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.

 

Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Oy, how long can these threads go?

Seriously: facts and truth will never win over belief and blind faith. Sounds like a cynical statement, but: Some countries to even question faith will get you hung.

These things have been debated for years. They will continue being debated. It is unfortunate because of the politics and power mongering: medical advancements and science in many areas are being held back. All because some brain broken people can 'have equal say'.

It is revolting that the idea that 'because I can say this' somehow gives the content merit. Product of the gold star generation maybe?

Ultimately you cannot reason with the fanatic. All it leads to is inquisitions and people strapping bombs to themselves.

Perhaps after a few generations things will straighten out. Presuming we all dont die in the name of whatever god is on the warpath this year.




posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





Perhaps after a few generations things will straighten out. Presuming we all dont die in the name of whatever god is on the warpath this year.


Don't bet on it. The great library burned almost two millenia ago, and apparently 1,000 years of superstitious darkness, inquisition, and holy wars isn't enough for people. My only question is, if these fools succeed, when will the next enlightenment occur? Will it? It was by sheer luck that anything survived the holy fires of Political and religious conquerors. (At least Mark Anthony attempted to compensate for what the Romans destroyed) I would hope our knowledge is decentralized enough so as to make their rediscovery much easier and more complete.

As for who's next... I've got my eye on the Mormons. At first I thought it was Scientology, but they seem more concerned with securing perks, fleecing their followers, and any vicious attacks being limited pretty much solely at the practice of Psychiatry. The Mormons though... yeah yeah, they SEEM like peaceful, happy, and friendly people. That's how they get you to let your guard down and strike from the flank. Mark my words, one of these days their armies will march forth from Utah and scorch black whatever they cannot subjugate.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


As for the Momo's youve no idea. Its sugar coated evil. Mormons outside of Utah are different than those in the core here. They still do electroshock therapy on kids the parents think are gay, if that fails they STILL pack kids out into the desert to be beaten.

I watch it all agape and with horror. Seems to be all thats left of the world. Suppose I could gnash my teeth. But Im not that desperate for a dentist run.

Bleh.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by memory_nuke

It's extremely amusing how so many people do not know what fact and theory means in science.



It doesn't matter what it means though, you see it is consensus science anymore. Just get as many Atheists in Science while at the same time barring any other postulate from seeing the light of day, Do this with extreme prejudice and wha la!

9 out of 10 Dentists agree Crest is best but creationism is better.

Keeping alternative theory and any challenge to the TOE is the mission of todays neo atheism ( something the united states congress has found this clique science of Darwin guilty of and it is undeniable)



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by spliff4020
 


We did not evolve from apes, this is a common misconception!
The great apes evolved along with us, we simply branched off from a similar ancestor long ago.

The idea of human beings coming from apes comes from Darwin's second book, the Origin on Man, and of corse, with the little evidence at the time, and the confusion of the public there still persists a myth that we evolved from the present apes we see today.

They evolved to the form they are in today as we did. Animals do not simply "stop" evolving unless they are highly efficient and they are "B" type animals (metabolic rate extremely high, as is reproductive cycle and number of offspring). Examples of these are what we deem as pests. Scavengers seem to change slower because the niche never goes away, we always need decomposers.

We are an A type animal, we have few offspring and have a long life cycle. Also the niches of our species is much more specific, allowing for more variation.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 





It doesn't matter what it means though, you see it is consensus science anymore.


You.... DO... realize that the theory of Evolution is actually a lot more well founded than even the theory of gravity... don't you? Do you deny gravity? Is there a separation between MicroGravity and MacroGravity? Like... gravity can hold me to the planet, but it can never form the planet.


If there's a consensus... there's a damned good reason for it. Evidence... which creationists simply reject out of hand, poorly analyze, or don't seem to comprehend. Worse is when they claim it's in interpretation, and then follow with completely illogical and irrational alternatives. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, so much so that it forms a twin nested hierarchy, and if it's premise were faulty - then biology simply wouldn't work. No amount of fudging data would be able to fix it, and you would NOT be getting the practical applications out of it. Reality simply wouldn't allow it.

Oh.. right... ID reality allows for "magic". My bad.

To suggest that pretty much all of the scientists from around the world in all the various biological schools, along with the government... and apparently the Catholic and Anglican church are in some grand conspiracy... even on just the sciences side, it just show a very poor understanding of just how willing your colleagues are to slit your throat at the slightest hint of opportunity. That is, after all, how science works... by disproving possibilities and narrowing our understanding down to the best working theories available. And they are very good at what they do.

Always follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, even over you most cherished delusions. This, perhaps, is why there are so many atheists in the sciences. Not because of some grand messianic conspiracy... but because they follow the evidence to it's conclusion. Those who put their delusions over the evidence, don't make it very far.

There are a good number of biologists who believe in god. Theodosius Dobhzenski, Kenneth Miller, Robert Bakker, etc. Many more are Agnostic, or deist. However, even though some of them may believe in a guided evolution - that an omnipotent being with full knowledge of past and future unto eternity could set up the system in advance to produce particular desired outcomes - none of them will claim magic or the supernatural, because science is only ever naturalistic. Even if you could substantiate that "God Did It", science would not accept that answer - because we would still want to know HOW he did it. How and under what mechanism would the natural world be altered to produce such an outcome.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

LOL you are off by a LONG shot but I guess you'd have to actually read the courts transcripts to see that PBS took the most inane testimony on behalf of ID
I have read it, it was all pretty much ALL inane


Never Mind that bit about tiktaalik was not entirely accurate

nice statement but no evidence to back that up huh?


or that Darwins camp didn't get cross examined in the movie


yes look at how they give Ken Miller a job interview ...i mean cross examination

did you write this article ..yes
did you debate Behe here..yes
and here ...ye
did you write this book ...yes
its in the Dover library did you know? ... no
your a scientist ... yes
is Id science ...no
do scientist discuss things ...yes
no further questions

Ken Miller www.talkorigins.org...



The reason ID, lost was NOT because it couldn't be used as a theory for the same reason evolution was allowed into schools when Clarence Darrow defended it. You can't have it both ways it is case law.


sorry care to clarify? ID cannot be used as a hypothesis because it i reliant on supernatural or out side of nature influences, and as such unfalsifiable and untestable

Evolution is not, evolution i both testable and falsifiable

but this i just another random generalized comment with no real meaning and the hopes someone misreads it and gives it a meaning that your hinting at that is false


The reason it wasn't allowed is the ACLU cited sepration powers that the word science or creation or agent or anything suggesting a designer is automatically a religion.



ID doesn't address orign it only adresses a mechanism and one I might add that is as obvious, observable and testable.
it is neither obvious, testable or observable

Shall we ask Professor Behe from the court transcript?


Q So, Professor Behe, why don't we go to your deposition and see how you answered the questions then, okay?

A Okay.

Q Could you look at page 179 of your deposition.

A Yes.

Q I asked you, "What is the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose according to intelligent design theory?"

A Yes.

Q And you answered, "Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures."

A Yes. And that language, I think, is completely consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does not tell you step by step how something was proposed -- or how something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very very important about the origin of the structure, and that is that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.

Q And then further down the page at line 24 I asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it's just a criticism of Darwinian evolution's mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?

A I said "that's correct." But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said. Again, it does not propose a step-by-step description, but it -- but it proposes or it accounts for some very important features of what was involved in it's origin, and that is intelligent activity.
www.talkorigins.org...

so it infers but i not testable and does not give the mechanism ....


Or is it only the Darwinist that get setup admitting they believed in intellegent design.
get set up saying he believed ID? hahah

well i suppose it could be possible but not probable that aliens could have seeded life for us to evolve from, but the aliens would have had to evolve them selves ..... yes that ....not really an argument for deign there is it

i think people have problems with Expelled is because it trivializes the death of 50 million people to prove a point that simply is a lie,

and does the same with other things that have happened but have no direct or indirect relation with ToE

and not to mention the Expelled not actually being expelled, or expelled for things that have no relevance to their beliefs ... i failed my test to achieve my doctorate ... if only id studied harder ..or maybe it was because i like ID ..yeah that must be it I have been expelled!


ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive you could have evolution by design.
how would it then be naturalistic so scientific? who designed it? who deigned the designer?

ID goes about things badly it says there are certain things that can not be explained by natural process and time and time again it gets it wrong

Theistic evolution takes the natural proven process and infers it was created by god to do what he wanted it to, ID says it not possible for god to create natural processes to make everything so he had to come and make some things himself

how are they compatible? one has a god that is all powerful all knowing etc, the other has a god who is all powerful all knowing but so inept he needs to pop down to earth with his tool kit and fix stuff he couldn't get right first time ...really compatible......



Tiktaalik was a bust and as noob tries to slip out from the coelacanth canard,
umm red herring to the rescue?

wow i managed to slip in there before you make absurd generalizations and pretend over 30 very distinct species of fish are one?

and what does having tiktaalik having a bust got to do with anything ... i get the feeling the coelacanth canards coming and then were going for a sprinkle of misinformation about tiktaalik to follow


we see the same mistakes made in the PBS special but never mentioned was that not long before that, evolutionists believed the Devonian layer of geologic strata was thought to be 360 to 400 to million years ago. They believe the Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils the evolutionists thought existed during the Jurassic era 140 to 200 million years ago.


that is great but that would be geologists

wait what? Jurassic 145Ma -199Ma
Devonian 416Ma-365Ma

and yes both layers still contain fossils relevant to there age range .... red herring with no point .. again ... still no Devoinian or preCambrian bunnies found to disprove evolution yet either


That Evolutionary paleontologists used to believe that the coelacanth evolved into the first amphibian.

The biology textbooks still used today are teaching this also.


that would be lobe finned fish that fall under the order Coelacanthiformes, and they are not saying they evolved them selves but they re in the chain that lead to tetrapod evolution

... which text book? what page? how old is the book? is the picture of a L. menadoensis or L.chalumnae ? or of one of the many many other extinct fish that fall under the general term ceolcanth?

ceolocanth is not a fish its 30+ species of fish all of which are extinct and found in very old fossils except for two extant(still alive) species which are found today but are not found in the fossil record... because they are kind of not the ones that lead towards land colonization

i do not think you'll find anyone saying L.chalumnae and L.menadoensis were the ones because well no one even saying they existed as a species back in the Devonian, its the shallow water now extinct species of Coelacanthiformes that headed towards tetrapoidal existence


Although now represented by only two known living species, as a group the coelacanths were once very successful with many genera and species that left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period, at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction. It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.


what we have no million of year old fossils for L. menadoensis or L.chalumnae ? could that be because they were always deep water species? or are relatively young species compared to the other 30+ at were shallow water living

and is not it the shallow water species that were the forerunners of tetrapods? so is not this whole argument a disingenuous argument made to present falsely and dishonestly that coelacanth is a species offish not a generalized term for over 30 species, and the erroneous statement that they have not changed for millions of years?

so this is basically an argument to spread falsehoods based on generalizations far removed from the fossil record, taxonomy or in fact what paleontologists actually believe to have happened?

its a big fat lie isn't it .... praying on people misunderstanding coelacanth as a fish not an order of fish, and its a lie you knowingly and willingly spread ...how do i know .... because ... you did the same thing here and here and i showed how using the term coelacanth is dishonest to represent tetrapoidal evolution if you try to link it with the 2 extant species of that order and well i pointed out that coelacanth was an umbrella term not a species here a well

umm which one of the many species/subspecies?

why always the lack of accuracy? fruitfly as if it were one species, not the many species/subspecies covered by the title, several of which are a result of lab experimentation

and Coolant as if it was 1 fish not 30+ different species of fish

and E-coli as if it was just 1 single solitary strain not many that fall under the umbrella term
and that was just 2 page ago

[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

This is NOT fact and I think I am going to start calling it the logical fallacy for macroevolution by consensus.
As opposed to "the made up argument that relieses on dishonesty misinformation and vagary to discredit something argument?" your right yours is more catchy but mines more realistic


Then, it goes how the lung of a lobefin adapted itself for breathing, and how the fins turned into legs and walked up on land and while this is a direct contradiction to what Dawkins says ( evolutionists can't EVER get their story straight because it changes with the wind)
going to provide a source for what Dawkins says?

how else will we see supposed contradiction if you do not furnish us with both sides ... but hey why let that bother you go right ahead


the discovery of a living coelacanth, proved that the coelacanth's lung is only used for buoyancy NOT breathing.
Even in shallow water environment where access to air is available? Or are you only talking about the two extant to attempt to alter the facts about the other 30+ extinct?


Like a ballast on a submarine That it is a salt-water fish not freshwater fish, that swims in deep water, , not a shallow.
Ahh you're on about the two exiting species that come under coelacanth so nothing to do with tetrapod evolution


Never mind that it doesn't use its fins for walking on the bottom. Never mind that is like sooo many "just so" fantasy's by these pseudo scientists that have come before.
It also doesn't have the same hand structure as some of those 30+ extinct species, you know some of those that are the ones put forward as being a transitional link in the evolution of tetrapods

and isn't "just so" pseudo-science cretinism?

god made the animals "just so"



Never mind that I was on this site arguing with evolutionists about this very "proof" for Darwinism, saying back then as I will now that what they got now is the bunk that doesn't prove jack squat tommorrow.
Link? ... no ? ... no surprise there


That the coelacanth is no longer considered to be the missing link between fish and amphibians
it was never a missing link it was and is transitional and note I am talking about the ones that aren't the two relatively new deep water species here ...


We would say their is no transitional fossils and darwinists would pull out Coelacanth! Reload: Coelacanth! Reload: Coelacanth! Reload: blah blah blah etc, etc, et-tedious, cetera.
That is funny since the 19th century the classic is Archaeopteryx usually coelacanth get dragged up by the lining fossil never changed in 60 million year brigade which generally are not evolutionists


When all along it was BUNK Reload: Bunk Reload: Bunk Reload:
the coelacanth hasn't changed and is one species? I would agree these arguments are bunk. But why keep repeating the erroneous bunk repeatedly?


darwinian explanations had changed while I was watching and I noticed that THIS time it was Punctuated Equilibrium they touted as the answer and that species evolved rapidly in spurts.
Even wiki's common misconception page refute your arguments how laughable that


Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

no sudden spurts and super leaps sorry just the geological record appearing to show this and for a very good reason



Random DNA copying errors allegedly made us taller or shorter or smarter.
Height is down to parental gene recombination not copy errors and intelligence has no supporting evidence for being genetic


Now Regardless of which mechanism you subscribe to about these theories, one would have to believe, evolution is either like a craps player who has occasional streaks of uncanny good luck or evolution is like a gambler who never loses his luck is so good because he is using loaded dice.
Or one who looses all the time, birth defects, genetic diseases, extinction, atavisms etc and gets rid of them

sorry it a magicians trick it get rid of the faulty with a simple bit of misdirection so all you see are the survivors and if you only have a simplistic frame of what is happening you get a simplistic answer ..everything works perfect


If I was that attorney in that Dover trial I would like to take Dawkins testimony of the stumped question video, you know the "engrossing one" where I will disect his incoherent mangled mutterings, tht make NO sense what so ever.
Why would you get a video unrelated to the Dover trial or the witness there? Also things usually do not make sense when you tag the answer for one question on the end of another question

if i was the opposing counsel id get a court order for the original unedited video footage and laugh as your video is show ONCE AGAIN for the fakery it is


I encourage you to correct me if I am missing something but keep in mind we are about to hear the testimoney of the leading Prof. in his field in the UK one,
yes a leading professor that you have quoted and removed any context to, have provided no links to, state he has avoided the question but that unable to be substantiated as you removed the question and context and once again failed to preset a link not only common courtesy but also an aid for showing the validity of your claims ... missing link suddenly explained then


After copy pasting his statement to my Science writer program


great you copied a spoken conversation which we have no context for was it general conversation? Part of a lecture? Thinking out loud? A preliminary answer to allow time for the formation of a better more concise one? One you made up earlier? You threw it in a word processor and let fly


p.s. try putting your posts in there and hitting spell check and grammar, if you're going to rebuke other make sure you're not doing the same ...



Their example of drug interruption therapy for HIV illustrates an important point that PBS chose to ignore. It has been noted by some people that the "super bugs" (the most drug resistant bacteria), tend to exist primarily in hospitals. There is an explanation for this observation which is consistent with the facts.
yes it called natural selection


According to this explanation, ordinary bacteria don't survive well in the antiseptic environment of a hospital. Only the antiseptic-resistant varieties are able to survive there. The reason why they survive is that they don't absorb antibiotics very well. The reason why they don't absorb antibiotics very well is that they don't absorb anything well, including nutrients. Outside the hospital environment, they have to compete with other bacteria that do absorb nutrients well. Consequently, the super bugs starve to death when they have to compete with ordinary critters
yes that natural selection in action

but umm what is this here to show? What is the point of this? why no link? And how old is it as drug interruption therapy has been shown to be inconsistent and in many cases completely ineffective when dealing with resistant strain of HIV1 and so are used for other drug resistant trains of virus but not HIV ... and those study go back before 2003

www3.niaid.nih.gov...

is this just padding to fill it out so it seems more litelligable and factual then it is?


[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
There are a good number of biologists who believe in god. Theodosius Dobhzenski, Kenneth Miller, Robert Bakker, etc. Many more are Agnostic, or deist. However, even though some of them may believe in a guided evolution - that an omnipotent being with full knowledge of past and future unto eternity could set up the system in advance to produce particular desired outcomes - none of them will claim magic or the supernatural, because science is only ever naturalistic. Even if you could substantiate that "God Did It", science would not accept that answer - because we would still want to know HOW he did it. How and under what mechanism would the natural world be altered to produce such an outcome.


gahh dont you know anything they arnt True Christians™


Originally posted by Aermacchi
Just because Miller says he is a Christian doesn't mean he is



Originally posted by Aermacchi
What I think of him as an atheist, albeit they DO support evoluton and have recruited dim witts like Ken Miller JUST so they can say Christians support it to but Ill explain why this is absolutley asinine to suggest such a ridiculous assertion. One simple reason is God never spoke to an evolving Adam and Eve. Wanna be a Christian? You got to believe at least SOME of the Bible and Miller throws it out in the very first book


if you dont follow Genesis as laid out in the bible(that means no metaphors folk i presented that one and was told no)

then your not a True Christian™

isnt that right Aerm?

if you dont believe in talking snakes and magic trees as real and object to human evolution then you cant get into heaven ......

Maybe you should warn Behe he supports common descent after all ..

[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Interesting side note about all this 'darwin debating'. Utah of all places decided that Evolution was the core of biology:

Utah a bit less whacky?


This coming from the state where the major religion publically called dinosaurs an 'anti-creation trick of the devil'.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


strange thing are certainly afoot

latest Gallup poll on evolution/creationism is vastly different to the 2007

2007
evolution 49%
creationsim 48%
undecided/no opinion either way 2%
no answer 1%

2009
evolution 39%
creationsim/id 25%
undecided/no opinion either way 36%
no answer 1%

yes evolution dropped by 10% overall but creationsim/ID nose dived a whopping 23%

Utah bieng less odd, gallup showing a large swing .......

Either Obama has been making big changes like he said he would or the has Rapture happened and no ones noticed becasue all the noisy ones have been left behind


[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I hope you're not using the popularity of a certain concept among laymen as an indicator of scientific evidence? If you are, that would be a very flawed point.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 


I think its more fair to say noob was mentioning the study to measure public opinion on the whole topic. Not giving proof to validity on either front.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Well, luckily we don't use public opinion to gauge the accuracy of science. If we did, our future would be SOL.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 


Very true.. too bad the rest of how we interact with each other wasnt the same. Then we might have governments protecting from things like public bigotry in all it's forms, a sensible run broadcast standard (where watching someone get ripped apart would be handled with a bit more heavy handedness than someone slipping by the f-bomb or a nipple-shot),,,

Course, the whole debate isn't all that scientific and is brought about by people who seem to hold their main argument as 'I should get equal air to say what I want too! I said it, so it's just as valid as your 'theory'! Cause... it's a theory too right?!'.

I have yet to see a REAL debate on this. I mean, outside of people like us on a forum. I would like to see Biologists, Chemists, Geologists etc. all weigh in in a controlled platform. They key though is, they must have a degree in a science from a reputable school (no mail in PhD's please).

No Drama, just pure fact presentation.

Course, Im sure the ID people would just squeal censorship like that 'no brains allowed' docudrama.

Meh, this post is a bit more facetious then I set out for, but I don't want to go through and re-write at the moment. Might revisit later on.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellish-D
reply to post by noobfun
 


I hope you're not using the popularity of a certain concept among laymen as an indicator of scientific evidence? If you are, that would be a very flawed point.


sweet baby jesus riding on a T-rex at dino land! hell no i wouldnt use public opinion to check the colour of the sky unless i could personally pick who the public involved would be let alone somthing important like the validty of science

just highlighting another strange twist in the public opinion, Utah U-turn and then the public dump creationsim on mass

it doesnt make creationism any less/more retarded then it already is now that people are leaving it

(no argumentum ad populorum intended i appologise if i gave that impression)

cretinsim will always be moronic if 1 or 1billion people follow its day dreams and magic 6 days god in his shed buildathon



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 



sweet baby jesus riding on a T-rex at dino land!


If you had laser beams in there, I might have had to change my pants...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
You.... DO... realize that the theory of Evolution is actually a lot more well founded than even the theory of gravity... don't you?


No I had not heard that. Well "founded" you say huh? I see it all the time too, so many people would be willing to jump off a cliff to disprove Gravity than to ever deny we evolved from MacGilla Gorilla



Do you deny gravity


I love to deny gravity, and when I think about it, that DOES make for a nice slogan for one of our best advances in intelligent design copied from the original agent designer who created birds of prey. www.aermacchi.it...

Whether you deny the obvious intention of design when you see it or not, if we didn't challenge such precepts and theory, we would never advance past the dogmas held by the clerics of science today such as Darwins original Idea that survival means the most fit survive and pass on there genes. The fastest gazelle doesn’t have any real advantage over the most of the other slower gazelle's even when it is the fastest gazelle in a herd of 200 others, it doesn't matter how much faster it is to escape the lions that hunt them, the fastest one is NOT the one that has any advantage.

Selection doesn’t favor the fastest gazelles.

it eliminates the slowest ones.

A gazzelle doesn't have to outrun the lion, it only has to outrun the other gazzelles and THAT's the one, the lion will get.

Evolutionists never seem to see the subtle nuances, they just assume they are always right. That's ok, I can live with that in spite of the subtle ad-hom's I have been seeing here to mock and assume your alleged supeior POV.

Like many of you here, Darwin failed to realize the difference between varieties and species. He failed to understand the obvious when the obvious is surely displayed but interpreted so erroneuously by Darwinists.

The idea that varieties are species in the process of formation, where was the evidence of this? That this DOES happen Darwins reasoning was simply that species exist, so they must have come from varieties.

That isn’t sound reasoning, it is baseless speculation.
Those here who mistakenly believe ther is no limit to the amount of variation in a species are believing in a "just so " dogma of Darwinian delerium.

The idea that their is no limit to variation that could be caused by exercise, diet, and environment is wrong too.

Sorry to inform you but you are not as smart as you all think you are in spite of the diggs as to how funny it is to you that people still don't embrace your worldview but the fact still remains, the mountain of evidence for evolution is for the most part a mountain of BS, old debunked evidence and manufactured models of manipulative men who couldn't handle the idea that if they didn't finally prove this draconian dogma for Darwit, they would fade away.

Too bad too, because since they have had control of science, science has fallen in this country and it is the TOE that has many wondering why are they still teaching it.




? Is there a separation between MicroGravity and MacroGravity? Like... gravity can hold me to the planet, but it can never form the planet.



Your analogy is correct save for the part about it being a term used to discern gravity. You see the idea of gravity "forming a planet" not being proven would be the part we reject as it is unproven. Attaching unproven dogmas to proven ones may seem clever to the wordsmithing Atheist, but it doesn't make the unproven part, any less unproven. It does however, show the extremes those trying to pass this kind of fraud and deception off as scientific fact, will lower themselves to.




If there's a consensus... there's a damned good reason for it. Evidence... which creationists simply reject out of hand, poorly analyze, or don't seem to comprehend.


The reason for it has NOTHING to do with our alleged memeplex viris predisposing us to the idiocy of a belief in a common designer. We simply don't fear such an idea as a possible answer to the creation question Darwins theory fails to satisfy without mocking or insulting people which I contend is the most counter productive proof I continue to see being used by Darwinists.


Oh.. right... ID reality allows for "magic". My bad.


You're bad, and I concur


Worse is when they claim it's in interpretation, and then follow with completely illogical and irrational alternatives. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, so much so that it forms a twin nested hierarchy, and if it's premise were faulty - then biology simply wouldn't work. No amount of fudging data would be able to fix it, and you would NOT be getting the practical applications out of it.

Reality simply wouldn't allow it.


perphaps reality is different for Darwinists like reality is different for people on drugs.


To suggest that pretty much all of the scientists from around the world in all the various biological schools, along with the government... and apparently the Catholic and Anglican church are in some grand conspiracy... even on just the sciences side, it just show a very poor understanding of just how willing your colleagues are to slit your throat at the slightest hint of opportunity. That is, after all, how science works... by disproving possibilities and narrowing our understanding down to the best working theories available. And they are very good at what they do. e quote here


GuFaW!!!! HA HA HA This is just sillyness, now I know why they call this kind of arymentative style a logical fallacy for calling to authority and the one you seem so fond of called ad-populim, ad-infinitum.

I have nothing against Science and your attempt at attaching the blind alley's and vistas of evolution to REAL Sciences that actually have acheived something more notable than to be wasting time in arguments still trying to prove they deserve any respect. I mean when you listen to the snide sneering criticism I see you making patent here, only proves my point that the best thing we can do in the face of such arrogance and exaggerations, is ignore them. I have done just that with one member of this thread already.




There are a good number of biologists who believe in god. Theodosius Dobhzenski, Kenneth Miller, Robert Bakker, etc. Many more are Agnostic, or deist. However, even though some of them may believe in a guided evolution - that an omnipotent being with full knowledge of past and future unto eternity could set up the system in advance to produce particular desired outcomes - none of them will claim magic or the supernatural, because science is only ever naturalistic. Even if you could substantiate that "God Did It", science would not accept that answer - because we would still want to know HOW he did it. How and under what mechanism would the natural world be altered to produce such an outcome.


Oh the idea that you can be a member of the Science clique if you are a Christian but ONLY as long as you believe in evolution! Otherwise Ken Miller and many others like him would suffer the same childless mindless backroom politics of these so called learned men and woman, but all I see is to get along you got to go along. Ken Miller is just trying to keep his Job but he is a Coward in circles of Christianity.


Just reading the many hatefull emails by these so called leaders of science tells me I can continue to take claims like you have made here lash, with a grain of salt.

www.discovery.org...

www.discovery.org...

The idea that environmental pressures is what caused variation to occur so much that we get a divergent path and a new vertical branch of new species, is as ridiculous as if you planted tomatos in poor soil, the tomato's would acquire the ability to grow in poor soil as a “direct action of the poor soil.”

Darwin was wrong about acquired characteristics being inherited but that didn't stop haekle


Muscles, and organs, do atrophy with disuse and is an acquired characteristic, which is NOT inherited. Darwin thought acquired characteristics WERE inherited, so he came to this erroneous understanding of “rudimentary organs.” which I have seen said as vestigal organs.

if he is honest, an intelligent evolutionist won’t even argue that vestigial organs are evidence of evolution for two reasons.

1) They know acquired characteristics aren’t inherited. So, organs will not shrink or become less efficient over many generations through disuse.

2) Now that most, or perhaps all, “useless” vestigial organs have uses. Darwin got this wrong, and most evolutionists know it.

Macroevolution isn’t just a whole lot of microevolution as I have seen you and many other Darwinists claim in other threads.

It is an entirely different process.

That’s why microevolution has as little to do with macroevolution as losing money has to do with getting rich.

As usual we see the Darwinist's clever in their use of semantics and circular reasoning, using analogy that on the surface may sound clever to them like some thread stopping comeback or like the one I have seen given below:

"if you see a train leaving New York, then observe it arriving some time later in Chicago, one can reasonably conclude that, given enough time, the train will eventually arrive in Los Angeles"

They don’t like to admit their is a distinction between the two. They would like to lump both processes together in the catch-all phrase the same way they try to merge the very word "Science" to mean “evolution” so that they can say, “Evolution can be demonstrated in the laboratory,” and not have to admit that microevolution can easily be demonstrated, but macroevolution never has, no not ever.

Save the examples I have seen yours before lash and if you like hair follicles turning into feather making machines while being like noob citing the DNA for such a change merely has to be activated" Ill say again, SHOW ME THE GENE! Show me the gay gene the god gene and all the genes they allege they have unravled in all the other bogus experiments like Lemski's original idea that DNA was added to the bacteria and now that WE have proven the trait for citrate was always within its genetic capabilities, Darwinists LIKE TO SAY THAT IS HOW ALL CHANGES OCCUR. Yes changes in in micro evolution and like the train going from Chicago to Los Angles we can expect it will get there but if you want to get to Honolulu,,

You better find another method for a mechanism in that kind of travel because the microevo train can't fly and doesn't cut it across that much water,,

much less, that much BS







[edit on 14-2-2009 by Aermacchi]


sty

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
well, we can say that there are still debates on the Newtonian phisics too. This will not mean that we cannot put satelites into orbit or send interplanetary probes just because some people will have issues with understanding it.. (celestial mechanics)

[edit on 14-2-2009 by sty]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Has anyone heard the old story about the blind men who where asked to describe an elephant.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join