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.

 

NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

This is entirely untrue. The number of chromosomes has no effect on the complexity of the organisms. Chromosome count bears no realtion to complexity.


EEEEEENNNNT wrongo nygdan. Chromosome count is one variable in the complexity of the DNA. The other variable that is not mentioned is the length of each Chromosome. These two factors combined determine the overall storage capacity of the information on the DNA. Number of sections(chromosomes) multiplied by length of sections = total possible storage capacity. Now admittedly I have used laymen’s terms to describe the actual structure of the DNA but that is the forum we are in so PLEASE don’t quibble over the semantics of the argument.

Surely someone who professes the knowledge you do would not suggest that the DNA of a bacteria is = in complexity to the DNA of a human ovary. There are two point then in mentioning Chromosomes that since you failed to recognize them, I am forced to detail for you in order to help your understanding. First in order for evolution to be substantiated as a theory of the origin of all species a methodology by which new chromosomes are created needs to be identified because we have organisms with differing numbers of chromosomes. Hence no new chromosomes=no everything evolved from one form of life to what we see today. This is basic logic.

The second point is that chromosomes are one part of the equation that determines the maximum complexity of the DNA of an organism. Hence my stated generality hold up. Just because there are exceptions to a generality does not invalidate it. You in your post attempted to paint my generality as an absolute thus making it untrue but I never stated an absolute. This is classic misdirection and is a sign of a weak argument. Rather than addressing the actual argument made you seek to superimpose your own statement as that of the opposing view point’s. This does not lead to fruitful discussion but rather to circular argumentation where the issue can rarely be address because redefinitions must constantly be made. I would suggest that for clarity you try to understand what is being said BEFORE you attempt to minimize it. If you have an understanding of what is being communicated you can make a much more lucid argument.


Similarly, an archaeologist can say that stonehenge wasn't formed naturally because nothign like it occurs in nature, no process in nature would form it.


Thank you for acknowledging my point. This is one of the scientific methods that is used in the valid study of the intelligent design hypothesis. Intelligent design in order to be substantiated must show how life as we know it could not occur by natural process. Hence the valid study of this hypothesis would spend most of its time showing how other theories and hypotheses are inadequate to explain life as we observe it. You admit that this is a scientific methodology for revealing intelligent design yet you denigrate those who are studying intelligent design of life because they spend a lot of time pointing out the gaping holes in the Theory of Evolution as it applies to the formation of all species.

So you are against the scientific study of any theory that isn’t of purely natural origin. Hence you have blinded yourself and your science to at least 50% of the possibilities out there. For either there is or there is not a designer. Do you really want to base all your science on a coin toss or would you rather the subject be studied from both ends of the spectrum?




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I meant on this thread

Doh! My mistake.




And this is what I disagree about. All this debate on the merits of evolution and creationism are a side show to the issue of this case.

Excellent.



This aside, I cant see how anyone could read that sticker blind, seperate from the book, and ASSUME the meanings that the judge is implying it does.
I can see how a person can read it as incorrect since it states that evolution is not a fact, when evolution is. In language similar but contradictory to the sticker, the current Pope stated "Evolution is more than a Theory". In truth, oh holy father in rome, the theory of evolution is no more than a theory. THe factual phenomenon of evolution is a fact. I think this is what "il popa" is refering to.
So, a 'blind' reading of the sticker gives it as being 'wrong', evolution is not 'just' a theory, evolution is a 'fact and a theory', but that usage is confusing. Better to say 'evolution is a factual phenomenon, we only know its mechanism theorectically.'.

The amicus is interesting, but again im not in full agreement with its application to this case.

Even taking into account the issues behind the sticker, how can context be applied to the statement as is, or as read?
I think that the full context comes up in that the judge must, er, judge, what a reasonable person would think about it, which is a tricky, and I'd say that, reasonably, a person could say a reasonable person would not find it as the judge found it, er, reasonably.

Of course, I disagree that a 'hypothetical' reasonable person would find it ultimately unbiased. Heck, I find the language itself unallowable, because its just plain wrong. If it say 'evolution is a fact. Its been observed in nature and the lab. Speciation too has been observed in nature and in the lab, and there are no know mechanisms by which evolutionary morphological change is limited, at least not limited in such a way as to prevent change from, say, fish to frogs to lizards.' But then again, that was my first attempt at writing a textbook disclaimer sticker, so it might not be the best.


My questions about the truth of a statement being "tainted" just because of the messengers position have been avoided on this thread because answering truthfully will confirm my allegation that the judge was wrong.

Why? The law seems to require him to take that intent and context into his judgement.


Again this all comes down to the definition of theory your holding.

i think it would be 'perverse' (to use gould's wording) to hold all normally accepted 'facts' as theories, even tho it would be technically correct. Theoretically, i inhale a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and various other gases. Theoretically, water is a liquid. In relation to the factual phenomenon of evolution; theoretically, species and populations of animals exist. Theorectically, genotype controls phenotype. Theoretically, one can sample the ratio of alleles in a population thru experimental techniques. Even without genetics, theoretically, that herd of wildebeest over there are all actually wildebeest, not wildebeest and some sort of thing that is really a big lizzard but looks exactly like a wildebeest.

But I'm not convinced that that sort of 'facts are theories' reasoning is what anyone is considering here anyway.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But I'm not convinced that that sort of 'facts are theories' reasoning is what anyone is considering here anyway.

That's my problem with it. It is fact, as far as I'm concerned. It's as much fact as any of the subjects taught in our schools. I've argued that 2+2 only equals 4 because someone said it does. Calling that a theory is the same as calling evolution a theory, IMO.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
What I would like to know is how anyone could believe that Evolution is a theory. It is not open to revision, Evolution is something your body does to strive in the certain environment.

The Theory of Evolution only examines that certain species can all be linked to one another to the same ancestory. That's the theory of Evolution.

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution stands to argue that if a creature strives in a certain geographic area, then their cells will adapt to their surroundings, making it possible for them to survive in their surroundings.

But before we go off that Evolution can be revised and be stated that it is not physically possible, lets look at the evidence shall we?

If you take a pelican, that lives in an area with shallow water, it will have a smaller beak because it does not need to go that deep to grab fish. But if you stick it in an area with much deeper water, and several generations later, the beak will be substantially larger.

It an girraffe lives in a grasslands where the trees have a small clearence, then the girraffe will live to be a certain height. But if you take it, and put it in a grasslands with a larger clearence trees, then a few generations later, the girraffe descendents will have a much longer neck.

Evolution is something that occurs so that a creature could survive on its dependent environment. It is a dependent variable evolution, where Time is an independent variable. With time, evolution occurs, gradually, or dynamically.

Dynamically would be uncontrolled evolution, or close to it, it is happening way too fast for the species to accept the changes. Even now, we are evolving as we speak, very slowly, but we are.

It something we can't avoid, it's all over the place, how can we say evolution is a theory, if it can be proven to be existent?

And please, look, time is not an earthly element. Time is universal, we call it time, another race might call it something else, use different units, but it is still the same idea.

Time is constant, and so is speed, if a car moves on its own, and then all power is cut, will stop immediatly? or will it slow down to a crawl, then a stop?

That's speed being constant. Because we move slowly, and because we have control over our bodies, we can stop very quickly, but if we ran over 60mph, we would be tripping over ourselves trying to stop.

It's like saying hydrogen and helium can only be found in this solar system, as if it doesn't exist anywhere else.

I am not proving anyone wrong, just trying to put my opinions on the table.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
EEEEEENNNNT

Fake buzzer sounds are not an indication of correctness.

Chromosome count is one variable in the complexity of the DNA.

Then explain how 'simple' organisms have a high chromosome count and 'complex' ones have a low chromosome count.

These two factors combined determine the overall storage capacity of the information on the DNA.

Yes, the amount of dna determines how much dna there is.


Number of sections(chromosomes) multiplied by length of sections = total possible storage capacity.

This is incorrect. Chromosomes can be more or less tightly packed and wound around their histones and packaging proteins. I don't know off hand how much this affects anything, but regardless.

Now admittedly I have used laymen’s terms to describe the actual structure of the DNA but that is the forum we are in so PLEASE don’t quibble over the semantics of the argument.

I am not quibbling. Chromosome count has nothing to do with the 'complexity' of an organism, and speciation does not in theory or
practice require addition of chromosomes. If that were true, even to an approximation, the we'd be able to simply count the chromosomes in organisms to determine how much speciation there has been in their lineage, or we would see only an increase in chromosome count from primitive cells to man.


Surely someone who professes the knowledge you do would not suggest that the DNA of a bacteria is = in complexity to the DNA of a human ovary.

Thats hardly relevant.


First in order for evolution to be substantiated as a theory of the origin of all species a methodology by which new chromosomes are created needs to be identified because we have organisms with differing numbers of chromosomes.

Chromosome number varies within species, and its already been shown that individual chromosomes, portions of chromosomes, mixtures of chromosomes, and enven entire genomes, can be copied, resulting in more chromosomes, and that they chromosomes prove another set of genes on which natural selection can act.


Hence no new chromosomes=no everything evolved from one form of life to what we see today. This is basic logic.

Since there are methods by which chromosome number increases the point is moot.


The second point is that chromosomes are one part of the equation that determines the maximum complexity of the DNA of an organism. Hence my stated generality hold up.

'My statement is true, hence, my statement is true'

Chromosome count does not determine complexity. The organism and environment doesn't know how many chromosomes an organism has, and when it reads genetic data it doesn't get information about how many chromosomes there are. Besides, its been demonstrated that there is basically no relationship between chromosome count and 'grade' or 'complexity' of an organism.


Just because there are exceptions to a generality does not invalidate it.

its not even generally true.



You in your post attempted to paint my generality as an absolute thus making it untrue but I never stated an absolute.

No, i addressed it as generally wrong. I said nothing about it not being correct in few instances, and therefore being untrue. besides, if its not true even in some instances, than its simply not true at all. You said new species need new chromosomes, the occurance of a nwe species without a higher number of chromosomes invalidates this statement entirely. Its certainly not a requirement for evolution to exist then, and, not being a requirement, can't be used to invalidate evolution's occurance.


This is classic misdirection and is a sign of a weak argument.

Why don't you concern yourself with your own arguement's weakness instead of stating that there is one in mine?


Rather than addressing the actual argument made you seek to superimpose your own statement as that of the opposing view point’s.

Man, you barely understand what you are saying, let alone anyone else eh? Where have i misrepresented your statement? You said chromosome count is important for complexity and that new species or types of organisms don't arise without an increase in chromosome number. I said that that is not the case, and now I am somehow misrepresenting your position? What is your position if not that?


I would suggest that for clarity you try to understand what is being said BEFORE you attempt to minimize it. If you have an understanding of what is being communicated you can make a much more lucid argument.

Is that why you fail to make lucid arguements, because you don't understand? Or is there some other reason?


Thank you for acknowledging my point. This is one of the scientific methods that is used in the valid study of the intelligent design hypothesis.

You do realize that because of this it can't be applied to organisms? And you do understand that man will leave markings on things he has created, evidence of having handled it, rather than some sort of indicator of 'design' by supernatural beings right?


Hence the valid study of this hypothesis would spend most of its time showing how other theories and hypotheses are inadequate to explain life as we observe it. You admit that this is a scientific methodology for revealing intelligent design

No, this is not a scientific methology. Science works by trying to refute a hypothesis, this method attempts to refute all other hypotheses, so in that way its unscientific. How would an Intelligent Design Researcher use this as a programme of research anyway? IDists contend, for example, that the bacterial flagellum is not explained by evolutionary science. Well, jesus, lots of things aren't investigated by evolutionary science, why should an evolutionist have to regenerate, stage by stage, the entire phylogenetic sequence invovled in creating the bacterial flagellum? And if they made an attempt and failed what has happened? Has a particular hypothesis failed, or has naturalism failed ot account for it? How can 'all naturalistic hypotheses' be refuted, when there is potentially an infinite number of naturalistic hypotheses? So no, this 'method' is not scientific.



lot of time pointing out the gaping holes in the Theory of Evolution as it applies to the formation of all species.

They do nothing of the sort. They find something that has not been explained to their satisfaction and pretend that its proof of interference by god.

So you are against the scientific study of any theory that isn’t of purely natural origin.

I am against calling 'non-science' 'science'. If someone wants to study intelligent design, then by all means do so, but don't pretend that its 'scienece' because they are talking about 'sciencey sounding stuff'.

In darwin's time, the objection was that the eye is too complex and that a less complex eye would not function, therefore evolution doesn't occur and there is a creator. Then science, over time, found primitive eyes that could certainly serve as plausible intermediates in teh evolution of the eye in more primitive animals, iow, they found precisely that which was said to not exist. The complexity of the eye didn't then become an invalid anti-evolutionary arguement, it was allways an invalid arguement, a non scientific one, it just took actual refutaion to demonstrate that to everyone. A similiar situation exists with this modern transference to the bacterial flagella.


Hence you have blinded yourself and your science to at least 50% of the possibilities out there.

And how do you get that figure? Seems like if anything only one possibility is not normally considered in science, that 'god did it'.


For either there is or there is not a designer.

If there is or is not, we still cannot detect design.


Do you really want to base all your science on a coin toss or would you rather the subject be studied from both ends of the spectrum?

I'd rather base my 'science' on, well, science. Pretending that we can study god's influence on stuff, well, its just not science.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What I would like to know is how anyone could believe that Evolution is a theory. It is not open to revision, Evolution is something your body does to strive in the certain environment.

This is incorrect. An individual body does not evolve. Also, 'evolution' is a theory, in so much as there are theories about its mechanism and other aspects of it. Natural selection, for example, is a theory, not a fact. Its a fact that evolution occurs, that populations of organisms change over time.


The Theory of Evolution only examines that certain species can all be linked to one another to the same ancestory. That's the theory of Evolution.

The theory of evolution is that evolution occurs thru natural selection and sometimes this is linked with teh theory of common descent. Neither of these are facts.


Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution stands to argue that if a creature strives in a certain geographic area, then their cells will adapt to their surroundings, making it possible for them to survive in their surroundings.

it doesn't argue that a creature "strive", merely that a population of organisms breed.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
AHHHHH!!!!!!! I POSTED THIS OVER A YEAR AGO!!!!!! My god, what is wrong with this site? I posted this over a year ago in the religon forum on how christianity was trying to turn our children into idiots by turning Theory into guess, shot in the dark, or acid trip gone bad.:mad
and yes, this same county in geogia, the whole post was based on this)

THEORY! It DOES NOT MEAN GUESS, SHOT IN THE DARK, OR ACID TRIP GONE BAD! Gravity is a theory, we know about it, we know what it is for the most part, and how it works for the most part, but some things we don't, like black holes. BHs are suppose to have such a strong gravitational pull that it sucks light in, but gravity only effects things with mass, and a light photon does not have mass, so how does a black hole effect light? SEE! That is what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS! Wow, over a year of explaining the same thing, again, and again, and again, and again! It would be like putting a sticker in the bible "All of this is bull#, if you believe it you are an idiot. How the hell can you think an all mighty powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds do all this when science proves it all bull#." It would be true, but it isn't nice to do, they need a crutch, let them have one.

Also, we did not evolve from apes, only christians think this, the other 90% of smart people know we have a common ancestor. While one branch of sapien grew stronger(chimp, gorilla) the other grew more smart(Erectus, Austropiculus((sp?)) and Homo sapien sapien). Are we more advance then a gorilla? If you went toe to toe you would lose, they are stronger. But tech wise? Well, they use tools, but not like humans. Evolution has been proven. I know "It's microevolution, thats true, but not macroevolution" But Last I checked, it doesn't say creation and micro evolution in the bible, it just says poof we were created, so any type of evolution proves bible wrong. And Macro has been proven, dolphins went from land mammal to sea mammal, they have the fossil record to prove it.

Edit. Here is the link to my post, made over a year ago on this. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Edit Part Ni. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. That is the defintion of Theory.
[edit on 25-1-2005 by James the Lesser]

[edit on 25-1-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
No, this is not a scientific methology. Science works by trying to refute a hypothesis, this method attempts to refute all other hypotheses, so in that way its unscientific. How would an Intelligent Design Researcher use this as a programme of research anyway? IDists contend, for example, that the bacterial flagellum is not explained by evolutionary science. Well, jesus, lots of things aren't investigated by evolutionary science, why should an evolutionist have to regenerate, stage by stage, the entire phylogenetic sequence invovled in creating the bacterial flagellum? And if they made an attempt and failed what has happened? Has a particular hypothesis failed, or has naturalism failed ot account for it? How can 'all naturalistic hypotheses' be refuted, when there is potentially an infinite number of naturalistic hypotheses? So no, this 'method' is not scientific.


He's got ya there. Scientists attempt to eliminate their own findings and eliminate all evidence that doesn't hold up to fierce scrutiny. Creationism attempts to eliminate all alternative findings in favor of creationism. That's about as scientific as Mother Goose & Grimm.
All creationists want to do is to prove their hypothesis is correct, and every other possibility is wrong. The problem is, most of these types of people are so convinced that their god created everything, that they won't even consider any other possibility, no matter how rational. They've already defeated themselves in favor of a myth.

Haha! That bunny has pancakes on its head!


[edit on 25-1-2005 by Mr_Mojo_Rising]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Then explain how 'simple' organisms have a high chromosome count and 'complex' ones have a low chromosome count.
already explained that. IF you don’t want to read with an eye for understanding then you can just remain in your ignorance.


This is incorrect. Chromosomes can be more or less tightly packed and wound around their histones and packaging proteins. I don't know off hand how much this affects anything, but regardless.

Let me make the point in small sentences so you can get it. Chromosomes represent a segmenting of DNA. To go from bacteria to human you must increase the genetic complexity of the organism. You can do this by making chromosomes more complex and or you can add chromosomes. If you don’t have a method by which chromosomes are viably added to a bacteria then you do not come up with the many organisms that have a myriad of chromosomes. Can you see the point? I don’t know how to make it any simpler.


Chromosome count has nothing to do with the 'complexity' of an organism, and speciation does not in theory or practice require addition of chromosomes.
then how do you get from an organism that has 12 chromosomes to one that has 21 without adding chromosomes?


Chromosome number varies within species, and its already been shown that individual chromosomes, portions of chromosomes, mixtures of chromosomes, and enven entire genomes, can be copied, resulting in more chromosomes, and that they chromosomes prove another set of genes on which natural selection can act.

You do not substantiate your claims. There is no known case of new viable chromosomes being added to a species. In all cases of chromosome additions they are either debilitating or non-functional. Prove otherwise or simply drop your unsubstantiated argument.
[Quote]Chromosome count does not determine complexity. The organism and environment doesn't know how many chromosomes an organism has, and when it reads genetic data it doesn't get information about how many chromosomes there are. Besides, its been demonstrated that there is basically no relationship between chromosome count and 'grade' or 'complexity' of an organism.
First I never said that chromosome count determines complexity. What I said is that it is related. I then explained how it is related in that chromosome count times the complexity or in laymen’s terms length of the chromosomes = total complexity of the DNA. That is simple genetic science 101. Number of Chromosomes*complexity of each chromosome=maximum complexity of the DNA. Now the above being true, which you have not shown how it isn’t, how can you say that chromosome count has nothing to do with the complexity of an organism when it is part of the formula that determines the organism’s DNA capacity?


besides, if its not true even in some instances, than its simply not true at all.
You have no concept of what a generality is then? Like generally white guys have facial hair or generally Indians have darker skin than Germans or generally intelligent people understand that a generalization need not apply in every instance.

You said new species need new chromosomes, the occurance of a nwe species without a higher number of chromosomes invalidates this statement entirely. Its certainly not a requirement for evolution to exist then, and, not being a requirement, can't be to invalidate evolution's occurance.

What I was pointing out is that simple life forms have only one chromosome or none at all and that more complex life forms have many. Hence if you have no mechanism by which chromosomes can be added to simple life forms then you do not have a substantiated theory of how complex life forms came from simple ones. The mere fact that there is variation formula of complexity such that some forms have fewer but more complex chromosomes and others have more but less complex chromosomes does not invalidate the need for a mechanism by which those viable chromosomes are formed.


You do realize that because of this it can't be applied to organisms? And you do understand that man will leave markings on things he has created, evidence of having handled it, rather than some sort of indicator of 'design' by supernatural beings right?
All the markings man leaves behind can be reproduce in nature. The difference is that they cannot all be reproduce at the same time on the same object forming the pattern of that object. Stone can be cut. Rock can be split at right angles. Slabs can be set upright. Blocks can be laid one upon another. For all these things to come together in one place to create Stonehenge by natural processes is considered highly improbable.
SO it is that ID theorists will attempt to show how the incredible complexity of life cannot happen by a series of natural events. There is no reasonable person who does not agree that within the genetic make up of a species there exists the ability to adapt to the environment. This is the observation from which the Origin of Species is derived. That coupled with the similarity between species could be used to suggest that live evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms. The problem with that is that there has been no provable mechanism by which this increase in complexity of the DNA of a species can take place. There is speculation that random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism but random mutation has never been shown to add new genetic complexity. It has only been shown to reshuffle the existing code or to corrupt it. Never has it been shown where a random mutation adds any new genetic code.
No new viable genetic code=no evolution from simple to complex.

No, this is not a scientific methology. Science works by trying to refute a hypothesis, this method attempts to refute all other hypotheses, so in that way its unscientific.
Is that why evolutionist are constantly trying prove their hypothesis right instead of trying to prove it wrong? Or do your arguments no apply to your pet theories?

IDists contend, for example, that the bacterial flagellum is not explained by evolutionary science. Well, jesus, lots of things aren't investigated by evolutionary science, why should an evolutionist have to regenerate, stage by stage, the entire phylogenetic sequence invovled in creating the bacterial flagellum?
If their theory is so well substantiated and almost a fact as you contend then why can’t they come up with a working model of such a simple part of an organism like the baterial flagellum. Or is evolution still an unsubstantiated hypothesis that does not have the answers to how life came to be what it is?

How can 'all naturalistic hypotheses' be refuted, when there is potentially an infinite number of naturalistic hypotheses? So no, this 'method' is not scientific.

I disagree that there are an infinite number of natural hypotheses because the more we learn about the workings of life the more we come to understand that the possibility of life just happening is so remote as to be impossible. The more we learn about the complexity of life the more difficult it is to construct a naturalistic explanation of how life exists. This is because the perfect balance and order that is represented in the single cell is a system so complex that it far surpasses the best that we with all our intelligence can design. With a world of 4 billion minds mankind has not yet succeeded in applying that intelligence successfully to creating a single artificial cell. Yet you want to say that this supermachine of electro-chemistry happened by mere accident. Darwin had the excuse of lacking knowledge as to the complexity of the cell. You and modern science have no such excuse. Yet so many go blindly on believing that the incredible complexity of life as we know it could happen without applied intelligence. In fact the science of evolution goes about trying to PROVE itself (rather than disprove as you suggest they should) largely because people do not want to believe in the divine.

They do nothing of the sort. They find something that has not been explained to their satisfaction and pretend that its proof of interference by god.


Pointing out the complexity of life and the impossibility of that complexity being formed by accident is not proof of interference by God though that would be one potential hypothesis. A more scientific one is to say that some form of intelligence was involved in the design.


If there is or is not, we still cannot detect design.

That is an unscientific statement if ever I heard one.

I'd rather base my 'science' on, well, science. Pretending that we can study god's influence on stuff, well, its just not science.

The truth in your statement seems better revealed by saying that the hypothesis that there is a creator is not conducive with your theology and hence you cannot accept its possibility and ramification upon your brand of science. That is ok there are fanatics in all walks of life. You can be one if you want to. I don’t denigrate your brand of research. In fact I welcome it. Yet you belittle anyone who’s starting assumption is that there is a creator. You call the study of their perceptions to be fantasy. You call their theories just ideas. You do all this based on your assumption that there is no designer and that if there was one then we could not study him or it or whatever pronoun you choose


[edit on 25-1-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Ok.... since science can't explain everything then god exists. Sorry, the point of science is to find things out, research, if they could explain everything the job would be done. Also, if a scientist can't re-create it it proves god? Scientists can't re-create a black hole so god exists? What kind of logic is that? Scientists can't re-create dinosaurs so god exists????


Anyways, again, a scientific theory is fact... it is not guess, shot in the dark, so forth. Theory of Gravity is a good example, gravity is fact, but we still study the effects of gravity don't we? Cause we don't understand all of it. Since scientists can't prove/re-create every effect of gravivty then god exists. Damn, that is some great logic, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok.... since science can't explain everything then god exists. Sorry, the point of science is to find things out, research, if they could explain everything the job would be done. Also, if a scientist can't re-create it it proves god? Scientists can't re-create a black hole so god exists? What kind of logic is that? Scientists can't re-create dinosaurs so god exists??


Your just being crass!! The point is if there is no natural process to explain the complex, ordered detailed information that make up life then this immensely complex information was programmed rather than just occuring by natural means. Who or what the programmer is or was is a topic for theologians but the recognition of a pattern not occuring in nature is a fundamental science, the problem is that in this case many scientists have blinded themselves to the possiblity. Gravity and thermodynamics and relativity all describe simple systems and simple principles when compared to the vast complexity of life as we know it. TO compare the two is comparing apples and oranges. It is like comparing a pile of sand to a pentium processor. Life is far more complex, organized and balanced than any other system we have observed, or created. Yet we refuse to consider that it was something created rather than just happening by chance. That is foolishness indeed.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon

Then explain how 'simple' organisms have a high chromosome count and 'complex' ones have a low chromosome count.
already explained that. IF you don’t want to read with an eye for understanding then you can just remain in your ignorance.

Ok, Ill take you up on your suggestion.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Hmm, was that SLANK that just got the BAN HAMMER?
Boy theyre dropping like flies these days.
That one was only a matter of time IMO.

Nygdan says,


I'd say that, reasonably, a person could say a reasonable person would not find it as the judge found it, er, reasonably.
Hmm Ill take this as a partial agreement in my point about the interpretation of the text with or without the context applied.

Nygdan says,


i think it would be 'perverse' (to use gould's wording) to hold all normally accepted 'facts' as theories, even tho it would be technically correct.
Ok so Im a pervert!

Again ill accept some small measure of satisfaction from hearing SOMEONE agree in a "Technical" way of the validity of my argument that fact and theory are indeed different, and could be acknowledged as so.

Yes im splitting technical, verbal hairs on this one, yet the legal process does this all the time. Thats why ive stuck to case issues and not delved into the science behind, because i recognize the validity of the science, as well as keeping an open mind to other possibillities including something not yet quantifiable.
I just found this court decision to be shakey at best, and possibly one which violates citizens rights to have more say locally in their own affairs.
Yes i think there should be a balance between state and religion, and while this sticker is right up to that line, i feel it is an acceptable compromise betewwn the warring worlds here.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Slank has not been banned, nor have any others that have particpated in this thread. In fact, I do not think nary a warn has been issued. However, perhaps he and others have grown tired of beating thier heads against the rhetoric :bnghd: as it were. At anyrate all the posters have managed to stay within (skirting all the while) the boundries of civility as it were



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Uh Caz, who got banned? Slank wasn't... No one was as far as I know.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Uh Caz, who got banned? Slank wasn't... No one was as far as I know.


As I said above, no one got banned, but maybe got bored with the discourse?

Edit: oops someone was banned, but not for anything on this thread


[edit on 1/26/05 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
One poster is banned, but apparently not because of anything that happened here.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I was just catching up on this thread and noticed the banned member, trying to follow the conversation.....it appears to have been Slank. (i just was trying to understand who said what here in the end of the thread posts, and no it didnt seem to occur here)



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I see, someone was banned, (Banned Member) is probably a good sign someone was banned.
(my bad)

Anyways, back to the title, evolution is a theory, meaning it is fact. A scientific theory is fact, just not all of it. As I have stated before with gravity, it is a scientific theroy, but it is fact. But we don't know all of it now do we? It can distort time, or not? Does it suck in light? But light photon has no mass, and gravity only effects things with mass..... So how does that work? We don't know, why we have science.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I was just catching up on this thread and noticed the banned member, trying to follow the conversation.....it appears to have been Slank. (i just was trying to understand who said what here in the end of the thread posts, and no it didnt seem to occur here)


Its not slank at any rate, he just posted in another forum and I checked his staus.




top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join