NEW genetic material. It's simply the blocks on the Rubick's Cube being moved around. I.e. No matter how often you moved the rows and columns, make pretty patterns, or whole faces a single colour you will still have a Rubicks Cube and not a Rubicks Decahedron or even a Rubicks Cylinder. To do that, you would have to introduce, or remove components of the block - and an example of that nature does not exist.
I stated mutations as a factor, did you read that? Basically this means that even if you add only 0.1 at any recursion, you can still reach 100 (no matter where you started, provided it was lower than 100)

Oh.. Yes.. The problem with your view of "Natural Selection" is whether you're proving that "defunct" genes are naturally selected out, or that "good/useful" genes are brought to the fore, you're not changing the basic make up. A little like doing a Rubicks Cube. You can make one side completely red, and then with a number of movements (read generations) make the same side completely red. Well done, but you haven't actually "created" anything new - you've only brought some different quality (in this case the colour red) to the fore.

All of which means, is that your example proves natural selection - and in answer to your second question, no, what you describe in Africa is not possible without natural selection. However, you asked about evolutionary advantages and now you've run into the same problem Darwin had - namely that natural selection doesn't actually create new creatures, or new features, or new anything.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest exists - and I don't know a creationist, IDer or religious fanatic who would argue otherwise. They kenyans don't run so fast because they've been chased by hordes of armadillos all these centuaries :P

Evolution on the other hand doesnt - no one has yet been able to prove that it works. Which is why it remains the "Theory of Evolution" despite being peddled as fact in our schools, churches and society as a whole. The fact remains you can not find an example of a generaltional difference in any animal or plant species which is the result of NEW genetic material. It's simply the blocks on the Rubick's Cube being moved around. I.e. No matter how often you moved the rows and columns, make pretty patterns, or whole faces a single colour you will still have a Rubicks Cube and not a Rubicks Decahedron or even a Rubicks Cylinder. To do that, you would have to introduce, or remove components of the block - and an example of that nature does not exist.
How do you explain the existence of various breeds of dogs or cats? Without the mechanisms of evolution it would be impossible to create various breeds by non-natural selection.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Mr. Creationist, I suggest you move to Afghanistan or to some other religious fundamentalist country and leave us rational thinkers alone.

" The people of the Earth are divided in two parties :

those with a brain and no religion, and those with a religion and no brain. "

from Amin Maalouf´s " Les Croisades vues par les Arabes ", Paris, Lattes, 1983

a dimension is not a physical thing, but a concept, so it can't collide with anything. Just like time. There is no physical time. It's just a convenient way of thinking about things.

You are actually wrong again! Einstein proved in his special and general relativity theories (yup, there's that nasty word again that seems to bother so many people. The fact that the general relativity theory is only a theory does not prevent it from being true - and it obviously is!).

Read a bit on time dilation and you'll see (unless you don't WANT to learn!).
http://www.google.com/search?q=time+dilation

You seem to be offended by science as a whole, rather than just evolution. I think this is sad. All organisms strive to survive, and doing so they seek to gain as many advantages as possible, one of them being knowledge. Hence, it is unnatural to not want to learn! :)

You do not understand what a theory is, in science. It is the highest quality, an idea can reach. "Its only a theory" (misspeeling intended) in science is like "he is only the president".

You forget scientific fact.

Mr. Creationist, I suggest you move to Afghanistan or to some other religious fundamentalist country and leave us rational thinkers alone.

So rational, that.

You are actually wrong again! Einstein proved in his special and general relativity theories (yup, there's that nasty word again that seems to bother so many people. The fact that the general relativity theory is only a theory does not prevent it from being true - and it obviously is!).

Read a bit on time dilation and you'll see (unless you don't WANT to learn!).
http://www.google.com/search?q=time+dilation

You seem to be offended by science as a whole, rather than just evolution. I think this is sad. All organisms strive to survive, and doing so they seek to gain as many advantages as possible, one of them being knowledge. Hence, it is unnatural to not want to learn! :)

If he proved it it wouldn't be a theory. Theories are only true in the sense that there is no evidence contradicting them as of yet. The Laws of Thermodynamics, for example, have never and will never be proven. They have also never been broken(to my (admitdely limited)knowledge).

If he proved it it wouldn't be a theory. Theories are only true in the sense that there is no evidence contradicting them as of yet. The Laws of Thermodynamics, for example, have never and will never be proven. They have also never been broken(to my (admitdely limited)knowledge).

So what would it be referred to if it had been proven? I don't see what could possibly be more true than a theory.

Moreover, I feel you are contradicting yourself..
"If he proved it it wouldn't be a theory" and "Theories are only true in the sense that there is no evidence contradicting them"

If the theory holds up to reproducible observations, and can be used to predict the future, then it is valid - such as with the case of evolution. Thus, it's proven. When the theory is disproven (i.e. replaced with a better one), it is no longer to be considered a theory. Such as a geocentric universe with all the epicycles and whatnots.. :rolleyes:

What intrigues me is that 'these people' have not seemed to evolved (heh) far enough philosophically to instead of questioning what science has more or less already figured out, ask more inconvenient questions such as why everything is arranged in atoms, photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and all the other subatomic and elementary particles. Where did the first quark come from? Hm? HM???? :p

So what would it be referred to if it had been proven? I don't see what could possibly be more true than a theory.
I don't think there is a term for a theory that is proven to always hold true. But seeing as nothing can be proven to always hold true scientifically I don't think it will matter much.

Moreover, I feel you are contradicting yourself..
"If he proved it it wouldn't be a theory" and "Theories are only true in the sense that there is no evidence contradicting them"
Oops. Well it is somewhat confusing, though true. Scientifically nothing can be proven. It can just not be disproven yet.

If the theory holds up to reproducible observations, and can be used to predict the future, then it is valid - such as with the case of evolution. Thus, it's proven. When the theory is disproven (i.e. replaced with a better one), it is no longer to be considered a theory. Such as a geocentric universe with all the epicycles and whatnots.. :rolleyes:
It's not proven in the sense that it will always hold true, because there is nothing to say that it will. Just because the sun has risen in the east and set in the west everyday of your life and mine so far doesn't mean it will tomorrow. Though if it didn't I don't think I'd be the only one to be extremely freaked out.

What intrigues me is that 'these people' have not seemed to evolved (heh) far enough philosophically to instead of questioning what science has more or less already figured out, ask more inconvenient questions such as why everything is arranged in atoms, photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and all the other subatomic and elementary particles. Where did the first quark come from? Hm? HM???? :p
I guess it's because evolution conflicts with the bible, whereas "Where did all these little sub atomic fellas come from?" can be easily dismissed with "God did it".

You forget scientific fact.

You haven't studied enough science - there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

You haven't studied enough science - there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

Mmm, falling objects accelerate at 9.81 meters per second.

Water weighs 1 ton per cubic meter.

The surface of the Earth is 70% covered with water. (I think)

Facts! Yay!

Mmm, falling objects accelerate at 9.81 meters per second.

Water weighs 1 ton per cubic meter.

The surface of the Earth is 70% covered with water. (I think)

Facts! Yay!

Mechanical and physical properties are very different to theories.

The highest level a scientific idea can get to is a Theory.

Note also - your point one and two are such because we have defined the second, the metre and the gram.

Also - it is possibly worth mentioning that point 1 is not a FACT as the acceleration experienced by an object is dependant on:

- air resistance (or water)
- bouyancy in the medium it is falling through
- the exact height above the earths surface it is falling

The point I'm trying to make is that if a theory is proven to work, then it is indeed true. At the moment, obviously, as no one can predict what the future holds in terms of universal wisdom.
If it isn't true, then it's refuted and must be modified according to reality, and so on..

There could very well be room for a deity in science, one that created the universe and all life in it. But as there is no substantial evidence of such a deity, it isn't science. The whole debate has become infected with people such as Kohlstein who seem to think that refuting the opposing theory automagically makes your own statement the truth. Luckily for us homo homo sapiens real life is not that bizarre.

You haven't studied enough science - there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

Yes there is. You just mentioned it! ;)

Mmm, falling objects accelerate at 9.81 meters per second.

Water weighs 1 ton per cubic meter.

The surface of the Earth is 70% covered with water. (I think)

Facts! Yay!

As Free Randomers so cleverly pointed out, things are never that easy. Actually, 70,8% of the surface is water - not 70%. 1 m³ of water has different masses at different temperatures and pressures.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

In no way is this maniac an accurate representation of all advocates of Creation. *e-slap* It's people like you who give the rest of us a bad name.

It's people like you who give the rest of us a bad name.

I think you manage quite well on your own! ;)

Mmm, falling objects accelerate at 9.81 meters per second.
Only on earth and in a vacuum, and this doesn't mean that they will fall at that speed tomorrow.

Water weighs 1 ton per cubic meter.
Which is how 1 ton and one cubic meter is defined, confusingly. (given STP)

The surface of the Earth is 70% covered with water. (I think)

Facts! Yay!
One guess and one fact, yay!

In no way is this maniac an accurate representation of all advocates of Creation. *e-slap* It's people like you who give the rest of us a bad name.No, folks like you have a bad name from the get-go.