NationStates Jolt Archive

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.:upyours:

So all animals are cannibals? We don't kill and eat other animals? (or just kill for that matter) Are you not a part of nature's circle?

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.[upyours removed for politeness]

As soon as the IC discussion goes in a direction you don't care for, you dig back through the 50 pages for something you can use to make a vile attack on someone.

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.:upyours:

I'd rather come from animals through a beautifully complex process of natural evolution than be made from mud. Frankly, the processes of biology, the beauty of mathematics, and the mechanics of the physical world are a lot stronger evidence for God than some contradictory creation story written thousands of years ago. The human soul fits evolution a lot better than it does creation, especially considering evolution was what enables us to perceive and worship the Divine in the first place.

There's a perfection in the natural world that suggests a God far greater than some clumsy designer who had to tinker with his creations to fix his mistakes.

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.:upyours:

Read some Hobbes, or Mills. It is more evolutionary advantageous (or if you object, survival-smart) to behave socially according to certain guidelines set forth by the group. You see this in pack behavior: the wolf kicked out of the pack is going to have a much harder life.

It does not follow that just because we have a common ancestor with animals we should act like them to. Do monkeys act the same way as porcupines? Do goldfish act the same way as Orcas? Neither do humans need to act as hyenas. Or jackasses.

We have developed intelliegence for a reason. The reason is survival. Why cut off your hand if it is useful to you? Likewise, why throw out your intelligence?

Animals seem to live quite happily without this 'purpose' you speak of. Just live happy. That's a purpose.

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?

Ernst Haeckel was his name. Kind of German sounding don't you think. Those Germans and their natural selection Darwinism. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

No, a flagellum requires a motor and a driveshaft. I should clarify what I meant by appendages. I was talking about appendages in the context of a fly's legs.

And all the muscles, blood vessels, chitin structure, etc etc.

No, a flagellum requires a motor and a driveshaft. I should clarify what I meant by appendages. I was talking about appendages in the context of a fly's legs.

So a fly's leg w/ muscles, joints, circulation, along w/ sensory organs, etc. is LESS complex than a part of an individual cell?

Ernst Haeckel was his name. Kind of German sounding don't you think. Those Germans and their natural selection Darwinism. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

A borderling Godwin here. Remember, all Germans are (insert four letter word here).

So a fly's leg w/ muscles, joints, circulation, along w/ sensory organs, etc. is LESS complex than a part of an individual cell?

:)

A borderling Godwin here. Remember, all Germans are (insert four letter word here).

Aw, no fair! A quarter German here. Potato pancakes rock.

Ernst Haeckel was his name. Kind of German sounding don't you think. Those Germans and their natural selection Darwinism. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

There have been a number of excellent German scientists, so I imagine it's a compliment, right? I mean, there's Albert Einstein, Gottfried Leibniz, Max Planck, Bernhard Riemann, Leonhard Euler...Germany's been a hotbed of scientific innovation for a while, so it's good to recognize the contributions.

I mean, it was Ernst Haeckel who developed the term "ecology", so he has to be good for something.

A borderling Godwin here. Remember, all Germans are (insert four letter word here).

Okay?

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.:upyours:

It's called being "Self Aware". It is a trait we picked up long ago. Unlike most animals, we have developed empathy, and intelligence, which in turn has helped us survive. Our empathy is what causes us act in teh ways we do, and set forth our progression as a species.

Infact, those apes show a great deal in common as far as thought process go with us humans. Intelligence, self awareness, empathy, emotion. They are quite human, really.

And lest we forget that we kill others, we do horrible acts against others, and our instincts drive us against our fellow man. BUT that would go against your point, which you would rather ignore, I assume.

As for cannibalism, guess what... almost every area in the world has cannibalism in some form or another, at some point. And in most cases, it is considered a "necessary" evil. Even in cultures where cannabilism is important, it is not something that is enjoyed, but something that must be done(If a man performs a considerably grievous act against your family, he may be considered "possessed", and in some the only way to remove the demons is consume the body). And in these cases, permition must be given by the group the man belongs to.

As for cannibalism, guess what... almost every area in the world has cannibalism in some form or another, at some point. And in most cases, it is considered a "necessary" evil. Even in cultures where cannabilism is important, it is not something that is enjoyed, but something that must be done(If a man performs a considerably grievous act against your family, he may be considered "possessed", and in some the only way to remove the demons is consume the body). And in these cases, permition must be given by the group the man belongs to.

Can I go barf now?

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! :)

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.

You forget scientific fact.

Wait you forget that some people on here don't believe in fact because they don't believe in objective truth. Like that guy who is open to the possibility of gravity not being a law 100% of the time.

Ernst Haeckel was his name. Kind of German sounding don't you think. Those Germans and their natural selection Darwinism. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Your point? Some of the most brilliant people have come out of Germany.

Also, I'd like to point out, that even though those were somewhat fakes, new devices show that there is very little difference between almost all vertebrates in the early embryonic stages. Infact, I doubt you would be able to find the human embryo in a group of 10 different embryos.

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.

Who died and made you smarter than Einstein?

A collection of scientists have worked upon Einstein's theories, elaborated upon them, sometimes modified them, but all in all, Einstein's still the top-dog.

Are you taking on the battalion of researchers as well?

There have been a number of excellent German scientists, so I imagine it's a compliment, right? I mean, there's Albert Einstein, Gottfried Leibniz, Max Planck, Bernhard Riemann, Leonhard Euler...Germany's been a hotbed of scientific innovation for a while, so it's good to recognize the contributions.

I mean, it was Ernst Haeckel who developed the term "ecology", so he has to be good for something.

Yes, it takes a real genius to put eco- and -logos together to form ecology.

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.:upyours:

Human beings are animals, whether you like it or not. However, we are animals that have developed the level of cognitive ability (most of us, anyways) to contemplate our place in this world and the purpose of our lives. Your assertion that there could be no purpose to life or political philosophy if human beings didn't always exist in their current form is ludicrous. It's like saying, "If watches haven't always been digital, there's no reason to keep time at all!"


One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?

College level science textbooks are generally at least 5 years behind. High school textbooks even moreso, so that could have something to do with it.

Another point might be that, depending on what the animals he was drawing were, we probably have observed the embryos of those animals by now, and his drawings may well have been backed up by that observation.

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.

Completely missed the point of the post he quoted, didn't he?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uom-ert110705.php
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/06/04/einstein.wrong/index.html

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.

One measure of the validity of a scientific theory is the success of its practical applications. Without Einstein we would have no nuclear reactors or weapons. We would have no space flight. We would have no modern astrophysics. Were he wrong none of these things would work.

Wait you forget that some people on here don't believe in fact because they don't believe in objective truth. Like that guy who is open to the possibility of gravity not being a law 100% of the time.

"That Guy?" You mean the scientific community?

Your point? Some of the most brilliant people have come out of Germany.

Also, I'd like to point out, that even though those were somewhat fakes, new devices show that there is very little difference between almost all vertebrates in the early embryonic stages. Infact, I doubt you would be able to find the human embryo in a group of 10 different embryos.

No, being of a German heritage, I recognize the intelligence of many Germans. I was just making a sarcastic allusion to Nazi Social Darwinism.

Wait you forget that some people on here don't believe in fact because they don't believe in objective truth. Like that guy who is open to the possibility of gravity not being a law 100% of the time.

I have already argued this position for the hell of it. Here's why this position does not invalidate scientific arguments:

1. Science only attempts to define the reality that we experience (percieve, sense).
2. It never states what Reality is. It contents itself with working with the reality we've got.
3. The reality we have, even though it may not be the Absolute Truth, is still consistent. Thus, you can make predictions about this reality based upon the past.

Can I go barf now?

Sometimes studying Anthropology means you need a strong constitution.


Wait you forget that some people on here don't believe in fact because they don't believe in objective truth. Like that guy who is open to the possibility of gravity not being a law 100% of the time.


Well, here's the fun thing about science: Nothing is ever proven 100%, 100% of the time. The only thing that can ever be said is that "It has so far been proven that every time we have tested it, this has been the result."

It is technically possible that Gravity may not work in ways we expect it to(and in some cases it doesn't), and that means it is not Law. Truly, in science, Law is obsolete. The best you actually get is Theory, which is basically means that we have the most likely answer with the given information collected, and testing done.

One measure of the validity of a scientific theory is the success of its practical applications. Without Einstein we would have no nuclear reactors or weapons. We would have no space flight. We would have no modern astrophysics. Were he wrong none of these things would work.

Er... actually in regard to Nuclear technology, the props should go to Enrico Fermi, but that's not really the point I suppose.

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.

From the Wiki article on Einstein (in 1911, Einstein had called upon astronomers to test his predictions about the bending of light in a gravitational field, measureble during a solar eclipse):

In May, 1919 during British solar-eclipse expeditions (carried out in Sobral, Ceará, Brazil, as well as on the island of Principe, at the west coast of Africa) Arthur Eddington supervised measurements of the bending of star light as it passed close to the Sun, resulting in star positions appearing further away from the Sun. This effect is called gravitational lensing and the positions of the stars observed were twice that which would be predicted by Newtonian physics. These observations match that predicted by the Field Equation of general relativity. Eddington announced that the results confirmed Einstein's prediction and The Times reported that confirmation on November 7 of that year, with the headline: "Revolution in science – New theory of the Universe – Newtonian ideas overthrown". Nobel laureate Max Born viewed General Relativity as the "greatest feat of human thinking about nature"; fellow laureate Paul Dirac called it "probably the greatest scientific discovery ever made". These comments and resulting publicity cemented Einstein's fame. He became world-famous – an unusual achievement for a scientist.

An interesting article, you might want to read it.

Er... actually in regard to Nuclear technology, the props should go to Enrico Fermi, but that's not really the point I suppose.

Fermi? Isn't that an Italian name? Didn't the Germans and the Italians ... :eek:

Er... actually in regard to Nuclear technology, the props should go to Enrico Fermi, but that's not really the point I suppose.

It was Einstein that said e=MC2. Stated another way that means that the matter is energy and that the amount of energy contained in any matter is equivalent to it's mass times the speed of light squared. Femri realized that if this was the case then when an nucleus fissions and you are left with two nuclei that have less mass than the orginal nuclei the energy released must be massive - afterall teh speed of light squared is a huge number. Femri built the first nuclear reactor, but he did it based on Einstein's equation.

Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

If Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, then is that not also a case against some god spontaneously generating everything? You can't use an argument against spontaneous generation to make an argument for spontaneous generation. If the larva had appeared in the jar, that would have been very strong evidence for the presence of some god indeed.

As far as evolution, it is my contention that if you don't believe in it, then you just don't understand it. Evolution, the change of organisms over time, is obvious. To say that people today are exactly the same in physical makeup as people even 100 years ago, much less 1000 years ago, demonstrates a fundamental anthropological ignorance. Now whether you believe that there is a god behind the changes, motivating or causing them, is up to you. No one can prove there isn't, and I seriously doubt that you can prove that there is.

Did god create everything on the Earth? Perhaps. Unless such an entity addresses us directly and offers compelling evidence to support such a claim, we'll have to take it on faith if we should choose to do so. And if we don't, there shouldn't be arguments about it. Who fuckin' cares? We're here. Now. And unless you or someone else here IS god and can help us settle it, it makes not one iota of difference in anyone's life if you or anyone else believes that god made or makes things the way they are or not. What matters is if such a belief helps you to be a good person and treat others with respect and further the nobility and dignity of our species. If all believing in god does is make you argue with those who don't believe, please find something else to believe in that will help make you a better person and lead a more productive life. And for those who claim that there is no god, the immediately preceding statement may be easily modified to apply to you as well.

Fermi? Isn't that an Italian name? Didn't the Germans and the Italians ... :eek:

Yep. He had observed the first act of nuclear fission(Technically the result, as his team incidentally missed the actual action). He was also the lead researcher on the Manhattan Project, and created the first Nuclear Reactor.

He was born in Italy, but moved to NY in '38, when the Fascist Italian government promoted anti-Semetic Laws, and his wife being jewish made him come to America.

He won the Nobel Prize in physics, and developed Quantum Theory.

It was Einstein that said e=MC2. Stated another way that means that the matter is energy and that the amount of energy contained in any matter is equivalent to it's mass times the speed of light squared. Femri realized that if this was the case then when an nucleus fissions and you are left with two nuclei that have less mass than the orginal nuclei the energy released must be massive - afterall teh speed of light squared is a huge number. Femri built the first nuclear reactor, but he did it based on Einstein's equation.

True. I just get annoyed when Fermi is ignored so much of the time.

Yes, it takes a real genius to put eco- and -logos together to form ecology.

Well, he also did a lot of other stuff but coining those terms is pretty important. You can't communicate ideas without the language to do so.

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.

While he may (I don't know if he did or not) not have done any specific tests himself, if you're attempting to debunk relativity, then there's a whole lot of folks over in Japan who probably have a bone to pick with you. There were 2 very successful tests/demonstrations of applied relativity that happened over there.

WOW!!! is this a joke!?!?!?!? I find it hard to believe it a myth... look how backed up it is! too much evidence supporting it. however, it is your right to have your own ideas, and if you think it is a myth, it's your foolishness. Point made. :cool:

WOW!!! is this a joke!?!?!?!? I find it hard to believe it a myth... look how backed up it is! too much evidence supporting it. however, it is your right to have your own ideas, and if you think it is a myth, it's your foolishness. Point made. :cool:

Remember though, that even though there's been dozens of peer-reviewed papers cited and links to various educational institutions, there's almost no evidence for evolution and "tons" for creationism/ID/IC/psuedo-science of the moment even though no evidence has been presented "proving" it.

WOW!!! is this a joke!?!?!?!? I find it hard to believe it a myth... look how backed up it is! too much evidence supporting it. however, it is your right to have your own ideas, and if you think it is a myth, it's your foolishness. Point made. :cool:

Yeah. Welcome to NSGeneral. Have a cookie.

Remember though, that even though there's been dozens of peer-reviewed papers cited and links to various educational institutions, there's almost no evidence for evolution and "tons" for creationism/ID/IC/psuedo-science of the moment even though no evidence has been presented "proving" it.

Or even supporting it. I was enjoying the physics debate up the page, its funny how these things always digress.

Also I remember a post a few days ago, not sure if it was in this thread or another, but it referred to birds. The same species living accross a very large area. The birds were all adapted to their various geography and weather and ecology etc, and any given set of birds would be able to breed with adjacent sets, but not with ones from further away because their genetic diversity had become so great over time.

That sounds like evolution of new species to me.

Or even supporting it. I was enjoying the physics debate up the page, its funny how these things always digress.

Also I remember a post a few days ago, not sure if it was in this thread or another, but it referred to birds. The same species living accross a very large area. The birds were all adapted to their various geography and weather and ecology etc, and any given set of birds would be able to breed with adjacent sets, but not with ones from further away because their genetic diversity had become so great over time.

That sounds like evolution of new species to me.

But you've never seen a bird give birth to a cat, so that proves evolution is false and the earth is only 6000 years old.



{sarcasm}

But you've never seen a bird give birth to a cat, so that proves evolution is false and the earth is only 6000 years old.



{sarcasm}

I'll go you one better. I saw a bird evolve into a cat right infront of my eyes. There was this bird, and then I looked away briefly and when I looked back it had turned into a cat. covered in blood and mess as though it had just been born.

I think it would be a good (and horribly unethical) idea to take a species that breeds quickly, and put a load of them in controlled conditions and gradually change the controlled environment to greater extremes and see how they adapt. after a relatively short time they would be different from the same species in the wild. eventually they would have unique adaptations, and would, after a long time, be completely different.

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

1. Evolution is a theory with facts that back it up and help prove it to be true
(ex. fossils show the perpetual change of species through descent) or in modern time you can look at how tuberculosis killed many people in the 1800's then with sanitation and antibiotics it was triumphed, however today tuberculosis kills more adults than any other viral/bacterial disease because it became resistant and was favored in natural selection.
2. Creationism is also a theory with ideas or beliefs to back it up. (ex, the bible or stories of people who have "seen the light")

So I could say that in outerspace their is alien species and one day, after I die I will live with these species of aliens and travel the universe. Maybe I could write a book about it, and the adventures we have. Eventually this could become widespread...like cults that believe they needed to sarcafice themselves for whatever reason. . .

What's your evidence that the eye isn't IC? The primary proponents of IC say that it is.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
A couple of things I can say about that article. Fisrtly, about the protein section. Yes, proteins are complex and diverse. Yes, individual proteins have highly specific functions. Yes, a loss of the form necessary for the desired function will stop that protein from working. That's all fine. However, the complexity of proteins can be broken down into different layers of complexity. At the basic level i.e. primary structure, diversity can potentially be huge. anyone can see that, potentially, the number of different confomations is 20^nth amino acid. Huge variation. However, different amino acids share certain similarities, and can in fact be substituted for each other (within reason) without a significant loss, or even change, in function. It is restricted, yes, but not static.

Then there's secondary structure, where length of amino acids either have to form random regions, alpha helices or beta strands, the latter of which have to form either a parallel or antiparallel sheet with other beta strands. These different forms combine to make recogniseable, distinct shapes or motifs. The number of these motifs is not infinite, so they are conserved in different proteins. The motifs themselves do not often serve a specific function, but are merely recognisable - the greek key motif's an example of this, as it is prevalent in proteins.

Further from these motifs arise domains - combinations of motifs into more recognisable shapes, often with fairly similar functions in different proteins. To date, there are 8957 different domain families. 8957. Amongst the tens of thousands of proteins just in the human body. Hell, amongst every protein discovered. These are distinct regions of polypeptide, not just completely specific regions of amino acids. Going back to my previous point, no, these structures don't have exactly the same amino acid sequence. However, they do share amino acid sequences with similar AAs at each point in the chain. The point I'm trying to make is this - structural similarity of certain regions in many different proteins points towards common ancestry of all proteins at some point in the past.

Secondly, about the retinal point - I agree that it's difficult to see how this relationship occured. I'm also not that clued up about the eye, so I'm going on educated guesses and generalisations. However, there is the basic point that retinal is produced through vitamin A, which is obtained or produced in precursor forms e.g. carotenoids. Each change in this list is relatively small and the fact that similar domains are frequent and can easily be adjusted for similar functions on different molecules, it's possible that, if each intermediate was non-toxic, the process could eventually happen at random. The formation of vitamin A is extremely useful in general, so that pathway already exists. As for retinal's partner Opsin, it exists in a family of proteins called G-protein coupled receptors, a massive and varied family with similar domains. The binding of these two molecules could again come about through the combination of certain existing domains. It's complex, but not irreducibly so.

The "to explain life" section I'm ignoring, as it concentrates on either circular logic or abiogenesis, which is not the issue. Also, I don't know too much about any abiogenesis experiments save Louis Pasteur's original, and that has no bearing on the modern idea of abiogenesis. Flies may not erupt from bread, but simple replicators could have formed from nutrient-rich areas.

The irreducible complexity section - I feel like saying well done, have a gold star to the writer. Amazing, a mousetrap - a system definitely crafted by man, therefore designed - can't spring together of its own accord. Tremendous news, with absolutely no bearing on the genetic heritage of our current protein cascade systems. Irreducible complexity exists in manufactured systems. It does not exist anywhere in biology. As for the cilia. Dynein is not only found in cilia. Microtubules are not only found in cilia. In fact, the two are in every cell of every eukaryote, to my knowledge. Not only that, but the cellular cascade argument's a crock as well, seeing as many different pathways share similar processes.

Basically, the argument this man is making consists of blinding the public with science followed by incoherent pseudoscience, and, in cases such as the Molecular Evolution section, pure rubbish. I'm sorry if it sounds opinionated but that's because it is. I'm of the opinion that creationism is all bollocks that hides behind tenuous half-truths and outright lies to achieve popularity. Evolutionary science might be accused of this, but at least it has tried to find some real truth behind the past.

I'm sorry this is late, and there's a good chance there's some mistakes which others can point out, but I couldn't let that article stand without some real background to it.

I'll go you one better. I saw a bird evolve into a cat right infront of my eyes. There was this bird, and then I looked away briefly and when I looked back it had turned into a cat. covered in blood and mess as though it had just been born.

I think it would be a good (and horribly unethical) idea to take a species that breeds quickly, and put a load of them in controlled conditions and gradually change the controlled environment to greater extremes and see how they adapt. after a relatively short time they would be different from the same species in the wild. eventually they would have unique adaptations, and would, after a long time, be completely different.

1. Evolution is a theory with facts that back it up and help prove it to be true
(ex. fossils show the perpetual change of species through descent) or in modern time you can look at how tuberculosis killed many people in the 1800's then with sanitation and antibiotics it was triumphed, however today tuberculosis kills more adults than any other viral/bacterial disease because it became resistant and was favored in natural selection.
2. Creationism is also a theory with ideas or beliefs to back it up. (ex, the bible or stories of people who have "seen the light")

So I could say that in outerspace their is alien species and one day, after I die I will live with these species of aliens and travel the universe. Maybe I could write a book about it, and the adventures we have. Eventually this could become widespread...like cults that believe they needed to sarcafice themselves for whatever reason. . .

You'll get used to this. Have some cookies.

When i die i'll be a corpse in the dirt (or in ashes) and that will be it. No heaven or hell for me, just death. And i accept that, i don't try and comfort myself with the possibility that my life goes on afterwards, that to me is just a fear of death and a fear of the fact that you will someday cease to exist.

So I could say that in outerspace their is alien species and one day, after I die I will live with these species of aliens and travel the universe. Maybe I could write a book about it, and the adventures we have. Eventually this could become widespread...like cults that believe they needed to sarcafice themselves for whatever reason. . .

I think thats called Scientology, give or take a few details.

Einstein simply came up with theories that sound good. Give me his proof. What tests did he do? He seems to know alot about space-time curvature, so explain to me how he was able to observe all that. Next explain why you think that time is a physical property rather than just a convenient concept. Good luck proving those theories.
Of relativity? Jesh, they just DID another experiment on that using atomic clocks, one in orbit going REALLY fast and one on the ground. Both had been running the same mesurement before lift off; the one in orbit showed time distortions, it ran 'slower' as it went faster. Exactly as Einstein stated it would.

See, that's science that is.

When i die i'll be a corpse in the dirt (or in ashes) and that will be it. No heaven or hell for me, just death. And i accept that, i don't try and comfort myself with the possibility that my life goes on afterwards, that to me is just a fear of death and a fear of the fact that you will someday cease to exist.
Good for you, but save it for another thread. This'un's about evolution, not theology.

When i die i'll be a corpse in the dirt (or in ashes) and that will be it. No heaven or hell for me, just death. And i accept that, i don't try and comfort myself with the possibility that my life goes on afterwards, that to me is just a fear of death and a fear of the fact that you will someday cease to exist.

Alright. Of course, since I take a different view of consciousness I think that's a way too strong supposition to make with the evidence we have, but if it works for you go with it.

Personally, I think death is a fuck of a lot weirder than we think it is...every explanation now is simplistic and meant to make it manageable.

I'm sorry this is late, and there's a good chance there's some mistakes which others can point out, but I couldn't let that article stand without some real background to it.

The whole article by Behe is a mistake. Your synopsis of it is pretty good IMO. That was kind of my point. NB has espoused IC as a legitimate theory but claims the eye isn't IC when it's primary proponents (Behe, Demski) state it is. I was asking for his explanation as to why the eye wasn't "irreducibly complex" but other systems that have just as many real life examples of reduced complexity that still manage to function were.

Of relativity? Jesh, they just DID another experiment on that using atomic clocks, one in orbit going REALLY fast and one on the ground. Both had been running the same mesurement before lift off; the one in orbit showed time distortions, it ran 'slower' as it went faster. Exactly as Einstein stated it would.

See, that's science that is.

They should have had a third clock with some guy shaking it, just to be sure that they dont just break and slow down when they get moved. And used a set of really old identical twins as a backup.

Of relativity? Jesh, they just DID another experiment on that using atomic clocks, one in orbit going REALLY fast and one on the ground. Both had been running the same mesurement before lift off; the one in orbit showed time distortions, it ran 'slower' as it went faster. Exactly as Einstein stated it would.

See, that's science that is.

There's no such thing as "in orbit." The Earth is flat, with four corners, and stands on pillars, just like the good book says! And the sun goes around it, where God can stop it in the sky if He pleases!

The whole article by Behe is a mistake. Your synopsis of it is pretty good IMO. That was kind of my point. NB has espoused IC as a legitimate theory but claims the eye isn't IC when it's primary proponents (Behe, Demski) state it is. I was asking for his explanation as to why the eye wasn't "irreducibly complex" but other systems that have just as many real life examples of reduced complexity that still manage to function were.Ah ok. I need to start reading threads more :p

Aside from anything, I think the cilia thing was actually properly debunked a couple of years back wasn't it? There was presented a pathway of reduced complexity, or something. And my synopsis needed tuning, I still can't get my argument across clearly.

Suppose I'm trying to prove that Species A evolved into Species C, and I'm using a fossil of Species B to prove it. My carbon dating results MUST indicate Species B falling into a range bwteen A and C. Otherwise no proof exists that it's a link between the other two forms. It may share traits similar to the others, it may even look like it, but unless it can be established that the dates match up, Species B is no more proven as a link than I can say an chimpanzee is a link between me and a house cat.

species B can be transitional between A and C even if the individual in question lived later than the earliest C. all transitional means is that it has both ancestral and derived characteristics. none of the individual specimens of A, B, and C are at all likely to be direct descendants or ancestors of each other. Hell, it is rather unlikely that species A led directly to species B led directly to species C. more likely is that they each represent separate divergent populations within a cluster out on the particular evolutionary branch we're looking at.

There's no such thing as "in orbit." The Earth is flat, with four corners, and stands on pillars, just like the good book says! And the sun goes around it, where God can stop it in the sky if He pleases!

Everyone agreed that the sun wen round the earth, but if it went in an arc, as it obviously did, wouldnt it be farthest away at midday? and make it colder at that time? didnt anyone ever realise? it must have gone in a straight line.

Everyone agreed that the sun wen round the earth, but if it went in an arc, as it obviously did, wouldnt it be farthest away at midday? and make it colder at that time? didnt anyone ever realise? it must have gone in a straight line.

Obviously, God makes it put out more heat when it's at the top. *nod nod*

There's no such thing as "in orbit." The Earth is flat, with four corners, and stands on pillars, just like the good book says! And the sun goes around it, where God can stop it in the sky if He pleases!
Buu! Wrong! EVERYONE knows that the Earth is flat that rests on the backs of four elephants who stand on a turtle that swims through space!

THE TURTLE MOVES!


:D

Obviously, God makes it put out more heat when it's at the top. *nod nod*

Damn, I wish I were god.

Obviously, God makes it put out more heat when it's at the top. *nod nod*

Right, there must be one of those "set-back" thermostats that regulate the heat output of the Sun. I have one in my house, so why can't God have one in the Sun?

Oh, and anything you don't understand is Bill Clinton's fault.

You know we're going to get grumped at for being frivolous and not debating the points. :rolleyes:

Buu! Wrong! EVERYONE knows that the Earth is flat that rests on the backs of four elephants who stand on a turtle that swims through space!

THE TURTLE MOVES!


:D

Terry Pratchet rocks! Walk... er... swim on, giant turtle, swim on!

Right, there must be one of those "set-back" thermostats that regulate the heat output of the Sun. I have one in my house, so why can't God have one in the Sun?

Oh, and anything you don't understand is Bill Clinton's fault.

You know we're going to get grumped at for being frivolous and not debating the points. :rolleyes:
*grumps at, but only because it was inevitable and I want some creationists up in hurr*

then you must not understand what the word 'irreducible' meansPlease elaborate.

if something is irreducible, then it is logically impossible to make it simpler. you admit that it is logically possible that the various allegedly IC structures could be made simpler. thus they cannot, by sheer force of logic, be IC.

To be honest, I'd love to see any evidence that shows we evolved from monkeys...

our last common ancestor with old world monkeys would certainly be called a monkey if it were alive today.

if something is irreducible, then it is logically impossible to make it simpler. you admit that it is logically possible that the various allegedly IC structures could be made simpler. thus they cannot, by sheer force of logic, be IC.

Hm. I read through that entire wiki article on irreducible complexity, but I don't recall it using the mere possibility of simpler forms as proof against it. Possibility doesn't equal probability-- it doesn't even equal scientific possibility. (I mean, it is possible that god could have zapped the complex organ from simpler to complex, but that doesn't make it probable).

I suppose my problem is that merely saying something is possible shouldn't be used as proof against a theory.

Much better evidence against IC is available.

EDIT: I missed the "logical" in that quote. If the possibility is logical, then yeah, I see how that debunks IC.

I suppose my problem is that merely saying something is possible shouldn't be used as proof against a theory.

if the hypothesis in question states that X is impossible, then demonstrating the possible existence of even the most improbable pathway for X to happen utterly destroys the hypothesis beyond all hope of salvation.

them's just the breaks.

EDIT: I missed the "logical" in that quote. If the possibility is logical, then yeah, I see how that debunks IC.

that's not exactly what the phrase means.
logically possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logically_possible)

our last common ancestor with old world monkeys would certainly be called a monkey if it were alive today.

or possibly

George

or possibly

George

Or Basil.

if the hypothesis in question states that X is impossible, then demonstrating the possible existence of even the most improbable pathway for X to happen utterly destroys the hypothesis beyond all hope of salvation.

them's just the breaks.

that's not exactly what the phrase means.
logically possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logically_possible)

This definition for 'logical possibility' works in philosophy, but not in science. It is concerning itself with what is just theoretically possible in Universe X, Y, and Z, while science concerns itself with defining and explaining the universe we inhabit.

Since we are debating complex systems which originate in this universe, then the possibilities that could have allowed this system to form must also be limited by the limits of this universe.

You are using 'impossible possibilities' to debunk a theory. If they are permissable in this instance, then how can you stop me from debunking the theory of gravity by claiming that it is possible for me to fall up? It is a possibility-- yet one that is impossible on earth in this universe.

You are using 'impossible possibilities' to debunk a theory.
Are you high?

If they are permissable in this instance, then how can you stop me from debunking the theory of gravity by claiming that it is possible for me to fall up? It is a possibility-- yet one that is impossible on earth in this universe.

You may want to describe the mechanism. It's really not a posiblity, as falling is defined as moving in the direction of gravity.

You are using 'impossible possibilities' to debunk a theory.

¿

"X is is impossible"
"no it isn't. here is a possible way to get X. therefore X is possible. that's what words mean."

If they are permissable in this instance, then how can you stop me from debunking the theory of gravity by claiming that it is possible for me to fall up? It is a possibility-- yet one that is impossible on earth in this universe.

the theory of gravity doesn't say that it is impossible for masses to repel. it merely says that they don't. but it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that they could. nothing impossible about it at all.

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

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that we evolved from monkeys!
That is a typical creationist misquote. I suggest you research more thoroughly.:gundge:

This definition for 'logical possibility' works in philosophy, but not in science. It is concerning itself with what is just theoretically possible in Universe X, Y, and Z, while science concerns itself with defining and explaining the universe we inhabit.
Actually, no. The science version of that is p-space, where you "ignore" for the time being constants and instead think about what might be possible should x happen. It's a useful modling technique to work out the properties of x in order to devlope a behavoral theory.

For example, if you take all the water in a lake and pull it up into one BIG ball, then let it go, what would happen? How does the water react? How about if you jiggled the ball BEFORE you dropped it? And so on. P-space is infinate as there's an infinate way of doing something, so you have to proscribe some limits, but it is very useful none the less.

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that we evolved from monkeys!

i will (recognizing, of course, that 'monkey' is not a monophyletic group)

Are you high?
::laugh:: Unfortunately, no.
By using "impossible possibility", I meant possibilities which can be thought up, but which are impossible to occur in this universe. (I did realize it was a bit of a paradox in the wording-- hence the quotations around it) For example, I can hypothesize the possibility of fire causing water to freeze, but this is something that is not possible in our universe.


You may want to describe the mechanism. It's really not a posiblity, as falling is defined as moving in the direction of gravity.

Blah. I knew I'd get in trouble for using gravity as my example. I was thinking of falling as "the result of tripping, or leaping off a cliff". They had the concept of falling before they knew about gravity, no? So, it is possible to use the concept of falling without using gravity to define it. But I concede, bad example.

¿
"X is is impossible"
"no it isn't. here is a possible way to get X. therefore X is possible. that's what words mean."
And I suggest that that is a bit impractical.
Impossible, in this instance, should be defined as "impossible to occur in this universe". Otherwise you can think up possibilities that go against what we know to be true.

the theory of gravity doesn't say that it is impossible for masses to repel. it merely says that they don't. but it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that they could. nothing impossible about it at all.

Again, this is all very well and good to theorize. But the chances of something like that occuring is around the same as the sun not rising tomorrow.

I understand the theory, and the excellent qualities, of this sort of reasoning. However, my problem is that you are applying it to an argument that really requires a reasonable possibility for the possibility to be meaningful.

Actually, no. The science version of that is p-space, where you "ignore" for the time being constants and instead think about what might be possible should x happen. It's a useful modling technique to work out the properties of x in order to devlope a behavoral theory.

For example, if you take all the water in a lake and pull it up into one BIG ball, then let it go, what would happen? How does the water react? How about if you jiggled the ball BEFORE you dropped it? And so on. P-space is infinate as there's an infinate way of doing something, so you have to proscribe some limits, but it is very useful none the less.

I learned something new today. Thank you. I knew about 'hypothesizing' and such, but I had not heard of the actual 'p-space' term.

Let me clarify my thoughts:
Irreducible Complexity claims that there are some organs or structures which are impossible to have formed by natural selection. Is that a correct definition, for the way irreducible complexity is being used within this argument?

This places two contraints upon the sort of possibilities which may be presented:
1. The possibility must be possible within this universe, since we are speaking in terms of organisms which are developing in this universe.
2. The possibility must be possible in terms of natural selection.

So, I could imagine that the wind fasioned the eye out pieces of sand it picked up over the Sahara desert, but it is not something that could actually happen.

It also must be in terms of natural selection-- by mutational, environmental, etc forces. Otherwise, it would not be natural selection forming the complex organ (which is exactly what those using this argument are debating), but something else.

It is also interesting that if possibilities are limitless, as you are all arguing, then the IC argument can not be used by Creationists, since, it is possible that God just created the eye, thereby debunking the theory

Surely the whole point of

Irreducible Complexity was to say that something was so complex
that it could not have come about through natural selection
as you could not have a partial stage of development.
As in only half the parts of an eye would be useless and therefore
could not confer any advantage blah de blah.

It was the usual God must have a hand in something because we cannot
yet explain it ourselves logic and I had thought no one considered it
even remotely plausible anymore.

Guess I've been shown now,

Buu! Wrong! EVERYONE knows that the Earth is flat that rests on the backs of four elephants who stand on a turtle that swims through space!

THE TURTLE MOVES!


:D

Obviously, sheesh. :rolleyes:

Surely the whole point of

Irreducible Complexity was to say that something was so complex
that it could not have come about through natural selection
as you could not have a partial stage of development.
As in only half the parts of an eye would be useless and therefore
could not confer any advantage blah de blah.

It was the usual God must have a hand in something because we cannot
yet explain it ourselves logic and I had thought no one considered it
even remotely plausible anymore.

Guess I've been shown now,

And in this, proponents of ID fail to realize that there are simpler versions of the eye than the Human eye, and more complex(I would say that most insects have a far more complex eye than the Human eye, for example). The simplest version of the eye simply detect changes in light, for example.

The problem is that they require something to be to narrow. For instance, by saying "The human eye is IC", it rules out all other forms of an eye for explanations. By this, they are basically saying that each structure is in a vacuum, by itself.

I can hypothesize the possibility of fire causing water to freeze, but this is something that is not possible in our universe.

on what sort of grounds could you know that?

And I suggest that that is a bit impractical.
Impossible, in this instance, should be defined as "impossible to occur in this universe". Otherwise you can think up possibilities that go against what we know to be true.

when the cdesign proponentsists say that something is irreducibly complex, they are saying that it is impossible for N to have formed by evolution. if i offer up a pathway consistent with evolution that results in the formation of N, then i have demonstrated the possibility of it - even if that is not at all the way it actually happened. a possibility that happens to be false is still a possibility. and it's more than enough to undermine claims of impossibility.

Again, this is all very well and good to theorize. But the chances of something like that occuring is around the same as the sun not rising tomorrow.

I understand the theory, and the excellent qualities, of this sort of reasoning. However, my problem is that you are applying it to an argument that really requires a reasonable possibility for the possibility to be meaningful.


maybe - how do you determine the chances of the sun rising tomorrow?

And in this, proponents of ID fail to realize that there are simpler versions of the eye than the Human eye, and more complex(I would say that most insects have a far more complex eye than the Human eye, for example). The simplest version of the eye simply detect changes in light, for example.

The problem is that they require something to be to narrow. For instance, by saying "The human eye is IC", it rules out all other forms of an eye for explanations. By this, they are basically saying that each structure is in a vacuum, by itself.

Now I don't mean to be overly critical but wouldn't an eye in a vacuum
just explode.

Now I don't mean to be overly critical but wouldn't an eye in a vacuum
just explode.

In vacuum I meant it is taken by itself, without other factors effecting it, with absolutely nothing else present. The only ID works is in such a vacuum. The Human Eye is only Irreducibly complex if you consider only the Human eye. That kind of thing.

And FINALLY someone responded to me. Seems in many cases I tend to go completely ignored, even if I'm active in a thread.

In vacuum I meant it is taken by itself, without other factors effecting it, with absolutely nothing else present. The only ID works is in such a vacuum. The Human Eye is only Irreducibly complex if you consider only the Human eye. That kind of thing.

And FINALLY someone responded to me. Seems in many cases I tend to go completely ignored, even if I'm active in a thread.

Your welcome and the question was tongue in cheek.

Irreducible complexity is an argument from exactly the same stable
that created the GOD business in the first place.

Something we don't understand and cannot explain must be the work
of God, or a god or something like a god.
In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the word god didn't turn
out to mean in some ancient and lost language "Dunno"

Thunder and lightning means some god is angry.
Rain means some god drank too much etc etc blah de blah
The sun is a god driving his chariot and at night he's in the underworld
but will return tomorrow.

They were fine when it was dark in the cave and we were scared,
they have been less and less useful ever since.

In vacuum I meant it is taken by itself, without other factors effecting it, with absolutely nothing else present. The only ID works is in such a vacuum. The Human Eye is only Irreducibly complex if you consider only the Human eye. That kind of thing.

And FINALLY someone responded to me. Seems in many cases I tend to go completely ignored, even if I'm active in a thread.

*ignores*

::laugh:: Unfortunately, no.
By using "impossible possibility", I meant possibilities which can be thought up, but which are impossible to occur in this universe. (I did realize it was a bit of a paradox in the wording-- hence the quotations around it) For example, I can hypothesize the possibility of fire causing water to freeze, but this is something that is not possible in our universe.

Just to be pedantic Fire powered refrigerator (http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm) .. ie fire causing water to freeze..

The universe truely is a crazy place..

Just to be pedantic Fire powered refrigerator (http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm) .. ie fire causing water to freeze..

The universe truely is a crazy place..

That's not fire causing water to freeze. That's an exothermic reaction applying work to a series of mechanisms in order to cause an endothermic reaction.

Yeah, Chemistry. A class useful only for laying smackdowns such as the above. :D

on what sort of grounds could you know that?
Knowledge through observation, previous experience, the concepts concerning the formation of ice, knowledge of the necessary conditions it requires, and the fact that it would be highly thermodynamically unfavorable.


when the cdesign proponentsists say that something is irreducibly complex, they are saying that it is impossible for N to have formed by evolution. if i offer up a pathway consistent with evolution that results in the formation of N, then i have demonstrated the possibility of it - even if that is not at all the way it actually happened. a possibility that happens to be false is still a possibility. and it's more than enough to undermine claims of impossibility.
Ah! That's like what I said in the second half you did not quote. Since the argument is that it is impossible for natural selection to have created this complex structure, then the possibility presented must be within the realms of natural selection.

I do not argue that there are possiblilities which can occur, but do not end up occuring.


maybe - how do you determine the chances of the sun rising tomorrow?
::laugh:: You got me there. Technically the probability would be 50/50 that the sun will rise and that it won't, since probability is independent of previous events.

However, please look at my concepts, rather than just my analogies.

It seems like the argument you are using to support this "anything is possible" theory, is the same argument that I pissed off United Beleriand with yesterday.

Basically it runs that we can not know for sure whether the reality we experience is trustworthy or not.

But if you are allowed to use this argument against IDers, then why can they not use it equally as well against you? The biggest thing Evolution has over Creationism is that it is based in science, and has proof to back it up. But if you undermine everything that science tells us by claiming that anything is possible, and that proof is not a valid argument, well, your blowing up your very foundation.

Furthermore, if anything is possible, then Creationism is possible too. It is possible that the eye is irreducibly complex (even though it has been sufficiently shown not to be). And though you will happily tell me that Creationism is possible to win this point, you won't hesitate to jump down someone's throat who legitamately claims that it is.

Just to be pedantic Fire powered refrigerator (http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm) .. ie fire causing water to freeze..

The universe truely is a crazy place..

::sticks out tongue:: :)

Ok, camp fire that directly freezes water.

Let me clarify my thoughts:
Irreducible Complexity claims that there are some organs or structures which are impossible to have formed by natural selection. Is that a correct definition, for the way irreducible complexity is being used within this argument?

This places two contraints upon the sort of possibilities which may be presented:
1. The possibility must be possible within this universe, since we are speaking in terms of organisms which are developing in this universe.
2. The possibility must be possible in terms of natural selection.

So, I could imagine that the wind fasioned the eye out pieces of sand it picked up over the Sahara desert, but it is not something that could actually happen.

It also must be in terms of natural selection-- by mutational, environmental, etc forces. Otherwise, it would not be natural selection forming the complex organ (which is exactly what those using this argument are debating), but something else.


So does that mean that you have to prove it for every tiny step for every complex organ?

It seems to me that if you can take something that was considered to be "irreducibly complex" whatever that may in fact mean.. and show that you could achieve the creation of this "irreducibly complex" organ via natural selection, eg the eye... that you would only need to do it for a few examples .. and then say... " the others would follow a similar pattern".

Thats kind of the idea of science... it enables you to deal with novel situations based on your experience with other known situations.

If you have to show that the same rules apply for every situation then you are never really getting to apply your theory.. you are just aquiring data.

If something as complex as the eye can be shown to have been quite easily generated by evolutionary processes what would be so special about ... say the ear? Or flagella.. or .. well I really have no idea what people class as "irreducibly complex" so its hard for me to imagine....

That's not fire causing water to freeze. That's an exothermic reaction applying work to a series of mechanisms in order to cause an endothermic reaction.

Yeah, Chemistry. A class useful only for laying smackdowns such as the above. :D

Just because you have used chemical terms doesn't stop Fire (being the driving force) causing water to freeze.

Sure it isn't directly freezing the water with fire.. but it is quite clearly cause and effect.

Would you say that me using pullies to lift a 1 tonne weight was an example of a human lifting a 1 tonne weight?

I provide all the energy.. the pulley is just a tool

In the fridge the Fire provides all the energy .. the fridge is just a tool.

I am by the way currently doing my PhD in Molecular Biology but my Undergrad degree was in Chemical engineering so I think I might know a little thing or two about chemistry :)

So you can keep your chemistry smackdown....

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

Of course I don't believe we evolved from monkeys. I believe we share a common ancestor.

So does that mean that you have to prove it for every tiny step for every complex organ?

It seems to me that if you can take something that was considered to be "irreducibly complex" whatever that may in fact mean.. and show that you could achieve the creation of this "irreducibly complex" organ via natural selection, eg the eye... that you would only need to do it for a few examples .. and then say... " the others would follow a similar pattern".

Thats kind of the idea of science... it enables you to deal with novel situations based on your experience with other known situations.

If you have to show that the same rules apply for every situation then you are never really getting to apply your theory.. you are just aquiring data.

If something as complex as the eye can be shown to have been quite easily generated by evolutionary processes what would be so special about ... say the ear? Or flagella.. or .. well I really have no idea what people class as "irreducibly complex" so its hard for me to imagine.... my emphasis

I think you have misunderstood the thrust of my past five or so posts. I have not been advocating the IC theory. It has (appropriately) died a thousands deaths, by multiple proofs. But:

A couple of people had posted that since they could think of a possibility-- as ridiculous as it may be-- to explain the formation of the eye, then that possibility completely debunks the theory. I disagree.

I have been arguing that the possibility presented must be limited in two ways. 1) It must be possible within this universe, and 2) It must fall within the realm of natural selection.

From your post, you agreed with both. Those bolded bits above are exactly the thing I am getting at.

My second stipulation is necessary since IC advocates are using the irreducible complexity theory to disprove the idea that natural selection could have created these complex structures. Therefore, a natural selection possibility must be used to debunk the IC theory within this particular argument.

my emphasis

I think you have misunderstood the thrust of my past five or so posts. I have not been advocating the IC theory. It has (appropriately) died a thousands deaths, by multiple proofs. But:

A couple of people had posted that since they could think of a possibility-- as ridiculous as it may be-- to explain the formation of the eye, then that possibility completely debunks the theory. I disagree.

I have been arguing that the possibility presented must be limited in two ways. 1) It must be possible within this universe, and 2) It must fall within the realm of natural selection.

From your post, you agreed with both. Those bolded bits above are exactly the thing I am getting at.

My second stipulation is necessary since IC advocates are using the irreducible complexity theory to disprove the idea that natural selection could have created these complex structures. Therefore, a natural selection possibility must be used to debunk the IC theory within this particular argument.

Yeah I thought that might be what you were getting at... just wanted to make sure :fluffle:

Aw, that's the first time I've been kissed...

er, on this forum, that is.

A couple of people had posted that since they could think of a possibility-- as ridiculous as it may be-- to explain the formation of the eye, then that possibility completely debunks the theory. I disagree.

I have been arguing that the possibility presented must be limited in two ways. 1) It must be possible within this universe, and 2) It must fall within the realm of natural selection.

2 is required because it is contained within the allegedly impossible X. to answer with some non-natural selection possibility isn't actually an answer. though it does do some serious legwork on demonstrating a flaw in the cdesign proponentsist's contention, if IC then ID.

1 is tricky because we might not actually know what is possible within this universe - our epistemic lot in life kinda sucks in this regard.

snip/

I'll drink to that.

Though, I do think that we can narrow down the possibilities somewhat.

I am off to sleep, though. Work at 4 am, and it's midnight now. Have a great day/ night you all!

The WHOLE first page seems just a little bit skeptical. Just a bit.


EDIT: EEK! 57 pages!

EDIT: EEK! 57 pages!

I know, it's like the old days.

So does that mean that you have to prove it for every tiny step for every complex organ?

It seems to me that if you can take something that was considered to be "irreducibly complex" whatever that may in fact mean.. and show that you could achieve the creation of this "irreducibly complex" organ via natural selection, eg the eye... that you would only need to do it for a few examples .. and then say... " the others would follow a similar pattern".

Thats kind of the idea of science... it enables you to deal with novel situations based on your experience with other known situations.

If you have to show that the same rules apply for every situation then you are never really getting to apply your theory.. you are just aquiring data.

If something as complex as the eye can be shown to have been quite easily generated by evolutionary processes what would be so special about ... say the ear? Or flagella.. or .. well I really have no idea what people class as "irreducibly complex" so its hard for me to imagine....

Basically if they can't understand how it could occur in about 2 or 3 stages, in a short period of time, then its irreducibly complex.

And im afraid we are going to have to demonstrate every step in the evolution of everything that has ever lived before they will accept it. and even then some will just refuse to believe it.

Just to clarify

Something is Irreducibly complex if stupid people cannot understand how
to get from here to there?

I can't help but wonder if thats how Georgie W sees everything.

Basically if they can't understand how it could occur in about 2 or 3 stages, in a short period of time, then its irreducibly complex.

And im afraid we are going to have to demonstrate every step in the evolution of everything that has ever lived before they will accept it. and even then some will just refuse to believe it.

Indeed. They seem like they cannot understand that traits take many generations to be passed on, dozens if not hundreds, and that a short period of time is just not enough to have a noticeable effect on a population.

Indeed. They seem like they cannot understand that traits take many generations to be passed on, dozens if not hundreds, and that a short period of time is just not enough to have a noticeable effect on a population.

people who think the earth is 12,000 years old have no sense of scale.

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.

if those two theories contradict each other, then one of them at least can be disproven :rolleyes:

people who think the earth is 12,000 years old have no sense of scale.

True. Very true, actually. I guess when people take things "literally"(Or at least the parts they want to take literally, and other parts notso) in a holy text, it is hard to debate.

We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and have vestigial organs which serve no direct purpose, and in some cases are a minor hindrance (The appendix, for example, is horribly inefficient). This would imply that we shared a common ancestor.
Honestly, I haven't the time for this flamefest, and I doubt anyone else does either.

O.K. Let us talk scientificly here. Did you know that at less than a .5% DNA change, you will kill the species? Every year we are getting further apart becuase scientists weren't looking enough at the DNA strands.

The appendix is not vestigle. I know where you got this from. True, You can live without it. Did you know that people without the appendix could die easier than a person without one? The appendix helps to (I think it is either of these) either filter blood and stop diseases or make the antibodies for the diseases to stop. This is like saying you don't need your legs and arms. Just becuase you can remove it doesn't mean it has no use at all.

:sniper:

I was just getting to thinking. How do they prove evolution? I thought it was a disprovable theory? When you dig up a bone out of the ground, do you say that it had kids? You may ASSUME it did, but in all actuality you can't prove it had any kids. With that, how are fossils dated?

According to one science book I was reading, "you date the fossils by the rock." On the very next page it says "that you date the rocks by the index fossils." Uhu, O.K., didn't you just say you dated the fossils by the rocks??

Carbon dating is, also, been proven wrong many of times. C-13 dating is also an unprovable meathod, too.

I was reading some older articles online (forgot the ezact site) and an evolutionist said that "if a date doesn't fit with our theory, then we simply throw it out." Why?

We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and have vestigial organs which serve no direct purpose, and in some cases are a minor hindrance (The appendix, for example, is horribly inefficient). This would imply that we shared a common ancestor.
Honestly, I haven't the time for this flamefest, and I doubt anyone else does either.

O.K. Let us talk scientificly here. Did you know that at less than a .5% DNA change, you will kill the species? Every year we are getting further apart becuase scientists weren't looking enough at the DNA strands.
Source for this scientific pronouncement?

The appendix is not vestigle. I know where you got this from. True, You can live without it. Did you know that people without the appendix could die easier than a person without one? The appendix helps to (I think it is either of these) either filter blood and stop diseases or make the antibodies for the diseases to stop. This is like saying you don't need your legs and arms. Just becuase you can remove it doesn't mean it has no use at all.

:sniper:

The appendix is vestigal. In other animals the appendix is used to digest grass and the like. It no longer serves that purpose in humans. Thus it is vestigal.

Carbon dating is, also, been proven wrong many of times. C-13 dating is also an unprovable meathod, too.

I was reading some older articles online (forgot the ezact site) and an evolutionist said that "if a date doesn't fit with our theory, then we simply throw it out." Why?

Nope, sorry Carbon Dating is fine, if used properly.

Its supposed to be used on samples suspected of being between 5000 and 50,000 years old, any other time periods used and its just to inaccurate. So with its limit at 50,000 years it isnt very useful for documenting most of evolutionary history which is why there are other methods that can be used to date things.

people who think the earth is 12,000 years old have no sense of scale.

Did you know that according to NASA this universe is 25 billion years old? This is ranked the most current date. In one of my new text books (about 1 years old) it is 20 billion, and to a 5-year-old text book it is 15 billion. Did you know that we are aging at a rapid rate of 2300 years per second?

Furhtermore, why isn't evolution a religeon? This is what everyone believes in:

Evolutionist: In the begginning dirt.

Creationist: In the begginning God.

Why is it easier to believe that we came from a rock (that absored the 0% oxygen according to one college text book) than if we came from a supieror being? I think it is becuase people like to have control of their own lives and wont have it any other ways.

If creationists have no sense of scale, then why is it that evolution went from 12 million years old (the earth) to todays stand 2.5 billion years?

Get some more beatings by messaging Bobsvile.

Nope, sorry Carbon Dating is fine, if used properly.

Its supposed to be used on samples suspected of being between 5000 and 50,000 years old, any other time periods used any its just to inaccurate. So with its limit at 50,000 years it isnt very useful for documenting most of evolutionary history which is why there are other methods that can be used to date things.


Then I would love an example of your other ways of dating fossils. (Guess what? Supposedly it works as long as it goes along with the Geologic Time Collumn).

people who think the earth is 12,000 years old have no sense of scale.

Did you know that according to NASA this universe is 25 billion years old? This is ranked the most current date. In one of my new text books (about 1 years old) it is 20 billion, and to a 5-year-old text book it is 15 billion. Did you know that we are aging at a rapid rate of 2300 years per second?

Furhtermore, why isn't evolution a religeon? This is what everyone believes in:

Evolutionist: In the begginning dirt.

Creationist: In the begginning God.

Why is it easier to believe that we came from a rock (that absored the 0% oxygen according to one college text book) than if we came from a supieror being? I think it is becuase people like to have control of their own lives and wont have it any other ways.

If creationists have no sense of scale, then why is it that evolution went from 12 million years old (the earth) to todays stand 2.5 billion years?

Get some more beatings by messaging Bobsvile.

What point is it that you think you have made?

Almost every scientist on this earth say that we haven't reached equillimbrium in C-13 (which in actuallity is about 30 thousand years to reach it [further proving this world is less than 30k years old]) so therefore it is useless to all scientists.

Almost every scientist on this earth say that we haven't reached equillimbrium in C-13 (which in actuallity is about 30 thousand years to reach it [further proving this world is less than 30k years old]) so therefore it is useless to all scientists.

What the hell are you babbling about? :confused:

people who think the earth is 12,000 years old have no sense of scale.

Did you know that according to NASA this universe is 25 billion years old? This is ranked the most current date. In one of my new text books (about 1 years old) it is 20 billion, and to a 5-year-old text book it is 15 billion. Did you know that we are aging at a rapid rate of 2300 years per second?
I don't know about you, but I'm aging at one second per second. Much like everything else in existence......

Furhtermore, why isn't evolution a religeon?
Because it's a scientific theory, not a religion. Pretty simple.
This is what everyone believes in:

Evolutionist: In the begginning dirt.

Creationist: In the begginning God.
Quite incorrect. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came about.

Why is it easier to believe that we came from a rock (that absored the 0% oxygen according to one college text book) than if we came from a supieror being? I think it is becuase people like to have control of their own lives and wont have it any other ways.
Care to point out where in the theory of evolution it states that all life came from a rock that absorbed 0% oxygen?

If creationists have no sense of scale, then why is it that evolution went from 12 million years old (the earth) to todays stand 2.5 billion years?
What point are you trying to make here?
Get some more beatings by messaging Bobsvile.

Yes, we've been soundly beaten :rolleyes:

Almost every scientist on this earth say that we haven't reached equillimbrium in C-13 (which in actuallity is about 30 thousand years to reach it [further proving this world is less than 30k years old]) so therefore it is useless to all scientists.

I'm not an expert, but isn't it Carbon-14 dating?

Then I would love an example of your other ways of dating fossils. (Guess what? Supposedly it works as long as it goes along with the Geologic Time Collumn).

Other elements used in radiometric dating include uranium 238 and 235. Look up the methods yourself if you want an explanation as to how they're used. They have a much longer half life than carbon so they're more accurate over longer time scales.

Did you know that according to NASA this universe is 25 billion years old? This is ranked the most current date. In one of my new text books (about 1 years old) it is 20 billion, and to a 5-year-old text book it is 15 billion. Did you know that we are aging at a rapid rate of 2300 years per second?

Wrong. It's between 13-15 billion years old.

Furhtermore, why isn't evolution a religeon? This is what everyone believes in:

Evolutionist: In the begginning dirt.

Creationist: In the begginning God.

Wrong. Evolution does not postulate the origin of life. It only states the processes in which new species emerge and change over a period of time due to a change in allele frequencies of a population.

Why is it easier to believe that we came from a rock (that absored the 0% oxygen according to one college text book) than if we came from a supieror being? I think it is becuase people like to have control of their own lives and wont have it any other ways.

Misconception. We didn't come from rocks. In fact, I'm pretty sure, even though abiogenesis is still a theory in infancy, that it's accepted that life really began in the sea anyway. Self-replicating molecules underwent millions upon millions of years of complex change until they formed the earliest cells. The Miller/Urey experiments and Fox experiment have shown that under the conditions the earth had been billions of years ago, there were resources to create amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of the life, essentially.

If creationists have no sense of scale, then why is it that evolution went from 12 million years old (the earth) to todays stand 2.5 billion years?

Advances in... science? Science isn't immutable. Better technology, more discoveries will lead to modifications in the theory. Science isn't concerned about a popularity contest, or too proud to not change because it thinks it's perfect. It is concerned about the facts. And the facts currently point to evolution through natural selection and genetic drift.

I'm not an expert, but isn't it Carbon-14 dating?

Yep. And it only is accurate to about 40,000 years because Carbon-14 has a half life of about 5,730 years. Anything past 40,000ish years it doesn't work because too much carbon has degenerated.

However, other techniques are used to date older remains.

I'm not an expert, but isn't it Carbon-14 dating?

Yup, Carbon-13 is not radioactive, so it wouldn't have any kind of half life.

Regardless of what babble you come up with for the origin of life, and the origin of the human race, how can anyone possibly question the age of the universe? I just don't get it! All one has to do is look up! Hello! Stars! Galaxies! You know, those shiny things at night? Now I ask you; How the hell can anyone argue that the universe is any younger than billions of years old when we're seeing light from galaxies billions of light years away?

...*waits*

Regardless of what babble you come up with for the origin of life, and the origin of the human race, how can anyone possibly question the age of the universe? I just don't get it! All one has to do is look up! Hello! Stars! Galaxies! You know, those shiny things at night? Now I ask you; How the hell can anyone argue that the universe is any younger than billions of years old when we're seeing light from galaxies billions of light years away?

...*waits*

*puts on fundy hat*
God put the light close so it wouldn't take billions of years for us to see teh awesomeness of his galaxies
*takes off fundy hat*
Ouch
*burns fundy hat*

*puts on fundy hat*
God put the light close so it wouldn't take billions of years for us to see teh awesomeness of his galaxies
*takes off fundy hat*
Ouch
*burns fundy hat*

*urinates on the ashes*

God the Deceiver! The Father of Lies! :eek: EVIL!! EEEEEEEEVIL!!! :eek:

;)

Regardless of what babble you come up with for the origin of life, and the origin of the human race, how can anyone possibly question the age of the universe? I just don't get it! All one has to do is look up! Hello! Stars! Galaxies! You know, those shiny things at night? Now I ask you; How the hell can anyone argue that the universe is any younger than billions of years old when we're seeing light from galaxies billions of light years away?

...*waits*

Its to test your faith.

....translating from creationist to english....

God's just messin' with ya'.

Its to test your faith.

....translating....

God's just messin' with ya'.

Sounds like something I'd do. ;)

Sounds like something I'd do. ;)

Well you can't be God, there'd be more mud and less pants if you were God.




You should be God.

I'm not an expert, but isn't it Carbon-14 dating?

It's the method to date organic material by checking how far progressed the decay of it's C-14 contents to C-12 is.... but I guess it's easy to get the isotope wrong if you've got no idea what you're talking about in the first place ;)

Well you can't be God, there'd be more mud and less pants if you were God.




You should be God.

When it happens, you'll know. It'll be easy to notice. :)

It's the method to date organic material by checking how far progressed the decay of it's C-14 contents to C-12 is.... but I guess it's easy to get the isotope wrong if you've got no idea what you're talking about in the first place ;)

YAY! :D

It's the method to date organic material by checking how far progressed the decay of it's C-14 contents to C-12 is.... but I guess it's easy to get the isotope wrong if you've got no idea what you're talking about in the first place ;)
I was just hoping there wasn't some C-13 dating that I'd never heard about.
When it happens, you'll know. It'll be easy to notice. :)

I can hardly wait!
*contemplates co-ed naked mud sports*

Science again, I said science again!

tl;dr.

Its to test your faith.

....translating from creationist to english....

God's just messin' with ya'.But God is Ya(h). ;)

Regardless of what babble you come up with for the origin of life, and the origin of the human race, how can anyone possibly question the age of the universe? I just don't get it! All one has to do is look up! Hello! Stars! Galaxies! You know, those shiny things at night? Now I ask you; How the hell can anyone argue that the universe is any younger than billions of years old when we're seeing light from galaxies billions of light years away?

...*waits*

Because they are a lot smaller and closer than you think.

Because they are a lot smaller and closer than you think.

Go on... :)

Well nearly sixty pages now and still not one single coherent argument to back up the OP's premise from the creationistas.

Well nearly sixty pages now and still not one single coherent argument to back up the OP's premise from the creationistas.

Does this suprise you?

Does this suprise you?

Not in the least

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

No, you're right we evolved from apes not monkeys They're different!

Well nearly sixty pages now and still not one single coherent argument to back up the OP's premise from the creationistas.

Surely the real argument is
evolution requires millions of years to go from single celled organisms
to animals plants etc and the world is only appx 6000-10,000 years old
(see if you add up all the ages of people in the bible
up until the time of jJeesus we get the appx age and then add the current ad date.)
ergo and qed
animals , plants, birds and humans could not have evolved.
And as for dinosaur fossils that could be where the stories of dragons
and other strange creatures come from because if they did exist
and god wouldnt mess with our heads so we know they did exist
then they lived before the flood with some still surviving until quite late, maybe 2000 years ago who knows maybe 1 or 2 stragglers lasted until
quite recently.
We know we have found some dinosaur bones with red blood cells still in em,
that points to them being a lot more recent than millions of years ago.
Which makes sense only when you remember the earth is no more than
10,000 years old at a stretch.

Just the same as you cannot prove the universe is x billions of years old
by saying well it would have taken light billions of years to get
here, cos you can only say that if you actually know for sure how far away the other stars and galaxies are, our calculations could be wrong.


But what is most impressive really
and what not enough people give the creator credit for is that
he created heaven and earth first
quickly followed by light.

Which means he made heaven and earth IN THE DARK.
(I don't know about you but I'll usually turn on a light to find
my way to the toilet in the middle of the night)

If that doesn't prove omnipotence I dont know what does.

Regardless of what babble you come up with for the origin of life, and the origin of the human race, how can anyone possibly question the age of the universe? I just don't get it! All one has to do is look up! Hello! Stars! Galaxies! You know, those shiny things at night? Now I ask you; How the hell can anyone argue that the universe is any younger than billions of years old when we're seeing light from galaxies billions of light years away?

...*waits*
What I don't get is how any person can be satisfied with "God did it" as an answer for anything. Talk about useless and boring! Faced with such a wonderful, complex, exciting universe to live in, how could anybody possibly be content to accept a pathetic cop-out line like "God did it"?

I'm waiting for somebody to provide me with ONE concrete, useful hypothesis that can be produced from "God did it." I'd like to hear about one single helpful technological advance that can occur based on knowing that "God did it." I'd like to know exactly how many brilliant medical treatments can be developed from "God did it," and how many new inventions can grace the world just because somebody knew that "God did it."

Of course, I've got myself a very comfortable chair and a nice cold drink, because I know I'm gonna be waiting a very, very long time.

Surely the real argument is
evolution requires millions of years to go from single celled organisms
to animals plants etc and the world is only appx 6000-10,000 years old
(see if you add up all the ages of people in the bible
up until the time of jJeesus we get the appx age and then add the current ad date.)
ergo and qed
animals , plants, birds and humans could not have evolved.
And as for dinosaur fossils that could be where the stories of dragons
and other strange creatures come from because if they did exist
and god wouldnt mess with our heads so we know they did exist
then they lived before the flood with some still surviving until quite late, maybe 2000 years ago who knows maybe 1 or 2 stragglers lasted until
quite recently.
We know we have found some dinosaur bones with red blood cells still in em,
that points to them being a lot more recent than millions of years ago.
Which makes sense only when you remember the earth is no more than
10,000 years old at a stretch.

Just the same as you cannot prove the universe is x billions of years old
by saying well it would have taken light billions of years to get
here, cos you can only say that if you actually know for sure how far away the other stars and galaxies are, our calculations could be wrong.


But what is most impressive really
and what not enough people give the creator credit for is that
he created heaven and earth first
quickly followed by light.

Which means he made heaven and earth IN THE DARK.
(I don't know about you but I'll usually turn on a light to find
my way to the toilet in the middle of the night)

If that doesn't prove omnipotence I dont know what does.

Dayummmm! Well done man, it just gets harder and harder to parody you guys when you do such a good job of it yourselves. People try and try, but then you beat them all with that ridiculous nonsense of a post.

What I don't get is how any person can be satisfied with "God did it" as an answer for anything. Talk about useless and boring! Faced with such a wonderful, complex, exciting universe to live in, how could anybody possibly be content to accept a pathetic cop-out line like "God did it"?

I'm waiting for somebody to provide me with ONE concrete, useful hypothesis that can be produced from "God did it." I'd like to hear about one single helpful technological advance that can occur based on knowing that "God did it." I'd like to know exactly how many brilliant medical treatments can be developed from "God did it," and how many new inventions can grace the world just because somebody knew that "God did it."

Of course, I've got myself a very comfortable chair and a nice cold drink, because I know I'm gonna be waiting a very, very long time.

You only say that because you don't find GOD exciting.
If you believed in the GOD that certain people do,
creator of all things, eternal and to whom you will go after your mortal
life is over to live for the rest of eternity in joy and peace and harmony
made all the better by knowing that millions of heretics and atheists
are suffering eternal torment in the pits of hell, then you wouldn't feel
the need to sweat the small stuff or find excitement or usefulness
in anything this short lived life can bring that isnt the glory of GOD.

Dayummmm! Well done man, it just gets harder and harder to parody you guys when you do such a good job of it yourselves. People try and try, but then you beat them all with that ridiculous nonsense of a post.

You should read my earlier posts dude

and remember God doves you.

edit: spelling correction
remember God loves you

as he loves all his children
and he just wants you to see the light

this is best done by staring fixedly at the sun for about half an hour

You only say that because you don't find GOD exciting.
If you believed in the GOD that certain people do,
creator of all things, eternal and to whom you will go after your mortal
life is over to live for the rest of eternity in joy and peace and harmony
made all the better by knowing that millions of heretics and atheists
are suffering eternal torment in the pits of hell, then you wouldn't feel
the need to sweat the small stuff or find excitement or usefulness
in anything this short lived life can bring that isnt the glory of GOD.

If you really do think like that then you are probably not going to Heaven my friend. And you don't see any good in using the great intelligence your God supposedly gave us(well, some of us) to better understand his creation?

Surely the real argument is
evolution requires millions of years to go from single celled organisms
to animals plants etc and the world is only appx 6000-10,000 years old
(see if you add up all the ages of people in the bible
up until the time of jJeesus we get the appx age and then add the current ad date.)
ergo and qed
animals , plants, birds and humans could not have evolved.
And as for dinosaur fossils that could be where the stories of dragons
and other strange creatures come from because if they did exist
and god wouldnt mess with our heads so we know they did exist
then they lived before the flood with some still surviving until quite late, maybe 2000 years ago who knows maybe 1 or 2 stragglers lasted until
quite recently.
We know we have found some dinosaur bones with red blood cells still in em,
that points to them being a lot more recent than millions of years ago.
Which makes sense only when you remember the earth is no more than
10,000 years old at a stretch.

Just the same as you cannot prove the universe is x billions of years old
by saying well it would have taken light billions of years to get
here, cos you can only say that if you actually know for sure how far away the other stars and galaxies are, our calculations could be wrong.


But what is most impressive really
and what not enough people give the creator credit for is that
he created heaven and earth first
quickly followed by light.

Which means he made heaven and earth IN THE DARK.
(I don't know about you but I'll usually turn on a light to find
my way to the toilet in the middle of the night)

If that doesn't prove omnipotence I dont know what does.

Nearly sixty one pages and still no coherent arguments from the god botherers...

You only say that because you don't find GOD exciting.

No, I say it because I find "God did it" to be a useless, unimaginative, pathetic excuse for an answer to any question.

Whether or not God exists is completely beside the point.


If you believed in the GOD that certain people do,
creator of all things, eternal and to whom you will go after your mortal
life is over to live for the rest of eternity in joy and peace and harmony
made all the better by knowing that millions of heretics and atheists
are suffering eternal torment in the pits of hell, then you wouldn't feel
the need to sweat the small stuff or find excitement or usefulness
in anything this short lived life can bring that isnt the glory of GOD.
So, if I believed that the universe was created by an all-powerful, all-good God-being, I would have no curiosity, no desire to explore and understand creation, and no drive to better the world for the good of my fellow life forms? I would, instead, be happy to kick back and fantasize about the eternal tortures being inflicted upon people who have different beliefs than I?

Boy, and they say the godless have no morals!

Sounds like you are just a lazy, cruel, intentionally ignorant person who is delighted to have an excuse for your sloppiness and petulance. You insult a whole lot of very intelligent, interesting religious people by implying that God-belief is synonymous with intellectual laziness and sadism. Not everybody is as boring or nihilistic as you are, or as hate-filled.

EDIT: Oh, and you forgot to respond to my point. Please provide one concrete, useful hypothesis generated by the "God did it" theory. And, while you're at it, kindly refrain from using any of the technologies, treatments, and conveniences that have been created using evolutionary theory and scientific methods. If you're going to spit on the people and the work that created them, then at least have the dignity to stop being such a flaming hypocrite. Remember, your God is watching.

No, I say it because I find "God did it" to be a useless, unimaginative, pathetic excuse for an answer to any question.

Whether or not God exists is completely beside the point.


So, if I believed that the universe was created by an all-powerful, all-good God-being, I would have no curiosity, no desire to explore and understand creation, and no drive to better the world for the good of my fellow life forms?

Sounds like you are just a lazy, intentionally ignorant person who is delighted to have an excuse for your sloppiness. You insult a whole lot of very intelligent, interesting religious people by implying that God-belief is synonymous with intellectual laziness. Not everybody is as boring or nihilistic as you are.

Our little human minds are not capable of understanding the universe
and all its complexity and our attempts to do so rather than glorifying God
as we are supposed to do is nothing more than mental masturbation.

And I am sure you know what view religion takes on masturbation.

Surely the real argument is
evolution requires millions of years to go from single celled organisms
to animals plants etc and the world is only appx 6000-10,000 years old
(see if you add up all the ages of people in the bible
up until the time of jJeesus we get the appx age and then add the current ad date.)
ergo and qed
animals , plants, birds and humans could not have evolved.
And as for dinosaur fossils that could be where the stories of dragons
and other strange creatures come from because if they did exist
and god wouldnt mess with our heads so we know they did exist
then they lived before the flood with some still surviving until quite late, maybe 2000 years ago who knows maybe 1 or 2 stragglers lasted until
quite recently.
We know we have found some dinosaur bones with red blood cells still in em,
that points to them being a lot more recent than millions of years ago.
Which makes sense only when you remember the earth is no more than
10,000 years old at a stretch.

Just the same as you cannot prove the universe is x billions of years old
by saying well it would have taken light billions of years to get
here, cos you can only say that if you actually know for sure how far away the other stars and galaxies are, our calculations could be wrong.


But what is most impressive really
and what not enough people give the creator credit for is that
he created heaven and earth first
quickly followed by light.

Which means he made heaven and earth IN THE DARK.
(I don't know about you but I'll usually turn on a light to find
my way to the toilet in the middle of the night)

If that doesn't prove omnipotence I dont know what does.

There has to be medication for this. :p

You should read my earlier posts dude

and remember God doves you.

edit: spelling correction
remember God loves you

as he loves all his children
and he just wants you to see the light

this is best done by staring fixedly at the sun for about half an hour

The sun you say? Back in half an hour!

edit: dang, its a cloudy day. It seems I'll have to wait to see the light untill tommorow.

Our little human minds are not capable of understanding the universe
and all its complexity and our attempts to do so rather than glorifying God
as we are supposed to do is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Prove it.

And I am sure you know what view religion takes on masturbation.
Yeah, sucks to be you, wanking is fun.
There has to be medication for this. :p

Mud, and lots of it.

There has to be medication for this. :p

I suspect this is a result of not taking the medication...

...

EDIT: Oh, and you forgot to respond to my point. Please provide one concrete, useful hypothesis generated by the "God did it" theory. ....

I provided it but you missed it.

The useful hypothesis generated by the God did it theory is that if
you accept GOD then you get to live forever in heaven and if you don't
you will suffer eternal torments in hell.

Thats FOREVER and ETERNAL
compared to the rather tiny number of years you spend on Earth

The difference is extreme to say the least especially given that if you
suffered the torments of hell for even 1 second you would not be a happy bunny at all.

Prove it.

You want me to prove that you don't have the same intellectual
capacity as God.

hmmmm

OK heres something you can try

Create a universe, then populate it then we can talk about you being
on the same level as god

Honestly your not american you have no excuse to be taking me seriously


Your not an american student doing a year in UCD are you?

I provided it but you missed it.

The useful hypothesis generated by the God did it theory is that if
you accept GOD then you get to live forever in heaven and if you don't
you will suffer eternal torments in hell.

Thats FOREVER and ETERNAL
compared to the rather tiny number of years you spend on Earth

The difference is extreme to say the least especially given that if you
suffered the torments of hell for even 1 second you would not be a happy bunny at all.

Can you link to the peer reviewed and widely accepted study, carried out scientifically, that came to this conclusion?

Oh, and the Bible doesn't count.

I provided it but you missed it.

The useful hypothesis generated by the God did it theory is that if
you accept GOD then you get to live forever in heaven and if you don't
you will suffer eternal torments in hell.

Thats FOREVER and ETERNAL
compared to the rather tiny number of years you spend on Earth

The difference is extreme to say the least especially given that if you
suffered the torments of hell for even 1 second you would not be a happy bunny at all.

You don't know what a hypothesis is do you. Damn religion taking up time instead of learning useful things.

Our little human minds are not capable of understanding the universe
and all its complexity and our attempts to do so rather than glorifying God
as we are supposed to do is nothing more than mental masturbation.

I think it's cute when people convert to Christianity because they flunked high school physics. :D


And I am sure you know what view religion takes on masturbation.
Yep, great priorities.

Touching your genitals: BAD BAD ICKY SIN WRONG!!!!

Living in selfish ignorance, intentionally refusing to learn anything that might end up improving life on Earth: SUPER AWESOME DOUBLEPLUS GOOD!!!!

You're an adorable parody, Dun, but honestly. Nobody believes it. There was a time when thinking like yours dominated the Western world. We call that time "The Dark Ages."

If you really believe what you're talking about, then I trust you live as people did back in that glorious age, right? Which means you are clearly producing posts on this forum via magical prayers to jeebus, because you'd never sink to touching a COMPUTER!!! Computers were invented by SCIENCE, by people who decided to use their puny human brains to better understand the universe, which is clearly nothing but mental masturbation, and you frown on that sort of thing. Right?

You want me to prove that you don't have the same intellectual
capacity as God.

hmmmm

OK heres something you can try

Create a universe, then populate it then we can talk about you being
on the same level as god

Honestly your not american you have no excuse to be taking me seriously

I never said anything about having the same intellectual capacity as God, I asked you to prove that the human brain cannot understand the universe.

Oh, and:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

I provided it but you missed it.

The useful hypothesis generated by the God did it theory is that if
you accept GOD then you get to live forever in heaven and if you don't
you will suffer eternal torments in hell.

Thats FOREVER and ETERNAL
compared to the rather tiny number of years you spend on Earth

The difference is extreme to say the least especially given that if you
suffered the torments of hell for even 1 second you would not be a happy bunny at all.

And you worship this, do you?

I think it's cute when people convert to Christianity because they flunked high school physics. :D


Yep, great priorities.

Touching your genitals: BAD BAD ICKY SIN WRONG!!!!

Living in selfish ignorance, intentionally refusing to learn anything that might end up improving life on Earth: SUPER AWESOME DOUBLEPLUS GOOD!!!!

You're an adorable paroday, Dun, but honestly. Nobody believes it. There was a time when thinking like yours dominated the Western world. We call that time "The Dark Ages."

If you really believe what you're talking about, then I trust you live as people did back in that glorious age, right? Which means you are clearly producing posts on this forum via magical prayers to jeebus, because you'd never sink to touching a COMPUTER!!! Computers were invented by SCIENCE, by people who decided to use their puny human brains to better understand the universe, which is clearly nothing but mental masturbation, and you frown on that sort of thing. Right?

Parody Irony and Sarcasm are not just your tools.

Honestly your not american you have no excuse to be taking me seriously

Honestly? There are entire (very large) forums populated by people just like the person you just trolled as. Thats why it was very easy to mistake you for the real thing.

I provided it but you missed it.

The useful hypothesis generated by the God did it theory is that if
you accept GOD then you get to live forever in heaven and if you don't
you will suffer eternal torments in hell.

No, you missed the key word: "useful."

You also seem to have no idea what the word "hypothesis" means. I'll give you a hint: the meaning of "hypothesis" is not "random-ass guess that I pulled out of the ass of some 3rd century scribbler who wrote about how a magical zombie came to save humanity and teach us the true meaning of Christmas."


Thats FOREVER and ETERNAL
compared to the rather tiny number of years you spend on Earth

Boy, you really have a very exagerated sense of your own importance, don't you?

Sorry, kiddo, but none of us gets to stick around forever. I know you really want to believe that you are just so important that the universe can't exist without you eternally hanging around, but it just ain't so. You get a tiny blip of time in this massive game we call "existence," so you best make the most of it.

Or you could just piss it away with the assumption that there's some magic fairy who will hug you for the rest of forever after you die. Either way, the universe doesn't really give a flying fuck.


The difference is extreme to say the least especially given that if you
suffered the torments of hell for even 1 second you would not be a happy bunny at all.
I'm going to Hell no matter what, because no matter what religion I follow there will always be some other God waiting to damn me after I die. So why worry? I might as well do my best with the life I have.

Create a universe, then populate it then we can talk about you being
on the same level as god


Done. :)

Six days? Hah! I did it in six seconds! Want to see it? It's the new afterlife. You get to see it when you're dead. :)

Can you link to the peer reviewed and widely accepted study, carried out scientifically, that came to this conclusion?

Oh, and the Bible doesn't count.

I think you will find that it has been widely peer reviewed within the one
true church for the last 2 thousand years.
The experts in that field are quite satisfied that it holds water.

Parody Irony and Sarcasm are not just your tools.
I invoke the Montoya principle. I do not think the words "irony" and "sarcasm" mean what you think they mean.

Honestly? There are entire (very large) forums populated by people just like the person you just trolled as. Thats why it was very easy to mistake you for the real thing.

LOL

I thought I left one or two clues
when was the last time you heard or saw one of them one
of the big deals was that god created heaven and earth in the dark.

I think you will find that it has been widely peer reviewed within the one
true church for the last 2 thousand years.
The experts in that field are quite satisfied that it holds water.
So because many, many people who already believe in the truth of the Bible say it's true, it's true? Wow... that's a really impartial study.

LOL

I thought I left one or two clues
when was the last time you heard or saw one of them one
of the big deals was that god created heaven and earth in the dark.

Yeah, that was pretty funny, so was the staring at the sun which was when I figured. You sounded pretty similair to Paintballsville from a few pages back though, or is he another of your puppets?

Yeah, that was pretty funny, so was the staring at the sun which was when I figured. You sounded pretty similair to Paintballsville from a few pages back though, or is he another of your puppets?

Nah no puppets

we were just short of any creationist responses so I thought I'd give them
a helping hand.

I didn't expect anyone to think it was anything other than a joke mind,
given that my previous posts weren't in keeping with these ones.

Do you think it will take the others long to catch up?

So because many, many people who already believe in the truth of the Bible say it's true, it's true? Wow... that's a really impartial study.

Dang, I was gonna say that.

So because many, many people who already believe in the truth of the Bible say it's true, it's true? Wow... that's a really impartial study.

Well, according to the Bible, the Bible is infallible. And it has to be infallible, because it says so in the Bible...which is infallible. :)

Nah no puppets

we were just short of any creationist responses so I thought I'd give them
a helping hand.

I didn't expect anyone to think it was anything other than a joke mind,
given that my previous posts weren't in keeping with these ones.

Do you think it will take the others long to catch up?

Hmm, yeah I didnt check your previous posts.

As for the others, they've probably realised already as they've had nearly a page, but dammit creationist baiting seemed to be the NS forum pasttime for a while and its hard to let the memories go...

edit: speeling

Dang, I was gonna say that.
Great minds... :)

Well, according to the Bible, the Bible is infallible. And it has to be infallible, because it says so in the Bible...which is infallible. :)

Actually the argument would be

God is infallible
The bible is gods word which is therefore infallible
how do we know god is infallible
because the bible says so

I still think it would be better to go to heaven than to hell I just don't believe
in either them or god.

Do you think it will take the others long to catch up?
Hey, I said you were a nice parody many posts ago.

The thing is, it's really not even slightly creative to troll as a godbag around here. I know you probably think it's really witty and clever, and you're probably very happy about having "fooled" people, but it's been done to death and (frankly) it's just about the most mindlessly easy parody you could come up with.

Radical godbags are self-parodies as it is. To make a hilarious troll, all you have to do is repeat what these weirdos really say all the time. You don't have to think up any new material, or put any effort into it.

Now, if you are interested in being a quality humor-troll, I'd suggest you try something a bit more complex. Be a socialist troll! (Note: NOT a college-commie troll! That's far too easy!) Be an anti-vaccination troll! Be a pro-global-warming enthusiast! Be creative!

Hey, I said you were a nice parody many posts ago.

The thing is, it's really not even slightly creative to troll as a godbag around here. I know you probably think it's really witty and clever, and you're probably very happy about having "fooled" people, but it's been done to death and (frankly) it's just about the most mindlessly easy parody you could come up with.

Radical godbags are self-parodies as it is. To make a hilarious troll, all you have to do is repeat what these weirdos really say all the time. You don't have to think up any new material, or put any effort into it.

Now, if you are interested in being a quality humor-troll, I'd suggest you try something a bit more complex. Be a socialist troll! (Note: NOT a college-commie troll! That's far too easy!) Be an anti-vaccination troll! Be a pro-global-warming enthusiast! Be creative!


I would have been more subtle if anyone had been intended to believe
that I held that point of view.
It is not my fault if people skim and respond in indignation without thinking.
I was quite disappointed in fact rather than happy at having "fooled" anyone.
Then I thought I better stick with it until someone catches on or it could be embarassing.

I would have been more subtle if anyone had been intended to believe
that I held that point of view.

If you weren't trying to be a parody, and were simply trying to be sarcastic, then you failed because people obviously didn't see the sarcasm.

If, on the other hand, you were trying to be a parody, then you were pretty ham-handed about it (as I said above).

Either way, you have potential but need a little work.


It is not my fault if people skim and respond in indignation without thinking.

Nope, that's not your fault. Of course, it's also not other people's fault if they make completely logical assumptions based on the people they've encountered here, and on the words you are posting.

None of us knows whether the others are being straight forward or deceptive. I can't possibly know whether anybody is actually posting what they really believe. So, for the sake of simplicity, I take people at their word around here. I debate what they say, instead of trying to guess at what they may really be thinking.

Most people around here do pretty much the same thing. Don't act shocked about it.

I was quite disappointed in fact rather than happy at having "fooled" anyone.
Then I thought I better stick with it until someone catches on or it could be embarassing.
Meh. Nothing to be "disappointed" about. People reacted reasonably to what you posted.

Honestly, you should try again with something more interesting. For example, I once posted (as a puppet) about how abortion is wrong because women should be carrying their babies to term and then selling them for profit. You'd be surprised how cogent an argument can be presented for this, and how many people were prepared to seriously discuss the merits of this idea.

Actually the argument would be

God is infallible
The bible is gods word which is therefore infallible
how do we know god is infallible
because the bible says so



But how the Bible is read changes when the evidence proves the old reading is wrong. That is how Christianity became divided from Jewish. Both read the same word of God. Both said the word was infallible, but one read the prophesy differently than the other.

The same thing happened when the universe changed and the earth went from being the center to a minor planet floating around a minor star. Christians argued that science was wrong because of the way they read God's word, until they could no longer make that argument. Then suddenly, the reading of God's word changed.

I see this same thing happening as the evidence mounts. Personally I see no conflict between the "Word of God" and evolution. I think religious leaders will agree with me over time.

Aren't we all humans? I know what I am talking about you baboons. I make a mistake, guess what? I never said I was god all I am doing is simply proving that evolution was, is and always will be a fairy tale made for humans to destroy god.

Anyways, if evolution is true, then answer me these questions; how did all the molecules in the universe fit into a infinite decimal region? (Infinite decimal region [tecimal maybe, I am pretty sure it is decimal] is a dot in Greek translations) How did all of it just happen to come together and explode? How did rain just happen to appear and rain on rocks? How did the rocks somehow turn into a living organism?

Sorry, but the theory of evolution sounds so ridiculous that I wouldn't even teach it to my children let alone profess it as a science.


Science:

sci•ence (sns) Pronunciation Key
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science )

Evolution isn't watch able or testable (experimental), however it is a theoretical explanation of how we came to be (our origins).

The same goes for Creationism. Creationism has some 'proof' and the evolutionist will say they got proof, however, what the evolutionist wont admit is that their 'theory' is actually a religion now.

Furthermore the big bang theory is not demonstrateable so that does not fit as science either.

Evolutionist: In the begginning dirt.

Creationist: In the begginning God.


Unless I'm much mistaken, Christian Creationism at least, says man comes from dirt, too.

*snip* Honestly, you should try again with something more interesting. For example, I once posted (as a puppet) about how abortion is wrong because women should be carrying their babies to term and then selling them for profit. You'd be surprised how cogent an argument can be presented for this, and how many people were prepared to seriously discuss the merits of this idea.

Indeed, take a look at the discussion in the "Repeal Woman Suffrage" thread and the numerous examples of people collecting petition signatures for that. And there's another thread about the radio commentator who suggested making all Muslims in the US wear some identifying mark: he got a spate of positive responses to that. (On the selling babies front, Bottle, didn't Jonathan Swift propose the poor Irish do that 300 years ago? Sell them as food?)

(On the selling babies front, Bottle, didn't Jonathan Swift propose the poor Irish do that 300 years ago? Sell them as food?)
Yep. He pointed out that a young, plump baby could make a delicious meal, and so the poor should keep enough babies to breed and produce new "stock" while selling the majority of their infants to the wealthy (who can then eat the delicious babies).

My idea was similar, except that I didn't really give any thought to what the babies would be used for by those who purchase them. I just pointed out that a healthy white baby can sell for as much as $80K, so it's really stupid of these silly college sluts to be getting abortions when they could be paying off all their student loans in one fell swoop. And if you have an unhealthy or (gasp) non-white baby, you can still probably get like $25-30K for it, which is a pretty good chunk of change for 9 months' work.

I provided it but you missed it.

The useful hypothesis generated by the God did it theory is that if
you accept GOD then you get to live forever in heaven and if you don't
you will suffer eternal torments in hell.

Thats FOREVER and ETERNAL
compared to the rather tiny number of years you spend on Earth

The difference is extreme to say the least especially given that if you
suffered the torments of hell for even 1 second you would not be a happy bunny at all.

I always find this funny... I know so many Christians that bitch about everyday life, and yet they somehow think an eternity would be a good thing...

I always find this funny... I know so many Christians that bitch about everyday life, and yet they somehow think an eternity would be a good thing...

I think they generally believe that post-death/rapture/twinkling/whatever will be a lot better.

Specifically, there is scripture that suggests that:

1. In Heaven, personal income tax is capped at 6%.
2. In Heaven, parking is free except for major events or the airport.
3. In Heaven, they are neither married, nor given in marriage, which means no sitting around a table with a burgundy linen tablecloth, making awkward small talk with your friend's friend's cousin's fiance's ugly ugly relatives.
4. In Heaven, every episode of "The Boondocks" is new.
5. In Heaven, all the angels are androgynous, but in a nice Pat Benatar kind of way, not that creepy "Heaven's Gate" kind of way

I invoke the Montoya principle. I do not think the words "irony" and "sarcasm" mean what you think they mean.

Inconceivable!

(Sorry, I was just skimming back through the thread and couldn't let that go.)

Aren't we all humans? I know what I am talking about you baboons. I make a mistake, guess what? I never said I was god all I am doing is simply proving that evolution was, is and always will be a fairy tale made for humans to destroy god.

Anyways, if evolution is true, then answer me these questions; how did all the molecules in the universe fit into a infinite decimal region? (Infinite decimal region [tecimal maybe, I am pretty sure it is decimal] is a dot in Greek translations) How did all of it just happen to come together and explode? How did rain just happen to appear and rain on rocks? How did the rocks somehow turn into a living organism?

Sorry, but the theory of evolution sounds so ridiculous that I wouldn't even teach it to my children let alone profess it as a science.


Science:

sci•ence (sns) Pronunciation Key
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science )

Evolution isn't watch able or testable (experimental), however it is a theoretical explanation of how we came to be (our origins).

The same goes for Creationism. Creationism has some 'proof' and the evolutionist will say they got proof, however, what the evolutionist wont admit is that their 'theory' is actually a religion now.

Furthermore the big bang theory is not demonstrateable so that does not fit as science either.


How the molecules in the universe fit anywhere is not part of any theories concerning evolution.

Evolution is falsifiable! Simply observe organisms for a long time and if no changes occur in the population then evolution is probably not true. Evolution actually only means that populations of organisms change over time.

Natural selection is also falsifiable through several tests. If you have 100 organisms in an enclosure and 10 of them are better at utilizing resources because of a heritable trait, eventually those organisms will become more prevalent over a few generations since they were able to produce more offspring.
If a parasite were released that only the inferior competitors in the previous model had a resistance to, (depending on how detrimental the parasite is) then the inferior competitors in the last example will become superior competitors and will produce more reproductively viable offspring, replacing the individuals that were previously superior.

Now, if this experiment was performed and the ratios of organisms in the population didn't change as expected; that would be possible evidence against natural selection.

I think Evolution is most likely accurate, in large part, though there are holes in it here and there, so it shouldn't be treated with religious reverence like so many Sciencists (this is a made up word, by the way, not a misspelling of the word "Scientists") tend to.

I think it should be the theory taught in school, but I also think that the environment in which any slight criticism of scientific orthodoxy is treated as Heresy at best and Madness at worst has got to go. In other words, point out and stress that it is a theory, as yet not disproved, and that there are other theories which do not have to be named.

That way, parents can talk to their kids and maybe have them read some Intelligent Design books, or say "Study that to pass your test, but remember God did it all in Six Days" or whatever they want their kids to know, and their kids will be more receptive to what their parents want them to, while still absorbing the widely accepted but not infallible knowledge on the subject.

Both sides need to be a bit more reasonable, and the Sciencistas need to cut back on the condescension and disrespect of others' beliefs.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Your opinion need not be humble, for it is an opinion seeking moderation.

Well said, and I second you wholeheartedly.

How the molecules in the universe fit anywhere is not part of any theories concerning evolution.

Evolution is falsifiable! Simply observe organisms for a long time and if no changes occur in the population then evolution is probably not true. Evolution actually only means that populations of organisms change over time.

Natural selection is also falsifiable through several tests. If you have 100 organisms in an enclosure and 10 of them are better at utilizing resources because of a heritable trait, eventually those organisms will become more prevalent over a few generations since they were able to produce more offspring.
If a parasite were released that only the inferior competitors in the previous model had a resistance to, (depending on how detrimental the parasite is) then the inferior competitors in the last example will become superior competitors and will produce more reproductively viable offspring, replacing the individuals that were previously superior.

Now, if this experiment was performed and the ratios of organisms in the population didn't change as expected; that would be possible evidence against natural selection.
Exactly how would it not work if half the organisms were sooo unsuited for the environment that they died before they were able to reproduce?

How the molecules in the universe fit anywhere is not part of any theories concerning evolution.

Evolution is falsifiable! Simply observe organisms for a long time and if no changes occur in the population then evolution is probably not true. Evolution actually only means that populations of organisms change over time.

Natural selection is also falsifiable through several tests. If you have 100 organisms in an enclosure and 10 of them are better at utilizing resources because of a heritable trait, eventually those organisms will become more prevalent over a few generations since they were able to produce more offspring.
If a parasite were released that only the inferior competitors in the previous model had a resistance to, (depending on how detrimental the parasite is) then the inferior competitors in the last example will become superior competitors and will produce more reproductively viable offspring, replacing the individuals that were previously superior.

Now, if this experiment was performed and the ratios of organisms in the population didn't change as expected; that would be possible evidence against natural selection.

Natural selection is part and parcel of evolution. "Survival of the fittest" and all that. What you're missing is the passage of time. Not just a few hours, but millions of years -- hundreds of millions in the case of unicellular life forming larger, cooperative, systemic and structured life. Adaptations which lead to somatic changes are evidence of evolution. If you were to watch your "100 organisms" for, say, 500 years, and continued the environmental stimuli that lead to the initial adaptation, those organisms would eventually lose whatever traits the environmental change rendered useless and gain whatever traits the adaptation required in the organism. That's how, theoretically, fish became reptiles and amphibians -- you need lungs and legs to get around on land. The fact that snakes did it without legs suggests that some evolutionary branches don't necessarily dead-end with extinction. Nevertheless, snakes are an example of mastering environmental pressures and becoming a niche survivor -- they didn't need legs.

I think they generally believe that post-death/rapture/twinkling/whatever will be a lot better.

Specifically, there is scripture that suggests that:

1. In Heaven, personal income tax is capped at 6%.
2. In Heaven, parking is free except for major events or the airport.
3. In Heaven, they are neither married, nor given in marriage, which means no sitting around a table with a burgundy linen tablecloth, making awkward small talk with your friend's friend's cousin's fiance's ugly ugly relatives.
4. In Heaven, every episode of "The Boondocks" is new.
5. In Heaven, all the angels are androgynous, but in a nice Pat Benatar kind of way, not that creepy "Heaven's Gate" kind of way

Just seems odd to spend your entire mortal time complaining about how it drags... and looking forward to an eternity of doing the same thing - because that won't get old...

Aren't we all humans? I know what I am talking about you baboons. I make a mistake, guess what? I never said I was god all I am doing is simply proving that evolution was, is and always will be a fairy tale made for humans to destroy god.


No, not really. There are plenty of Christians whom both believe the Bible and evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.


Anyways, if evolution is true, then answer me these questions; how did all the molecules in the universe fit into a infinite decimal region? (Infinite decimal region [tecimal maybe, I am pretty sure it is decimal] is a dot in Greek translations) How did all of it just happen to come together and explode? How did rain just happen to appear and rain on rocks? How did the rocks somehow turn into a living organism?


Not regarding the fact that Evolution does not care about how life began, only how it changed after it began, I'd be happy to address this.

First off, you have no idea how much empty space is in an atom. 99% empty space is being generation. It would be more like 99.999999999etc% empty space. When you crush it all down, you get something very, very, VERY small. Also, the amount of matter and energy in the universe is not infinite, it is constant. The space between is expanding, but the amount of matter is not.

How it came together is unimportant. We cannot know how, as that would predate "time" so to speak. The best we can really say is what it likely was like before the big bang, however how that matter came to be is unknown.

Next, your assumption that magicall Rain poors onto rocks, and rocks magically turn into organisms is blatantly false, and nobody claims such. Your ignorance is apparent here, and your are making wild assumptions that nobody in their right mind even considers.


Sorry, but the theory of evolution sounds so ridiculous that I wouldn't even teach it to my children let alone profess it as a science.

It only sounds rediculous because you obviously do not understand even the basic mechanisms of such. And I would hope to god you don't try and teach evolution to your kids, or else you might look like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7fVvG-581s


Science:

sci•ence (sns) Pronunciation Key
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science )

Evolution isn't watch able or testable (experimental), however it is a theoretical explanation of how we came to be (our origins).

No, it is observalbe, and testable. It is tested all the time, and it is observed all the time. We use these tests and observations to explain a possible explanation of evolutionary lines.


The same goes for Creationism. Creationism has some 'proof' and the evolutionist will say they got proof, however, what the evolutionist wont admit is that their 'theory' is actually a religion now.


Creationism has no proof whatsoever, because it transcends proof. It is faith. Evolution has plenty of evidence backing it. You just choose to ignore the fact that evidence exists.
Furthermore the big bang theory is not demonstrateable so that does not fit as science either.[/QUOTE]

How the molecules in the universe fit anywhere is not part of any theories concerning evolution.

Evolution is falsifiable! Simply observe organisms for a long time and if no changes occur in the population then evolution is probably not true. Evolution actually only means that populations of organisms change over time.

Natural selection is also falsifiable through several tests. If you have 100 organisms in an enclosure and 10 of them are better at utilizing resources because of a heritable trait, eventually those organisms will become more prevalent over a few generations since they were able to produce more offspring.
If a parasite were released that only the inferior competitors in the previous model had a resistance to, (depending on how detrimental the parasite is) then the inferior competitors in the last example will become superior competitors and will produce more reproductively viable offspring, replacing the individuals that were previously superior.

Now, if this experiment was performed and the ratios of organisms in the population didn't change as expected; that would be possible evidence against natural selection.

Evolution does not guarentee that more beneficial traits are passed on, it merely states that it is more likely. It is technically possible for outside occurances to cause those with the beneficial traits to not be able to pass on the traits. However, given the circumstances, Evolution simply states that is more likely that the beneficial traits will be passed on, not guarenteed.

Evolution does not guarentee that more beneficial traits are passed on, it merely states that it is more likely. It is technically possible for outside occurances to cause those with the beneficial traits to not be able to pass on the traits. However, given the circumstances, Evolution simply states that is more likely that the beneficial traits will be passed on, not guarenteed.

All traits are passed onm - except those that are rapidly lethal, and those that are selected against by environment.

So - air breathing is passed on... unless the environment is suddenly covered with deep water, for example.

But, all characteristics not selected against are transmitted, there are no 'good' or 'bad' indicators - only what works and what doesn't. If it isn't harmful, it is retained - until it is replaced.

Example: colour blindness is transmitted because it is not immediately harmful, or heavily selected against.

If there was an environmental change that required accurate colour interpretation (e.g. all purple plants are poisonous), colour-blindness would quickly die out.

All traits are passed onm - except those that are rapidly lethal, and those that are selected against by environment.

So - air breathing is passed on... unless the environment is suddenly covered with deep water, for example.

But, all characteristics not selected against are transmitted, there are no 'good' or 'bad' indicators - only what works and what doesn't. If it isn't harmful, it is retained - until it is replaced.

Example: colour blindness is transmitted because it is not immediately harmful, or heavily selected against.

If there was an environmental change that required accurate colour interpretation (e.g. all purple plants are poisonous), colour-blindness would quickly die out.


What I mean by beneficial and harmful is not that they are good or bad, but that they are either more or less useful to a given environment. A beneficial trait in one environment is harmful in another, obviously.

But, all characteristics not selected against are transmitted, there are no 'good' or 'bad' indicators - only what works and what doesn't. If it isn't harmful, it is retained - until it is replaced.


Flip the view point around and you give a better picture of the matter.

Anything and everything could be replaced, but it doesnt matter so long as it is not critical to the environment. Nothing is 'retained' as that smacks of deliberation on the part of evolution, which cannot be with an impersonal
force.

Rather, it is like flinging a lump of poop into a crowd. Someone is going to get hit, but there is a low chance of any individual getting it. The poop is the mutating factor, the soon to be stinky/sticky person is the gene in question, and the crowd is DNA as a whole.

Now if the DNA is singing kumbaya outside the whitehouse, and the poopy person is the one that drives the bus, then everyone is screwed, cause the riot police will be here faster than the poop can be cleaned up.

Flip the view point around and you give a better picture of the matter.

Anything and everything could be replaced, but it doesnt matter so long as it is not critical to the environment. Nothing is 'retained' as that smacks of deliberation on the part of evolution, which cannot be with an impersonal
force.

Rather, it is like flinging a lump of poop into a crowd. Someone is going to get hit, but there is a low chance of any individual getting it. The poop is the mutating factor, the soon to be stinky/sticky person is the gene in question, and the crowd is DNA as a whole.

Now if the DNA is singing kumbaya outside the whitehouse, and the poopy person is the one that drives the bus, then everyone is screwed, cause the riot police will be here faster than the poop can be cleaned up.

That was the best analogy I've ever read. Ever.

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

you're right, god made adam from nothing and made eve from one of his ribs, then they magically had children who bred children who wern't mentally diseased because of the incest, and the whole human population rose from those too. and the earth is only 6000 years old even though we have the fossil record dating back over 3.1 billion years...

Furthermore the big bang theory is not demonstrateable so that does not fit as science either.If the universe used to be too dense and hot for electrons to be trapped near nuclei, we should be able to see the photons scattered by those electrons at a distance of c*t, where c is the speed of light and t is the amount of time that has passed since atoms formed and photons stopped scattering off the electrons. If the big bang happened, it should be possible to point an antenna toward the sky and detect the cosmic microwave background.

Pay no attention to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

If the universe used to be too dense and hot for electrons to be trapped near nuclei, we should be able to see the photons scattered by those electrons at a distance of c*t, where c is the speed of light and t is the amount of time that has passed since atoms formed and photons stopped scattering off the electrons. If the big bang happened, it should be possible to point an antenna toward the sky and detect the cosmic microwave background.

Pay no attention to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Hold it and back up. Where did you get that quote from, by chance? I have no recollection of ever posting that, and I cannot seem to find where I did. I'm really curious where I said that... which I didn't.

Oye, I see. I forgot to put a quote tag around it. Nevermind, then. I didn't say that, it was a part of the post I was quoting.

That was the best analogy I've ever read. Ever.

For DNA or analogies in general? Thanks, by the way.

All traits are passed onm - except those that are rapidly lethal, and those that are selected against by environment.

So - air breathing is passed on... unless the environment is suddenly covered with deep water, for example.

But, all characteristics not selected against are transmitted, there are no 'good' or 'bad' indicators - only what works and what doesn't. If it isn't harmful, it is retained - until it is replaced.

Example: colour blindness is transmitted because it is not immediately harmful, or heavily selected against.

If there was an environmental change that required accurate colour interpretation (e.g. all purple plants are poisonous), colour-blindness would quickly die out.

And, as somebody else already stressed, there is an element of chance in the mix. For instance, an animal with poor vision could just happen to be lucky enough to not get scented by predators for long enough that it manages to reproduce and pass on its "bad" genes. Or, as has happened with several species, a population of animals could become isolated in an area where they essentially have no predators at all, so "bad" traits suddenly are no longer immediately fatal, and thus the population ends up expressing these "bad" traits with high frequency.

And, as somebody else already stressed, there is an element of chance in the mix. For instance, an animal with poor vision could just happen to be lucky enough to not get scented by predators for long enough that it manages to reproduce and pass on its "bad" genes. Or, as has happened with several species, a population of animals could become isolated in an area where they essentially have no predators at all, so "bad" traits suddenly are no longer immediately fatal, and thus the population ends up expressing these "bad" traits with high frequency.

The element of chance is actually quite important. So important for natural selection, that it is no wonder that we have so much difficulty in predicting the outcome of natural selection. To put it mildly, life is very complex.

One wonders, then, (just to bring this back to the original point made in the opening post) how anyone could *confidently* claim that humans are descended from apes. The evidence is supposed to be the high level of similarity between the genomes. It is generally accepted that the similarity is high, but similarity, even high similarity, does not always mean common ancestry, of course.

What is not so often mentioned is that the differences between similarity within the coding regions and that outside of the coding regions is quite critical. We should expect high levels of similarity within the coding regions, and much less outside of them. High levels of homology within the coding regions would not necessarily be evidence for common ancestry, since it could also be due to the function (homologous functions, convergent evolution, etc.) of the gene. High levels of similarity outside of the coding regions would make a far more convincing case, providing we could demonstrate that those regions have not played any role in natural selection.

But I thought I would ask you, Bottle, since you claim to be a scientist, what you know of the differences between the introns and extrons in the DNA between modern chimps and humans.

And, as somebody else already stressed, there is an element of chance in the mix. For instance, an animal with poor vision could just happen to be lucky enough to not get scented by predators for long enough that it manages to reproduce and pass on its "bad" genes. Or, as has happened with several species, a population of animals could become isolated in an area where they essentially have no predators at all, so "bad" traits suddenly are no longer immediately fatal, and thus the population ends up expressing these "bad" traits with high frequency.

I was refering to a sort of cumulative effect - if the environment doesn't favour a mutation, sooner or later, it'll catch up to you, no matter how successful individual generations might be.

But yes - isolation is part of the envirnmental factors I was referring to - if you are isolated, the number of 'risk' mutations that are likely to prove fatal before you can reproduce, is likely to be reduced.

The element of chance is actually quite important. So important for natural selection, that it is no wonder that we have so much difficulty in predicting the outcome of natural selection. To put it mildly, life is very complex.

One wonders, then, (just to bring this back to the original point made in the opening post) how anyone could *confidently* claim that humans are descended from apes. The evidence is supposed to be the high level of similarity between the genomes. It is generally accepted that the similarity is high, but similarity, even high similarity, does not always mean common ancestry, of course.

What is not so often mentioned is that the differences between similarity within the coding regions and that outside of the coding regions is quite critical. We should expect high levels of similarity within the coding regions, and much less outside of them. High levels of homology within the coding regions would not necessarily be evidence for common ancestry, since it could also be due to the function (homologous functions, convergent evolution, etc.) of the gene. High levels of similarity outside of the coding regions would make a far more convincing case, providing we could demonstrate that those regions have not played any role in natural selection.

But I thought I would ask you, Bottle, since you claim to be a scientist, what you know of the differences between the introns and extrons in the DNA between modern chimps and humans.

I think the main evidence is the fact that there is a pretty good fossil record showing a fairly convincing descent from ape-like entities.

The genetic similarites are the cherries on that particular cake - they help reinforce what is apparent.

One wonders, then, (just to bring this back to the original point made in the opening post) how anyone could *confidently* claim that humans are descended from apes. The evidence is supposed to be the high level of similarity between the genomes.

actually, the relation was obvious before we knew what dna was. morphology alone says humans are apes, and probably most closely related to chimps. then we started finding fossils of a whole host of things that had both basal characteristics and characteristics putting them closer to humans. and these things turned out to be ordered in time to make for a damn impressive series of change over time. then we got the dna. if we can confidently know anything about the universe, we confidently know that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

What is not so often mentioned is that the differences between similarity within the coding regions and that outside of the coding regions is quite critical. We should expect high levels of similarity within the coding regions, and much less outside of them.

unless the populations have been under significantly different selective pressures...

High levels of similarity outside of the coding regions would make a far more convincing case, providing we could demonstrate that those regions have not played any role in natural selection.

that is actually what has been done. only recently have people really been messing around analyzing stuff we know is under selection - that makes things too messy to analyze easily.

One word:

extremophiles

One word:

extremophiles
Sorry if I've missed the incredible weight of this one-word argument, but what about them exactly?

One word:

extremophiles

Sorry if I've missed the incredible weight of this one-word argument, but what about them exactly?

Those are people who have evolved to think MTAE is okay.

No, really, they're all those weird and wonderful bacteria and such that live in hot springs at temperature close to the boiling point of water, or at the mouths of the ocean floor vents were the Earth passes gas. I suppose they could be evidence of evolution, though maybe it's us and the rest of the non-extremeophile creatures who have evolved. I suspect extreme conditions were the norm way back when.

How come humans aren't being born from apes today? We don't "share" DNA with monkeys. Anyone can claim a similarity, but that doesn't make it so. Ask some kind of sci-fi nerd to draw about 200 different imaginary creatures (much less than the number of species of animals). Chances are, that some of those species will have similiar characteristics, so anyone can say that this creature evolved from this other one, but in reality, both are distinct creatures drawn by some nerd. That is with 200 creatures, with millions of species in the world today, it is much more likely for species to be similiar, but that does not mean they evolved from one another. Why can't we see evolution taking place today. I believe in microevolution, which is changes within a species, but not macroevolution, in which new species are created. Besides, explain to me how original life began that everything supposedly evolved from. Pasteur already disproved spontaneous generation.

we do however share 98% of the same DNA. Care to reason that away? Common simian ancestry.

Those are people who have evolved to think MTAE is okay.

No, really, they're all those weird and wonderful bacteria and such that live in hot springs at temperature close to the boiling point of water, or at the mouths of the ocean floor vents were the Earth passes gas. I suppose they could be evidence of evolution, though maybe it's us and the rest of the non-extremeophile creatures who have evolved. I suspect extreme conditions were the norm way back when.
Some extremophiles differ so greatly from other life on the planet that it's entirely possible (even likely) that they arose independently. Life may have arisen on Earth more than once, and the extremophiles are what's left of the other starting points.

Really, what else metabolises sulfur like everything else does oxygen?

Evolution does have flaws, as does science. The Universe was created and science will never disprove this. Why? Because things or matter simply can not appear, unless from Allah as the Qur'an has stated.

Some extremophiles differ so greatly from other life on the planet that it's entirely possible (even likely) that they arose independently. Life may have arisen on Earth more than once, and the extremophiles are what's left of the other starting points.

Really, what else metabolises sulfur like everything else does oxygen?

Or they might have come from extraterrestrial sources?

Evolution does have flaws, as does science. The Universe was created and science will never disprove this. Why? Because things or matter simply can not appear, unless from Allah as the Qur'an has stated.The Qur'an, or any other "holy" book, is irrelevant. It was written by religious folks, just as were other "holy" book. And we all know that religious folks are out of touch with reality. Religion is flawed altogether.

The Qur'an, or any other "holy" book, is irrelevant. It was written by religious folks, just as were other "holy" book. And we all know that religious folks are out of touch with reality. Religion is flawed altogether.

Francis Collins is out of touch with reality?

Or they might have come from extraterrestrial sources?All building blocks of life come from extraterrestrial sources.

Francis Collins is out of touch with reality?Who?
OK. Oh yes certainly, Evangelical Christian are completely out of touch with reality.

All building blocks of life come from extraterrestrial sources.

Well, obviously. What I mean is that those organisms may have been seeded on Earth from an extraterrestrial source in the distant past, and eventually produced the life that exists today.

Who?

The leader of the Human Genome Project and major researcher on the genetic origins of diseases like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.

Well, obviously. What I mean is that those organisms may have been seeded on Earth from an extraterrestrial source in the distant past, and eventually produced the life that exists today.I have my doubts whether entire organisms ever dropped from the sky (except birds, you know).

... Ask some kind of sci-fi nerd to draw about 200 different imaginary creatures (much less than the number of species of animals). Chances are, that some of those species will have similiar characteristics, so anyone can say that this creature evolved from this other one, but in reality, both are distinct creatures drawn by some nerd. That is with 200 creatures, with millions of species in the world today, it is much more likely for species to be similiar, but that does not mean they evolved from one another..


So, what you're saying is,
that there must be a creator
and lets face it you probably mean a God
and that he has the limited imagination of some sci-fi nerd?

The leader of the Human Genome Project and major researcher on the genetic origins of diseases like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.OK. Oh yes certainly, Evangelical Christian are completely out of touch with reality.

OK. Oh yes certainly, Evangelical Christian are completely out of touch with reality.

He is an evangelical Christian.

He is an evangelical Christian.

Physicists are often weird

I have my doubts whether entire organisms ever dropped from the sky (except birds, you know).

Well, I don't know; it's possible that a meteor impact on a planet like Mars or Venus around that time might have jettisoned these organisms in to space, eventually leading to them arriving on Earth when the jettisoned rocks crased in to the early Earth.

After all, some bacteria are capable of surviving hard vacuum, so I wouldn't say it's implausible.

Physicists are often weird

He's a geneticist.

He's a geneticist.

He has a medical degree
and a PhD in physics.

Physicists are often weird

Hey! I'm a physicist!


...

<_<


>_>


Okay, you win this round. :p

The whole bugs from outer space thing may not be as crazy as it sounds.

Mars became geoloically stable well before earth did.. giving it a distinct advantage over earth in the race for self replicating molecules..which could account for why life appeared on earth so early in its possible window of opportunity... if life came ready formed from Mars...

Of course its all a bit of a furfy really as WHERE life started is not that important compared to HOW life started...

He has a medical degree
and a PhD in physics.

That's even better; a guy with two doctoral degrees is pretty damn impressive by any stretch. Not to mention Richard Dawkins respects him, which is pretty damn impressive given his anti-religious tendencies.

The whole bugs from outer space thing may not be as crazy as it sounds.

Mars became geoloically stable well before earth did.. giving it a distinct advantage over earth in the race for self replicating molecules..which could account for why life appeared on earth so early in its possible window of opportunity... if life came ready formed from Mars...

That's what I tend towards, especially given the increasing body of evidence that Mars had an Earth-like climate for a fairly prolonged period of its histor.

I think we need to accelerate research and exploration in to life on Mars, or at the very least biological markers that might signify precursors to living organisms. I'd say we should also investigate Europa, Ganymede and some of the other moons that likely have liquid subsurface water.

Of course its all a bit of a furfy really as WHERE life started is not that important compared to HOW life started...

Well, we know it was some time between the Big Bang and 4 billion years ago or so.

I sort of wondered where the resentment of evolution as an idea came from. It seemed strange to me that someone would claim to have researched the theory , and then in the next breath spout a whole heap of bizarre, unsubstantiated drivel

then I checked out this site (linked to from Francis Collins' entry in Wiki as he was conned into appearing on it)

Darwin was Hitler's Muse (http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/default.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301)

The level of misinformation is staggering... I imagine that this is just a small fraction of the kind of bizarre propaganda that is out there. It really is terrifying.

That video is absolutely disgusting. Blaming Darwin for the rise of Hitler and the Columbine massacre? It's like blaming Ben Franklin for the electric chair. In fact not even that, seeing as neither of those examples are anything to do with evolution.

That video is absolutely disgusting. Blaming Darwin for the rise of Hitler and the Columbine massacre? It's like blaming Ben Franklin for the electric chair. In fact not even that, seeing as neither of those examples are anything to do with evolution.

The idea that the existence of the electric chair would somehow prove that the theory of electromagnetism was incorrect. Or that our knowledge of how electricity works somehow makes us a less moral society is simply ridiculous...

and yet linking Evolution and Hitler's holocaust is somehow fair game... not to mention the misrepresentations (totally nonexistent fossil record etc etc...)

Its no wonder there are so many confused folk out there. Its willful misinformation. I just can't believe that the people that made the video actually believe this stuff... they have to be maliciously spreading false info with the idea of somehow fooling people into believing that religion is the only way... instead of presenting people with the info and letting people come to their own conclusions.

I have no problem with people seeking religious explanations .. but the idea that you have to somehow misrepresent science in order for people to allow themselves to be religious really belittles peoples faith..

I think it is simply disgusting!!

Wow, I am so much farther than this, I've moved on to alternate realities and multiple universes. Screw this universe man...theres so much better...

One wonders, then, (just to bring this back to the original point made in the opening post) how anyone could *confidently* claim that humans are descended from apes. The evidence is supposed to be the high level of similarity between the genomes. It is generally accepted that the similarity is high, but similarity, even high similarity, does not always mean common ancestry, of course.

.

Well, in science, you are never working in guarentees. Only most likely, and more than probable, as the best you can get.

However, pointing out we didn't evolve from Apes(I know, you probably know the difference as to current apes and our most common ancestor, some don't, and this could be confused. So many claims of "If Humans evolved from Chimps, then why aren't chimps spewing out humans!" go around, that it is frustrating), the evidence is rather surmounting. We have transitional fossils, which seem to be getting more and more human as time progresses, we have genetic similarities. It all fits together rather nicely. It is not a guarentee, of course, however it is very good evidence, which hightens it to "more than likely" in science.

That's the jist.

Evolution does have flaws, as does science. The Universe was created and science will never disprove this. Why? Because things or matter simply can not appear, unless from Allah as the Qur'an has stated.

First, I think you mean energy.

Second, yes it does(or appears to, anyway), but briefly and in under certain conditions. Quantum physicists drool at stuff like this, really.

First, I think you mean energy.

Second, yes it does(or appears to, anyway), but briefly and in under certain conditions. Quantum physicists drool at stuff like this, really.

Under what conditions? Is there any proof of this?

Under what conditions? Is there any proof of this?

In a vacuum, particles and antiparticles occasionally appear out of nothing.

In a vacuum, particles and antiparticles occasionally appear out of nothing.

Yep, that's what I was referring to.

the idea of "the universe couldn't have been from the big bang because mass can't be created" is bullshit.

The rules of thermal dynamics are binding only in this universe. Whatever rules that existed in the existance before existance are of absolutly no baring on this one.

In short the idea of "matter can not be created or destroyed" is a rule of this reality. Whatever existed before, and from which our universe sprung forth, may not have been bound by the same rules.

The rules of thermal dynamics are binding only in this universe. Whatever rules that existed in the existance before existance are of absolutly no baring on this one.

In short the idea of "matter can not be created or destroyed" is a rule of this reality. Whatever existed before, and from which our universe sprung forth, may not have been bound by the same rules.

Your right because Allah operates outside this reality and is not bound be our laws.

In a vacuum, particles and antiparticles occasionally appear out of nothing.

oh really? Do you have links, I would like to look into this.

In a vacuum, particles and antiparticles occasionally appear out of nothing.

So ex nihilo creation is possible...

So ex nihilo creation is possible...

Ayup.

Your right because Allah operates outside this reality and is not bound be our laws.

As does the flying spaghetti monster, which deserves and gets the
same amount of respect when it comes to actually figuring things out.

Even for those of us who love spaghetti

Ayup.

That's pretty fucking significant in a religious sense...

Ayup.

So ex nihilo creation is possible...

did I miss something here?

oh really? Do you have links, I would like to look into this.

I'm pretty sure this goes into it:

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-force-of-the-vacuum

http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f96/inf3.html

Although, Physics isn't my strong point, so I may be misunderstanding these particular sites. However, there was a discussion on the forums a few weeks back about this.

did I miss something here?

I'm not sure. I don't speak Latin. However a quick search says that "ex nihilo" means "Out of nothing." So basically, out of nothing creation.

Gawd, I get so weary of people just spontaneously shouting "I don't believe in/I don't understand evolutionary theory, so you have to prove it to me!" How else do you account for the many, many scientists who've dedicated years to learning the scientific method of theorising, testing, and interpreting the evidence to arrive at the understanding they reach? Between the DNA evidence, the geological evidence, and all the other marerial evidence that supports the theory that we evolved our way up from earlier forms of life.

But conversely, the arguments of the science-minded crowd often becomes just as dogmatic and devolves to a level of denial that's just as simplistic as the hardcore mysticists. Because eventually evolutionary theory works itself back to a point where the biological had to arise from something pre-biological. The complexity of the organic had to come from some earlier state, and while I hesitate to attribute it to the 'god' of any religion or another, there had to be something mysterious-- even if you call that mystery 'random chance' or 'probability'-- that the theist-bashers can't seem to acknowledge in their zeal to stand up for the absolute infallibility of science.

There's a point where what was once mysterious, and attributed to some arcane or divine power, came to be sufficiently understood as to become 'science,' but even the foremost cosmologists cannot say with absolute, 100% certainty that they *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt how or why the Big Bang took place. So there's a point where science, by contrast, becomes inadequate and gives way to something arcane.

So while I'm heavily inclined towards science, I think it's unfounded hubris to point at the theists and end the conversation with "you're naive and stupid."

So while I'm heavily inclined towards science, I think it's unfounded hubris to point at the theists and end the conversation with "you're naive and stupid."

But it's fun

and its not like its terribly complicated

In the past there were more things that we didn't know the workings of.
Religion claimed them as being directly gods work
then we found out how they worked often at odds with religion
which took umbrage at people trying to do so.

So while we now know there are a great many more things we don't understand than we ever dreamt of before, what we do know is that if we keep at it we may just figure out how they work (or where things came from).
Unhelpful to that is the attitude that it's directly the work of gods or a god
or a flying spaghetti monster.
It's been used many times before and been wrong many times before
it has absolutely nothing to back it up except to say well you
don't know how it works (or how it happened) so we must
be right that it is all down to god.

While all make me uncomfortable, there is really no problem with
people who have religion who don't try to close off attempts to gain
knowledge.
It's the ones who want lack of knowledge and unwillingness to find out
to be accorded the same respect and credibility as knowledge and the willingness to learn more that get up everybody's nose.

did I miss something here?

"ex nihilo"- Out of nothing. That's exactly how God was said to create the universe in the Abrahamic religions, and a lot of others have similar beliefs.

Aren't we all humans? I know what I am talking about you baboons. I make a mistake, guess what? I never said I was god all I am doing is simply proving that evolution was, is and always will be a fairy tale made for humans to destroy god.

Anyways, if evolution is true, then answer me these questions; how did all the molecules in the universe fit into a infinite decimal region? (Infinite decimal region [tecimal maybe, I am pretty sure it is decimal] is a dot in Greek translations) How did all of it just happen to come together and explode? How did rain just happen to appear and rain on rocks? How did the rocks somehow turn into a living organism?

science has a way to deal with that : "we don't know yet".

'cos science doesn't deal in absolutes, so it doesn't mind when it is corrected. still, what you claim to be the theory of creationism can't be science, because
SCIENCE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPLAIN THINGS AWAY WITH A SUPERIOR BEING. there :cool:

science has a way to deal with that : "we don't know yet".

'cos science doesn't deal in absolutes, so it doesn't mind when it is corrected. still, what you claim to be the theory of creationism can't be science, because
SCIENCE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPLAIN THINGS AWAY WITH A SUPERIOR BEING. there :cool:

why, exactly, did you have to dredge up this dreadful thread?!