It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 21
6
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
It doesn't. I thought it was an interesting tidbit as there is a strong probability that they co-exitsed with humans.


Oh okay.


Originally posted by riley
What makes human beings ape like?


I dunno. The claim is there's a lot. The tests and observances not so much...


Originally posted by riley
All scientific evidence has supported evolution.. show me some evidence that refutes/contradicts it.


Why? Just because it's lacking competitors doesn't mean it's correct, it just means it's corporate. Show me that it's correct first.


Originally posted by riley
Okay- I'm understanding your position a bit better now.. do you think cancer spontaneously appearing [as in mutating cells] shares ar similar mechanism with evolution mutations? Thats a very interesting take on it.. could you elaborate on that?


Erk! You've discovered my reason for going into science. I wanted to help find a cure for cancer and was ruthless in its pursuit. We do not understand this cause for cancer. It is a harmful mutation, as I will say mutations are all harmful until shown otherwise. Cancer is a failure to carry out proper instruction. Mutation = death, not life. Adaptation, the opposite, is a change capable within our human programming (DNA) to survive. Case-in-point the Bubonic Plague where there were people who were constantly exposed, though because of the genetic deviation resulting in varying immune systems, a population managed to survive in the heart of it.


Originally posted by riley
I'd never thought of that before. Radiation etc. can cause fetuses to be severly malformed [russia with the cyclops babies, extra limbs etc] evolution may be affected by solar radiation [eg] of generations.. you're onto something there!


I was onto solving the puzzle of diseased death. Unfortunately it was not a community that wanted my input or efforts.


Originally posted by riley
I wonder if radiation causes abiogenesis? I've been trying desperately to avoid that thread [evolution is much easier to argue
].


Light, lightning, high-energy jolting cells into an excited state...I think it's a better candidate than alien seed sprinkled onto the globe. Science is chock-full of possibilites. Still, there's that bio-diversity problem...




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I think I know were it goes. One person says Evolution and the other says creation, soon its back to God and Atheism and than other religeons want to join the controversial argument.

If you believe in religeon than you must believe that we were created by a being wether a god or the Anunaki as a slave race (wich is a dead sumarian religeon) or a giant turtles back in a Native American religeon, I dont know wich though.

But time must have been created because there cannot be any one start in time (it goes in a contant circle, and there arent edges or starts or corners in circles). In the fourth dimension that is to a religeous beleaf, were god is in the midst of all time at onse and every point of every action all at onse, like a . in a way there isnt any time at all. So because all time is at once god must have allready been as well as everything ells, in the Budhist phyolophy; 'Once somethin has been made it cannot be unmade. At because god had this advantage of being there allready, he could make the third dimension, possably connecting some kind of hole to his dimension(4th) and creating ours (3). This could be how he gets to us so easily, if, you believe it.

But, if you believe what I have just stated than he could or could not have just started something known to us as the 'big bang', and I believe that since time can slow and speed up, when god created time in one place, it had to spread, and so with it came (What possably could have came through the hole in his (4th) dimension) stars and such , and as we call it now the big bang.

Black holes could possably be rips in space as it streches, if space is the same dencity through and through than this would occur, what the rips would be I dont know, black holes? The rips would stop time, or, lead to the fourth dimension were all time is one.

Possably, the idia of creation was not the Human, but the soal put into the Human by an all powerfull sorce, otherwise known as a god, because the soal cannot be destroyed, and so because it was put into Human bodys as a battery, the 'Karma' or the life span of a person would slowly become depleated until it died and the batterie would be put into another Human body without a soal (Second and past lives). (Anything made cannot be unmade) (or, anything done cannot be undone, because it allready has been, and so this is how we can live for ever and we do have an affterlife.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
It is a harmful mutation, as I will say mutations are all harmful until shown otherwise.


Evolution says otherwise. How are we going to argue this? I could say, look around you, examples of beneficial mutations are all around us and you would see them through your mutationally benefitted, evolved eyeball.


Originally posted by saint4God
Still, there's that bio-diversity problem...


Here's another example of semantic arguement differences... I would argue that evolution itself "solves" the "problem" of biodiversity. You are attempting to trace biodiversity right back to abiogenesis, but it doesn't work like that. There are competing abiogenetic theories, so just wait patiently for science to understand organic origins. You can join the fray and try your own hand at conducting scientific abiogenetic experiments, if you'd like.

I would also say here that "survival of the fittest" is an economics term. Darwin's term is "natural selection," so in the beginning stages of life, I imagine a stage of teeming experimentation, wherein ancestors of modern nuclear material joined together and died left and right when conditions were unsuitable for existence. This, I would say, lead to things such as genetic recipes for building (adjective*) proteins, which caused (adjective*) traits to accompany the recipes, such as the armour of a cellular wall and power sources like mitochondria and more highly advanced and protected recipes such as DNA.

*adjective - insert whatever positive adjective here - better, smarter, more, etc.

Zip



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Evolution says otherwise. How are we going to argue this? I could say, look around you, examples of beneficial mutations are all around us and you would see them through your mutationally benefitted, evolved eyeball.


Explain please.


Originally posted by Zipdot
Here's another example of semantic arguement differences... I would argue that evolution itself "solves" the "problem" of biodiversity.


If you want to say Stephen J. Gould, father of modern evolutionary thought, is wrong, you've got my vote. Now, shall we come up with a proposition to notify the universities to delete his works from the science books?


Originally posted by Zipdot
You are attempting to trace biodiversity right back to abiogenesis, but it doesn't work like that. There are competing abiogenetic theories, so just wait patiently for science to understand organic origins.


Okay fine, but please don't teach it as truth until we got our facts straight.


Originally posted by Zipdot
You can join the fray and try your own hand at conducting scientific abiogenetic experiments, if you'd like.


I managed to produce flies from rotting meat. Oh wait, that's spontaneous generation...something else that was 'true' for a long time in the scientific community.



I would also say here that "survival of the fittest" is an economics term. Darwin's term is "natural selection," so in the beginning stages of life, I imagine a stage of teeming experimentation, wherein ancestors of modern nuclear material joined together and died left and right when conditions were unsuitable for existence. This, I would say, lead to things such as genetic recipes for building (adjective*) proteins, which caused (adjective*) traits to accompany the recipes, such as the armour of a cellular wall and power sources like mitochondria and more highly advanced and protected recipes such as DNA. *adjective - insert whatever positive adjective here - better, smarter, more, etc.

Zip


Aha! *uses bad lip sync* I see you know Mitochondria-Fu! I bow to you *bows*. So you're saying there was a single cell that acquired material. Not bad. But, how does a single cell turn non-living nuclear material into living material that was not part of itself to begin with? In other words, how does it 'add' to it's DNA?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
this is just going round in circles. what evidence would be substancial enough for you 'saint4god' to say, yeah alright i guess evolution is a plausable theory. there are people that belong to your faith that accept evolution, yet you outright said you studied for years but never saw any evidence whatsoever. so why do people that share the same faith, the same god as you believe in evolution?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
this is just going round in circles. what evidence would be substancial enough for you 'saint4god' to say, yeah alright i guess evolution is a plausable theory.


Thank you shauny for asking what no-one else seems to care about. The problem I have with a concept without supporting data, is that is if that concept conflicts with itself, then how can it be accepted? If we can untangle the mess of concepts to create a cohesive structure then I will not rule it out as a possibility. The problem with evolution is people get way to excited discovering a bone and running off at the imagination, they forget to ask some very important and fundamental questions. Resolve the conflict of information, as science says it does, with facts...or at least viable concept.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
there are people that belong to your faith that accept evolution, yet you outright said you studied for years but never saw any evidence whatsoever. so why do people that share the same faith, the same god as you believe in evolution?


Because believing in evolution is not dependent on believing or not believing in God. It is as you say so I recognize and appreciate you greatly for this statement.




[edit on 13-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Sorry wrong thread.

However, Saint4god.

I understand you have reservations about evolution and abiogenesis.

You should join us here and post some evidence for creation, young or old earth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I welcome any evidence for creation, or any competing theory for evolution.



[edit on 13-7-2005 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
what implications would there be if life is found elsewhere? not intelligent life but just lifeforms, for instance on mars or europa. because surely if life is found anywhere else in space, this is more proof that life was brought to earth by a comet/meteor/asteroid. or should religious people be asking themselves why would god bother putting a few bacteria and microbes on europa or mars...surely there would be no point? whatever the answer, as science advances and our minds expand the concept of god becomes less and less plausable. the only reason religion has anyone at all coming to worship is because parents enforce the beliefs on their children and so on, of which accounts for 90% or more of the people that have a religion. the other 10% are the people who are lost in life and need something to hold on to otherwise they'd probably commit suicide.

religion is on the downfall. since darwin, evolution has been on the uprise.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
man is this long 2 read... 21 pages...
well i've ben thinking bout this for a while.
there are flaws on both sides

no matter what religion you believe in(except 4 atheists etc.. bla bla bla u know) believe in their own god, and their god did this and that and along the way created us , people. they have books which are meant to be gods words but have you ever realised that these books are all written by people and as long as people have written them there is certainly going to be some bias.
another thing is, when they say god created the world in 7 days, remember it doesnt have 2 be earth days, it could be "god" days, thus it can be as long as it want.
and what is with the adam and eve bull?? eve comming from one of adams ribs??? so sexist....(not tht i mind but yeah...)

in relation to evolution,
high school science basics, cells: all living things are compsed of cells and all cells are produced from pre-existing cells
thus if you wind time backwards when time = 0
there is 0
hence, you cant make something out of nothing.
^^



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
well if there is absolutly 'nothing', you've got a vacume right? and a vacume is 'something'.

i hope we do find some sort of lifeforms on mars, as this will prove by chance alone life can begin to flourish. religious people will need to ask themselves why god bothered to put simple microbes and bacteria on mars.

in evolution ive only ever heard 2 or 3 arguements, and these involve that bug that has the wierd poison that should by 'science' standards, melt the bug etc. also that spiders and their web and their web stuff cannot have been made by chance and needed to be designed. and well...that's about all the arguements i've ever heard. if i wrote down all the arguements against religion i'd probably go a few thousand words over the limit.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by epitome
in relation to evolution,
high school science basics, cells: all living things are compsed of cells and all cells are produced from pre-existing cells
thus if you wind time backwards when time = 0
there is 0
hence, you cant make something out of nothing.
^^


Well, you're not the first person to confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and indeed, you are not the first person in this thread to do so. Please visit my abiogenesis thread if you want to talk about the origins of life.

Zip



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

"The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps..."

He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."

Let's here how the non-professor public reacted:

"Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "

But surely he's a "rebel nutjob" right?

"In a related development Monday, the Discovery Institute -- a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars -- filed a brief urging U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to rule in favor of the school board. "

So now we have a think tank of scholars supporting him too. Interesting...


[edit on 18-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
But surely he's a "rebel nutjob" right?


No, he's an "intelligent design" supporter. Are you really surprised to find that there are people in the world who support "intelligent design"? I'm not.


Originally posted by saint4God
"In a related development Monday, the Discovery Institute -- a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars -- filed a brief urging U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to rule in favor of the school board. "

So now we have a think tank of scholars supporting him too. Interesting...


Heh. Just because the self-described "think tank" is nonpartisan does not mean that it is unbiased. As I will show you in a moment, this "think tank" was built from the ground up as an opponent of evolutionary theory.



www.cnn.com...
Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory."

He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which means he can express his views without the threat of losing his job.

In a related development Monday, the Discovery Institute -- a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars -- filed a brief urging U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to rule in favor of the school board.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


According to his own biology department, he IS a "rebel nutjob."

About this "think tank:"



www.ncseweb.org...
Anti-evolutionists Form, Fund Think Tank

A press release dated August 10, 1996, announced that two private foundations have granted the Seattle-based Discovery Institute nearly a million dollars to establish the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
...
The funding and deployment of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is a major step towards scholarly respectability for a relatively new group of anti-evolutionists: religious conservatives based at secular universities.
...
We are witnessing the embryogenesis of what I shall call "university-based anti-evolutionism". This term, though imperfect, reflects the fact that the newer crop of old-earth, mostly "design theory" anti-evolutionists are disproportionately located in secular institutions of higher learning, rather than at the more familiar independent, not-for-profit centers such as the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and so on. Because most of them are not, in fact, in science departments, it would be inaccurate to refer to them as creation "scientists".


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So, again, I'm not surprised that you were able to come up with a professor and an organization that support "intelligent design."

Zip



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
No, he's an "intelligent design" supporter. Are you really surprised to find that there are people in the world who support "intelligent design"? I'm not.


What I was surprised to find is that a news organization would report on it and 8 families are crying "lynch him!" in America these days. We're not as much of a free-thinking society as a lot of people think.


Originally posted by Zipdot
Heh. Just because the self-described "think tank" is nonpartisan does not mean that it is unbiased. As I will show you in a moment, this "think tank" was built from the ground up as an opponent of evolutionary theory.


That's fine. As long as they are scholars who present a scientific argument, I could care less what they're labeled.


Originally posted by Zipdot
According to his own biology department, he IS a "rebel nutjob."


I can speak from first hand experience that one does not become a professor by being a "nutjob". That's what I was working on for a good number of years.

Anywho, I can empathize with the man as my own biology department thought the same of me.


Originally posted by Zipdot
So, again, I'm not surprised that you were able to come up with a professor and an organization that support "intelligent design."

Zip


I don't know much about Intelligent Design theory from a scientific standpoint. A few years ago, such discussion was trampled on at the university without more than a sentence of proposition until people made religious accusations (most of which were entirely wrong). Looks like the same thing is happening here with this gentleman. Instead, I was force-fed (yes, that CAN do that when they require you to read a small library of books on the topic in order to get a passing grade) evolution. I ask questions, I was treated like an idiot. I wonder if anyone here could possibly imagine what that's like to have a life-long ambition constantly stomped on over a number of years. I'd venture to say there are more here on ATS who've had that feeling than people we meet in our daily lives.

Hear the PHD in Biophysics out. If it's crap, throw it away. Same for Darwin, Mendel, Pascal, Newton, Aristotle, etc. If it works and makes sense, apply it. What place does emotion have in science?



Looks like an interesting book, don't you think?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
What I was surprised to find is that a news organization would report on it and 8 families are crying "lynch him!" in America these days. We're not as much of a free-thinking society as a lot of people think.


I look at it from a slightly different perspective, and that is to say that some people believe the court is being unduly influenced by a man who seeks to introduce the archaic notion of an all-powerful wizard into the school system, and this is disturbing to these people.

Put simply, intelligent design does not exercise the scientific method in its conclusions. "Irreducible complexity" is not a sufficient answer to a question, it is a buzzphrase to deliver the preconceived conclusion that "God did it" to those parties that require scientific-sounding explanations in their drafts of secular policy.

"Intelligent design" as a scientific-sounding explanation for the history of life on this planet is unacceptable, and it is no surprise that America is the ONLY country that even SLIGHTLY considers "intelligent design" seriously.


Originally posted by saint4God
That's fine. As long as they are scholars who present a scientific argument, I could care less what they're labeled.


Well, really, they are largely not scientists, as my earlier news quote pointed out, and the majority opinion says that they are not presenting a scientific argument, either.


Originally posted by saint4God
I can speak from first hand experience that one does not become a professor by being a "nutjob". That's what I was working on for a good number of years.


Agreed. I don't think the man is a nutjob.


Originally posted by saint4God
Anywho, I can empathize with the man as my own biology department thought the same of me.


Yes, well, the institutions have their reputations at risk, in this regard, and scholastic reputation translates into dollar values in more than one way.


Originally posted by saint4God
...until people made religious accusations (most of which were entirely wrong).


I cannot imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design." It inherently demands one to reach out into the ether for answers to scientific questions.


Originally posted by saint4God
I ask questions, I was treated like an idiot.


It can sometimes be hard for religious people to gain the respect of irreligious people, and vice versa. This is due to a complete lack of empathy. To religious people, atheists are godless, and daily commit the biggest sin possible, denying God. To irreligious people, theists are often thought of as morons who believe in magic. This situation is unlikely to change.


Originally posted by saint4God
Hear the PHD in Biophysics out. If it's crap, throw it away. Same for Darwin, Mendel, Pascal, Newton, Aristotle, etc. If it works and makes sense, apply it. What place does emotion have in science?


Hear, hear!


Originally posted by saint4God
Looks like an interesting book, don't you think?


There will never be an "intelligent design" supporting book to cause actual consternation to the scientific community. This book's flaws have been poured over exhaustively here. Here is my favourite quote about this book:



Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.


I think that this sums up the sentiment of the scientific community on "intelligent design" itself pretty well.

Zip

[edit on 10/19/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
I look at it from a slightly different perspective, and that is to say that some people believe the court is being unduly influenced by a man who seeks to introduce the archaic notion of an all-powerful wizard into the school system, and this is disturbing to these people.


I haven't read his book, though conceptually "being built" does not necessitate any religion I know of. I'm sure if someone wanders from the Aliens & UFO's section they could back me up on that one. What's wrong with being built?


Originally posted by Zipdot
Put simply, intelligent design does not exercise the scientific method in its conclusions. "Irreducible complexity" is not a sufficient answer to a question, it is a buzzphrase to deliver the preconceived conclusion that "God did it" to those parties that require scientific-sounding explanations in their drafts of secular policy.


I'm glad you read "God did it" into the two words being put together as "Irreducible complexity" from a personal standpoint because at least there is that suggestion you've heard of God, but scientifically or etymologically speaking, I don't know where you're coming up with that.


Originally posted by Zipdot
"Intelligent design" as a scientific-sounding explanation for the history o
f life on this planet is unacceptable,


Why?



and it is no surprise that America is the ONLY country that even SLIGHTLY considers "intelligent design" seriously.


I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but for the last 200 years we've been the loudest country on the planet. If you don't believe me, ask someone working in a city in Kenya what they think of George Bush. Their answer isn't going to be "George who?" The implication that Americans come up with "crazy religious" theories doesn't seem to hold the test of time and I can elaborate on that topic if you like.



Well, really, they are largely not scientists, as my earlier news quote pointed out, and the majority opinion says that they are not presenting a scientific argument, either.


Opinion has historically died in science eventually. One of the great things about it.



Yes, well, the institutions have their reputations at risk, in this regard, and scholastic reputation translates into dollar values in more than one way.


Bingo! Well said.




I cannot imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design." It inherently demands one to reach out into the ether for answers to scientific questions.


What does atheism have to do with science?



It can sometimes be hard for religious people to gain the respect of irreligious people, and vice versa. This is due to a complete lack of empathy. To religious people, atheists are godless, and daily commit the biggest sin possible, denying God. To irreligious people, theists are often thought of as morons who believe in magic.


Looks like a good assessment to me.



This situation is unlikely to change.


One day, one person at a time.



There will never be an "intelligent design" supporting book to cause actual consternation to the scientific community. This book's flaws have been poured over exhaustively here. Here is my favourite quote about this book:


Talkorigins again? Does anyone use more than one source in their research?



I think that this sums up the sentiment of the scientific community on "intelligent design" itself pretty well.

Zip


In reading reviews (of movies, books, etc.) the one thing I look for is polar reactions. That is, if a bunch of people went to a movie and they all said it was "okay", my likelyhood for seeing it is small. If that same bunch came back arguing "That movie was awesome!" vs. "That movie totally sucked!" then you bet I'm going to be standing in line. Why? Because something was revealed that totally sent their brains into a tailspin. Darwin's Black Box seems to have caused such stirrings according to Amazon.com. I don't know if I want to spend time with it or not. The study of evolution seems to be part of my past, not of my future so I still have the love for the science but a need to focus on the present.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I haven't read his book, though conceptually "being built" does not necessitate any religion I know of.


The ideas' support for theology is only surpassed by its necessary ambiguity.


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sure if someone wanders from the Aliens & UFO's section they could back me up on that one. What's wrong with being built?


From an emotional standpoint, nothing. From the standpoint of methodological study, logic itself is disregarded and natural processes, which are the all-powerful governing system of the universe, are rendered powerless and obsolete - and why? You ask, "what's wrong with being built?" I ask, "what's wrong with developing?"


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm glad you read "God did it" into the two words being put together as "Irreducible complexity" from a personal standpoint because at least there is that suggestion you've heard of God, but scientifically or etymologically speaking, I don't know where you're coming up with that.


Ah, I was hoping you would concede the fact that "intelligent design" is creationist by its nature. I guess I'm not going to get that concession. No bother. "Irriducible complexity" is a subjective phrase that appeals to emotions. It is flawed as a description of natural processes. It is semantic warpage.


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Zipdot
"Intelligent design" as a scientific-sounding explanation for the history o
f life on this planet is unacceptable,


Why?


It is the penultimate insufficient faux-science non-answer. You have heard the reasons for this before.


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but for the last 200 years we've been the loudest country on the planet.


Without regard to America's public image, I'm not surprised that America stands alone in facing the "intelligent design" conspiracy based on American popular beliefs compared to other Western nations. We have a uniquely high percentage of Christian literalists. I can back this up later if you want me to, but off the top of my head, 97% of British Roman Catholic priests believe in evolution, and this number is in striking contrast to the percentage of American Roman Catholic priests that believe in evolution (this number I cannot recall and I'm not going to guess, but it's extremely low).


Originally posted by saint4God
The implication that Americans come up with "crazy religious" theories doesn't seem to hold the test of time and I can elaborate on that topic if you like.


No comment, I was just referring to the overwhelming conservativism existant in our churches over here in comparison to other Western nations. This is evident in evangelical and traditional churches alike. Other western nations' church leadership tends to largely portray Genesis and other such stories in a more allegorical light than American church leaders. To great effect, I might add.


Originally posted by saint4God
Opinion has historically died in science eventually. One of the great things about it.


If I understand your comment correctly, then I disagree with it. Scientific theories survive on popular support. Since theories cannot be proven, support is all theories have to remain prevelant.


Originally posted by saint4God


Yes, well, the institutions have their reputations at risk, in this regard, and scholastic reputation translates into dollar values in more than one way.


Bingo! Well said.



Thanks!



Originally posted by saint4God


I cannot imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design." It inherently demands one to reach out into the ether for answers to scientific questions.


What does atheism have to do with science?


Well, you said that "intelligent design" doesn't demand that a supporter be religious and then I said that I could not imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design."


Originally posted by saint4God
Talkorigins again? Does anyone use more than one source in their research?


I use tons of sources. Talkorigins is simply a great resource, though. Remember that Talkorigins is based on submissions, so it represents multiple points of view. Anyways, I specifically pointed you to that review because it's really good.


Originally posted by saint4God


I think that this sums up the sentiment of the scientific community on "intelligent design" itself pretty well.


Darwin's Black box seems to have caused such stirrings according to Amazon.com. I don't know if I want to spend time with it or not. The study of evolution seems to be part of my past, not of my future so I still have the love for the science but a need to focus on the present.


From what I've read of the book, it presents a lot of information that sounds really good because it's all new to the reader, but after becoming educated on the issues, the sparklers kind of fizzle down and burn out.

Zip



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
The ideas' support for theology is only surpassed by its necessary ambiguity.


Can we not study the 'how' without studying the 'who'? We've been doing it since the dawn of civilization, why should we stop now?


Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sure if someone wanders from the Aliens & UFO's section they could back me up on that one. What's wrong with being built?


From an emotional standpoint, nothing. From the standpoint of methodological study, logic itself is disregarded and natural processes,


We don't understand the 'natural' process as well as we thought we did. I can see why this would have traditional scientists up-in-arms, but we know what happens when we hold onto traditions instead of the reality of the information being presented.


Originally posted by Zipdot
which are the all-powerful governing system of the universe, are rendered powerless and obsolete - and why? You ask, "what's wrong with being built?" I ask, "what's wrong with developing?"


Nothing that I'm aware of. Though instead of answering questions directly and candidly, many teachers/professors are glossing over the gaps with imaginary answers that explain nothing.


Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm glad you read "God did it" into the two words being put together as "Irreducible complexity" from a personal standpoint because at least there is that suggestion you've heard of God, but scientifically or etymologically speaking, I don't know where you're coming up with that.


Ah, I was hoping you would concede the fact that "intelligent design" is creationist by its nature.


I don't know where you're getting that either. A Christian can see both evolution and ID as tools of God. The tool doesn't matter to a Christian when it comes to salvation. Did God use a spatula or a spoon to scoop up the matter? Who cares? (speaking from a theological standpoint). Science cares, not Christianity.



"Irriducible complexity" is a subjective phrase that appeals to emotions. It is flawed as a description of natural processes. It is semantic warpage.


How does it appeal to emotions? Is not particulate matter irriducible? Are atoms not complex? I don't see emotion in neither terms nor concepts.

Perhaps the reason it 'flaws' a description of nature is because our description of the natural process is flawed. It appears THAT is what envokes the fearful emotions coming out of educators who've written several thesis papers on the topic. Those papers would have to be re-evaluated. Who are we to wag the finger at nature saying, "You're not behaving like we thought!" A silly approach really. Nature doesn't have to comply to our laws, we have to understand the laws of nature.


Originally posted by Zipdot
It is the penultimate insufficient faux-science non-answer. You have heard the reasons for this before.


This should be a vacuuming-up opportunity for science. We've always wanted to break things up and figure out how it was put together. Our "it grew together that way" models aren't working. Time to take another angle and see if it works. If it doesn't work, stop and try again. That's called 'testing'. I'd hate to see science give that up because of their relig...er... current beliefs.


Originally posted by Zipdot
Without regard to America's public image, I'm not surprised that America stands alone in facing the "intelligent design" conspiracy based on American popular beliefs compared to other Western nations. We have a uniquely high percentage of Christian literalists. I can back this up later if you want me to, but off the top of my head, 97% of British Roman Catholic priests believe in evolution, and this number is in striking contrast to the percentage of American Roman Catholic priests that believe in evolution (this number I cannot recall and I'm not going to guess, but it's extremely low).


*shrug* I don't know what this has to do with science. Or, if it does have anything to do with science, it shouldn't. When I was studying genetics, I couldn't give 2 rat droppings about what "public image" thought. Hm, that's probably why I didn't make it in the business



Originally posted by Zipdot
No comment, I was just referring to the overwhelming conservativism existant in our churches over here in comparison to other Western nations. This is evident in evangelical and traditional churches alike. Other western nations' church leadership tends to largely portray Genesis and other such stories in a more allegorical light than American church leaders. To great effect, I might add.


I'm not here to talk about religion (other than evolution). I'm over in the 'Conspiracies in Religion' section if you'd like to talk about any of those topics.


Originally posted by saint4God
If I understand your comment correctly, then I disagree with it. Scientific theories survive on popular support. Since theories cannot be proven, support is all theories have to remain prevelant.


Theories survive until they no longer work. That's all I meant. Truth negates non-working theory except to those who enjoy studying broken theories.


Originally posted by saint4God
Well, you said that "intelligent design" doesn't demand that a supporter be religious and then I said that I could not imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design."


Why not? Unless and atheist cannot picture anything superior to himself/herself, but if you accept evolution, then you already believe that. Where's the conflict?


Originally posted by saint4God
I use tons of sources. Talkorigins is simply a great resource, though. Remember that Talkorigins is based on submissions, so it represents multiple points of view. Anyways, I specifically pointed you to that review because it's really good.


Fair enough. I find too much opinion there for my liking.


Originally posted by saint4God
From what I've read of the book, it presents a lot of information that sounds really good because it's all new to the reader, but after becoming educated on the issues, the sparklers kind of fizzle down and burn out.

Zip


Dunno, I'm conflicted as to whether I should bother or not.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
We don't understand the 'natural' process as well as we thought we did. I can see why this would have traditional scientists up-in-arms, but we know what happens when we hold onto traditions instead of the reality of the information being presented.


This is baseless. Evolution is not and never was "broken." Saying things like "well, we've come to find out that such and such scientific knowledge that we have is really kind of off" doesn't make it so.


Originally posted by saint4God
Though instead of answering questions directly and candidly, many teachers/professors are glossing over the gaps with imaginary answers that explain nothing.


Hah! Let me show you something:

"Though instead of answering questions directly and candidly, many [intelligent design supporters] are glossing over the gaps with imaginary answers that explain nothing."

Neat, eh?


Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know where you're getting that either. A Christian can see both evolution and ID as tools of God. The tool doesn't matter to a Christian when it comes to salvation. Did God use a spatula or a spoon to scoop up the matter? Who cares? (speaking from a theological standpoint). Science cares, not Christianity.


Okay, so you're refusing to agree with me that "intelligent design" inherently implies the existence of a creator. Gotcha. Just wanted to be clear about that.


Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps the reason it 'flaws' a description of nature is because our description of the natural process is flawed.


It's not. Even if it was, scientific methodology is self-correcting in nature - i.e., at any given time, our theories are the most "fitting" and "correct" than they have ever been before that point in time. This type of refinement is possible because new scientific observations either support or refute previous theories. If enough observations refute a theory, then that theory is denounced and the new observations are used to formulate a more correct theory. Science is dynamic.


Originally posted by saint4God
Who are we to wag the finger at nature saying, "You're not behaving like
we thought!" A silly approach really.


This approach is inherent in any kind of faux-scientific conclusions made with a religious bias - wherein the conclusion precedes the observations. I call this "shoehorn science." This is the opposite of real science - basing conclusions on observations. I agree that "intelligent design" is "a silly approach," as you say.


Originally posted by saint4God
Nature doesn't have to comply to our laws, we have to understand the laws of nature.


Beautifully spoken. Let me do the word-changy thing that I did earlier with this one too, though:

"Nature doesn't have to comply to our [pre-concieved religious dogma], we have to understand the laws of nature."


Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Zipdot
It is the penultimate insufficient faux-science non-answer. You have heard the reasons for this before.


This should be a vacuuming-up opportunity for science. We've always wanted to break things up and figure out how it was put together. Our "it grew together that way" models aren't working. Time to take another angle and see if it works. If it doesn't work, stop and try again. That's called 'testing'. I'd hate to see science give that up because of their relig...er... current beliefs.


I think you're catching on to the basic principles of science. Our models, however, work perfectly. If anything, minute tweaks may be in order from time to time, but there is absolutely nothing so refutable about evolutionary theory that we have to throw the whole thing out the window and replace it with relig... err... "intelligent design".


Originally posted by saint4God
*shrug* I don't know what this has to do with science.


Exactly! I have no idea what "intelligent design" has to do with science either!


Originally posted by saint4God
Why not? Unless and atheist cannot picture anything superior to himself/herself, but if you accept evolution, then you already believe that. Where's the conflict?


The conflict primarily lies in the fact that atheists do not believe in God.

About believing in things "superior to [one's self]," well, there's a whole damn universe out there that's pretty spectacular. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean they think they're superior to everything. The reality is much to the contrary. Atheists typically view theists as being maniacally egotistical because of their belief that the most powerful being they can imagine has an excessive personal interest in them and their affairs. Imagining this from an atheist perspective, theists probably appear rather childish and simple.


Originally posted by saint4God
Fair enough. I find too much opinion there for my liking.


Well, don't let that bother you too much. There is a lot of hard data there too. Anyways, know the enemy, right?

Zip



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Anyways, know the enemy, right?

Zip


I don't have an 'enemy' on this issue. I don't consider any person an enemy.

I didn't want to come here to talk about religion, which is irrelevant to the topic.

I don't care about wordplay. I didn't come here to bicker or spin semantics.

If I can't effectively relay a concept and be understood (whether fault of my own or not), then I really have no business discussing it.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join