I don't have the faith to believe that hydrogen turns into people if you wait long enough. I need facts.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I don't have the faith to believe that hydrogen turns into people

Clearly, such a page as cited above is necessary. The Theory of Evolution does not claim that hydrogen turned into people in some big single step, or anything like it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

now, read it if you want,

Read it.

mock me if you want to look immature

Your perception of mattison is irrelevant.

it isn't there to prove anything, it's simply there to dispell some misconceptions people have about evolution

So when you state something like: "This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents."
you're not trying to disprove ID or Creationism? Possibly not... but my instinct tells me otherwise. At the very least you're trying to portray it in a negative light.

Dispelling myths about evolution doesn't equal an attack on ID or creationism, which is pretty much what your posts in the O & C forum have amounted to thus far.

discussion and debate aren't about making the other person look like they are wrong, it's about figuring the truth out. this is a supplement to the discussion.

Is this what you really think? It certainly doesn't appear that way.

So all you're interested in promoting the 'truth' of evolution... then why the attacks on ID and creationism. Did you not write: "discussion and debate aren't about making the other person look like they are wrong, it's about figuring the truth out."

If this is what you believe, you can discuss the 'truth' of evolution with mentioning ID or creationism.

i didn't even intend this to get more than a couple of responses, i wanted to inform the community

Well it seems like you got what you wanted... a 'couple' of responses, so what's your gripe?

You wanted to inform the community of what? Your history in this forum demonstrates you are interested in informing people that ToE is correct, and all other origins theories are the products of crackpots.

Well... I disagree.

mattison, if you want to be confrontational, i may just be willing to be throw down in the debate forum.

Why something formal? Why not just hash it out right here and now? Personally, I don't like the debate forum, and I prefer the 'free' structure of open debate in the forum... no limitations, and it can continue for as long as it needs to. I don't want to be confrontational... it's just my natural state of being when it comes to Origins topics.

So... let's have at it if you're up for it.

I'll start.

The table salt example is absurd. There is precisely one way in which these ions are capable of joining. The process is governed by a simple natural law. This 'professor' doesn't appear to know much about complexity. A NaCl atom is not complex. It can be specified with a very simple set of instructions; in fact the crystal itself is specified by the name of the molecule: NaCl. Bingo! That's how you form an NaCl 'molecule.' Nothing complex... no big deal. By definition crystals are not complex. They can be described very simply with usually just a sentence or two, or as this case perfectly demonstrates, simply the ionic formula.

In fact this whole tenth item looks like a mishmash of stuff cut and pasted from other sites. The 'professor' titles the 10th statement as "Complexity cannot arise naturally"
Logically, he begins with a spiel about entropy. Big mistake for most people - the 'professor' included. It's obvious this person knows pretty much nothing about entropy, as they define it as "Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature." Well... that's not entropy according to any definition of entropy that I am familiar. Entropy is specifically concerned with disorder of a system, and is distinctly related to enthalpy (heat) but is not defined in these terms. Entropy in biological systems is best described by the Gibb's Free Energy equation: G = H - TS, where G is free energy, H is enthalpy, S is entropy, and T is K°.

Next he states: "the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, "

The text in bold indicates exactly what I stated before: an NaCl crystal isn't complex. It can be specified very simply, with a minimum of instructions. The italicized text that follows is simply ludicrous. There isn't a "one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot." There is a zero probablity of this based on electromagnetism. NaCl always arranges in this manner, period.

He then states "we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids."

Wow..... this guy can't be a professor... at least not a science professor... maybe music or art or some kind of humanities, but definitely not a hard science guy. Haircuts prove DNA arises from simpler chemicals :shakes head: wow. That's a new one. I wonder if this guy knows that hair isn't cellular tissue, it's just protein, no cells, no DNA. Wow. This person really should be ashamed.

Because your cells can synthesize DNA, does nothing to prove that DNA can arise without cells. In fact we know quite the opposite is true. For example, there is no known source of Cytosine outside of biologicals, ie: it doesn't arise naturalistically. So in fact the above statement is flat out wrong. We know exactly the opposite: cytosine doesn't 'appear' outside of biologicals or directed OChem syntheses. Since Uracil is derived from Cytosine, then that means that neither DNA or RNA can form in the absence of biologicals.

Finally based on everything I've just written, this statement: "DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble" is a load of crap, unless by 'spontaneously self-assemble' he means it can assemble in a cell via the assistance of enzymes, but that is hardly 'spontaneous.'

I'm sorry... perhaps you can clarify what makes this a 'good' resource? It seems like a lot of misinformation, misrepresentation, and flat-out misunderstanding to me.

Oh yeah, In response to your statement to sunmatrix: where are the 'mountains of evidence' that demonstrate hydrogen turns into people... which is what you said.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by mattison0922]

people could speculate that evolution theory was brought about to promote racist viewpoints.

have you heard that before

Andy1033,
I don't think that ToE was invented by people in order to support racist views, I'm pretty sure that we have enough evidence to say with certanty that it did in fact occur.
As for was it naturally accomplished or brought upon by God, yeah I'm not going to touch that one. I'm going to watch these two fight it out.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Andy1033,
I don't think that ToE was invented by people in order to support racist views, I'm pretty sure that we have enough evidence to say with certanty that it did in fact occur..

i am not saying there is not some evidence, but all i want to know is for you people to go away and ask yourself who pushed this theory and what was society like at the time.

i have heard many in england(some powerful people)used the TOE to push very racist claims after darwin brought them out, and it was not just the germans.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by andy1033]

Unfortunately thats just how it goes sometimes, people will take different advancements and use them for their nefarious ends. Don't blame the science blame the people.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Unfortunately thats just how it goes sometimes, people will take different advancements and use them for their nefarious ends. Don't blame the science blame the people.

yep i get you but all i am really saying is, would evolution be pushed through as a good theory if it were not for the powers of the people behind the scenes pushing it to boost there racist claims.

i suppose we will not know that unless we lived at the time, but i was trying to make others consider there may have been other reasons why that theory came to light and was pushed hard.

At first maybe, I don't know. But now there is a lot scientifically going for it. All it says is how life spread and changed over time not how it came into being. Nor does it say that any form of life is any better then any other.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
At first maybe, I don't know. But now there is a lot scientifically going for it. All it says is how life spread and changed over time not how it came into being. Nor does it say that any form of life is any better then any other.

yep i understand that it may be good to understand how animals developed, but the human equation is different do you not think.

i personally do not believe in evolution in terms of humans, i can understand theory being good for animals and the like.

also how has the theory changed since darwin first brought out his work, i believe that the original version is different from the version that we understand today, that darwins work was not a full answer in itself, was it not.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.

That says a lot more about you than it does about the strength of the argument.

Evolution as a theory is still being explored, and it has a few holes in it. But even if you were to throw the entire theory of evolution in the garbage, it still wouldn't prove God exists. One, because there is no God. And two, because some other unknown mechanism might be involved that also has nothing to do with God, or "intelligent design."

Face it. Our ancestors evolved from some fuzzy little primate living in the jungle. Personally, I like the idea. It's a little humbling.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Enkidu]

This article details all the major misconceptions people have about the theory of evolution, in a rational, scientific tone.

Suprised to hear Nygdan liked this link, but I'll still use one of his lines anyway: What did you find most convincing about the page?

It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"

That's not a myth. Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."

I find it highly accurate, and it taught me a thing or two.

What exactly did you find highly accurate or informative on that page? Which thing or two did it teach you? If you learned anything from that page you've got a long way to go re: ToE, creationism or ID. Suprising as one of our resident defenders of ToE and the scientific method who has challenged another member, who has a PhD in molecular-celluar biology, to a formal debate over the ToE. Maybe it's just me, but er yeah let me know how that works out for ya.

This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents.

It shows absolutely nothing of the sort, re: misinformation spread by ID and/or creationist proponents. You were honestly impressed with the info on this page?

it isn't there to prove anything, it's simply there to dispell some misconceptions people have about evolution

No. You put it in the context of, 'the lies that ID and creationist proponents spread.' You are correct that it proves nothing though.

mattison, if you want to be confrontational, i may just be willing to be throw down in the debate forum.

I got five on it.... put me in the front row. FYI you've run into an actual expert here, and as you've demonstrated here, you're still learning the basics. Tread softly young one.

also, sunmatrix, this isn't about faith, it's about showing mountains of evidence

Was it to inform the community of common (ie, grade school) misconceptions or to show us the "mountains of evidence?" Mattison is correct imo, there's no way this guy is a science professor....

Not as bad as the 'red rain destroys ID' argument, but close.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Rren]
edit BTW Nygdan has a sticky thread at the top of this forum that covers this topic much better than our "scientist" did wis his Toe "myths" page(FWIW they're not "myths" either.)

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Rren]

Originally posted by Rren

It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"

That's not a myth. Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."

Where on the page does it say that specifically ID/creationist make that claim? It's just giving the number uno misconception of the theory of evolution. In my history classe a couple months ago, the topic of evolution came up and someone said something like, "Yeah it says that people came from monkeys." I was really irritated by the pure ignorance in my class, even my teacher didn't know what the heck he was talking about.

Originally posted by Agentdemon

Originally posted by Rren

It dispells myths such as "People evolved from monkeys"

That's not a myth. Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."

Where on the page does it say that specifically ID/creationist make that claim? It's just giving the number uno misconception of the theory of evolution.

Well it's called the number one myth not misconception (which has a different connotation, no?), and madnessismysoul closed with the statement: "This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents." Where? How?

It showed nothing; a couple strawmen, a couple 'common mistakes' people on both sides make. One seriously flawed attempt to explain the "spontaneous generation" of DNA with no source/cite - a weak attempt to refute CSI (I think) with that "random" section of Pi. #'s 3, 4, 7, and 9 are just silly. 5 might be in that category to, at the very least, it's incomplete and not very informative. 6 wasn't backed up with anything other than 'cause I said so' and 10, as Mattison showed, is just all wrong. There's no way a science teacher wrote this...

This wasn't presented as 'common misconceptions of the ToE' by maddnessismysoul either, it was presented 'ToE myths spread by creationists.' It's BS sensationalism and the very rhetoric that makes this issue so polarized, imo.

Besides as I said (in edit) Nygdan already has this covered in the O&C sticky thread... I send this guy a copy of that to use as a guide for his next rant.