Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Stylez

It doesn't make you look like you made any point to refute my argument other than to suggest It was saying something science that happens to be a quite true. In fact through this entire thread you have used this tactic

When you can form a legible sentence I will engage in discussion with you. Other than that you can accuse me of ridicule all you want, you deserve to be ridiculed. Every time somebody has presented a question or evidence that counters your "god did it" attitude you and your buddy John have ignored it completely. How many times now?

You think that you "Put the extreme in right wing"? See really you put the "extreme" in ignorance.

Guess what??? denied!

(oh and you really don't have to bother with a response, I wont be reading it.)

reply to post by Stylez

Ha ha I remember when dolphinman was discovered lol had us going till it was debunked

This is not a "dolphinman". This is documented fact with many examples and specimens.

Yes we are all made from DNA and DNA can make anything but only within the parameters of its DNA templated form.

Correct. Meaning whale legs and human tails are in that DNA template from previous common ancestors. You will not find a whale atavism of feathers because it has no ancestor link to birds.....same for humans.

It suggests to me you have accepted evolution as true before the speculation is fact and it ain't.

Sorry you are wrong. I question everything and am not a devote evolutionist. I do think evolution is not necessarily exclusive of a creator. Just no facts are in on that side of the coin.

No I can't understand what religion has to do with science or this topic about darwins theory. If you can't tell me you can't help me?

WTF are you talking about ?? Is that your answer ? You might as well have said "God did it" because they both avoid the question to a subject YOU raised. If you are not going to justify why you keep making comments about religion in a discussion about science then who the hell is really trying to put religion in science, cuz it sure isn't me,.

First of all.....I mentioned religion ONCE . Again it was to contrast John's silly statement., not to bring religion into the debate. YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up and I provided you my answer. Re-read the posts in order and stop bringing up religion. Oh, that means no links to creationist sites to support your stance, like John's been using, ( geez I wonder who brought up religion in the first place? ).

This is your question I answered:

I don't understand what religion has to do with this and unless you can prove what religion a creator is affiliated with, I don't see how it is relevent other than to make a strawman. Their are people in Science that have other interests like religion or maybe they like weight lifting. Are you going to preface your arguments against such people bringing up the mistakes weightlifters make bout wight lifting or just those they are trying to back door into science because they don't make smart scientists which is the same logic behind bringing up religion in a tit for tat argument

I can't answer for John Matrix but I suspect he said what he did because it's the truth and don't be sayin "Us guys are getting off track pal, we can start all over again if you like, or we can ask YOU to get back on track.

How is what he said the truth other than your opinion? Since you want to keep this scientific, please provide your data. And yes your off track because you keep asking me why I brought religion( which I explained several posts ago and here again), making claims with no evidence and making flippant remarks that have no bearing on this debate.

I am curious however, How do you believe man got to this point today. Remember no religion!!

reply to post by refuse_orders



LOL!!! I thought it was just me! I've had to re-read his posts several times to understand what point he is trying to make or what his question is

Originally posted by Jim Scott
You don't need to be at odds if you believe in evolution and creation. God could have created it in six days and made it look like evolution.

Precisely my friend. But the evolutionists ridiculed that argument a while back. But I say it makes perfect sense that God's creation was mature from day one. I'm glad you came along and mentioned it again.

Science is not evolution, and evolution is not science. Evolution is a term that materialists/naturalists use to define their belief in life from non life inanimate matter; speciation (one species becoming two through adaptive evolution and mutations); lower life forms changing to higher life forms over eons of time.

Man has evolved technical knowledge in many areas, much more so in the last 50 years than in all of combined known history, but he has not evolved physically into anything new.

So I accept a definition for evolution that is much more limited. In other words, it's not the word I have problem with, it's the group who decided to won it and use it improperly to label their nonsense with a name that has become mistakenly synonymous with science.

The adaptive response is not evidence for evolution, it is evidence for design right down to the DNA level.


[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by refuse_orders

 

LOL!!! I thought it was just me! I've had to re-read his posts several times to understand what point he is trying to make or what his question is

All of them? I missed the word "in" amazing how that does mess up the entire paragragh but that's a paragragh . If there are any other posts you don't understand or my typing while trying to dry off after that shower caused, please feel free. Or I suppose believing your interlocutors are all basically incoherant is more "scientific" and more adult.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by John Matrix
Random natural processes does not have the intelligence to make the decision to keep trying.

How would it know what to try for?

Humans can make that decision to keep trying, nature cannot.

Life doesn't know what to try for. I suspect that's why 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

But your calcs involves assigning human attributes (such as decision making, choice, trying, etc.) which inanimate matter cannot do, that is why your calcs is flawed. The chances of winning a lottery increases for humans if they keep trying, but inanimate matter cannot keep trying to randomly produce life. So the random chances (without intelligence) never changes, regardless of how many gazillion years you give it. The chances increase in a laboratory, but for man to reproduce the random spontaneous generation of life, he still faces mind boggling odds.

A single celled organism is more complex then the space shuttle. This should make people stop and think about just how difficult it is for man to create a living cell from non living matter that can replicate itself, let alone it happening by random chance.

[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


In addition to my above post, I will add than at least 2000 independent functioning proteins are needed to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. The spontaneous generation of even one polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein presents improbable odds. These need to spontaniously generate in a short period of time for the peptide bonds to survive....among other things...LOL....otherwise the process has to restart.

Speaking of restart. Lets add into the equation the catastrophic cosmic events of the past wiping out all life....causing the process to have to restart again......the odds truly bury Darwin and the whole of evolution theory.





[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

This is my first post, but this is something I am passionate about.

There are so many arguments for both sides and unfortunately as evidenced here there is some sort of line in some peoples brains for what is and is not science, what is and is not fact and so on. Which ever side you are on you are opposite to the other.

Evolution is one of these subjects where this line seems to blur, alot of times in an evolution versus religion debate. I would say in general they are not something that is against each other but can work in a sense without totally taking the Bible as fact.

But then again why not continue to take a 2000 year old book as absolute truth.

Very few modern school classes grade school through college use textbooks that old, in fact if they are more than a couple of years old they are often out of date with considered facts and teachers must make corrections.

Just something to think about.

I am not saying religion is bad or anything, in fact I don't care what you believe in. Spirituality is good for a lot of people. But don't sit here and confuse science with religion; they are separate beasts.

In response to the OP and not just what this has degenerated into:

In all honesty I believe this to be true one hundred percent. It is unfortunate to know this but I am aware as to how... limited the US population is to new ideas. Its like they wanna stay stuck in the values of the 1950's but in a way that is hard to describe. I even find this limitation in my own family and I consider us to be more aware and tolerant than most people.

It makes me sad that something that could really teach people something is being held from us because of money reasons. But: even as I typed that I realized well why of course, is not as though anyone goes out of their way to give us the truth, there is always a money motivation behind anything anymore and it hurts.

Darwin is not Evolution and Evolution is not Darwin although they are related.

Darwin gave us the beginnings and it has altered changed and adapted to the realities with the natural world, in a scientific manner. DNA sequencing has truly helped the understanding of taxonomies and has given us more understandings not only in DNA and Evolution but in Biology and many other fields.

Learning about Darwin won't hurt anyone. The evolution he predicted is solid at its core, however the true intricacies of evolution would not be discovered till decades later. The use of the word "theory" to some how bash evolution is just proof in ignorance. In grade school as early as 5th and 6th grade you are learning the scientific method. And in that time you are taught: Theories are something that has been tested repeatedly over time by other scientists in most any field of research. Science is about tearing others work apart so that your name can be on the theory or what have you. As a result things that last as long as say Evolution have been entirely tested to death and yet has continued to stay and endure. I have not heard of anything similar in other fields of study involving the changing of the natural world.


Ah well, I myself am an evolutionist, and so even I am not impartial but I understand the desire to want to lean on a spiritual leader, even if he has been dead for a while.

To the guy above: Listen man evolution has nothing to do with that is doesn't say that doesn't occur it just says that everything in the natural world evolved together and thats why there are so many specialized specials and such. Plants, animals, insects, all of it.




[edit on 21-9-2009 by ChildOfUranus]

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

In addition to my above post, I will add than at least 2000 independent functioning proteins are needed to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. The spontaneous generation of even one polypeptide of the size of the smallest known protein presents improbable odds. These need to spontaniously generate in a short period of time for the peptide bonds to survive....among other things...LOL....otherwise the process has to restart.

Speaking of restart. Lets add into the equation the catastrophic cosmic events of the past wiping out all life....causing the process to have to restart again......the odds truly bury Darwin and the whole of evolution theory.

[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

Glad you brought that up John,



A fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince?

Oh that's diferen't Joh Matrix, because now we have a "Theory" now we have a "plausible" explanation because now we can call it


EVOLUTION!



You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. What is even more aggravating is when they start talking to you saying "clearly you have no understanding of evolution". Clearly, the more we know about this theory, the more we know their is nothing to know. Certainly nothing that won't be proven completely wrong 6 months later.


If the creation model is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove the creation model wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found. Darwin taught that many little changes over a long period of time will add up to big changes. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would either prove or falsify his theory. Darwin realized the difficulty the fossil record (missing links) gave his theory when he said,

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Today, top evolutionists know that Darwin's predictions of what the fossil record would reveal have failed.

Harvard University professor Stephen Jay Gould, one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study".

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...




From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time.


In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution.


Then we have another theory of evolution if the first one doesn't work, which says, the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science?

Unequivocally absolutely not and any so called "means of observing these events have taken place, NOT observations either, but the imagined, conjectured, speculations of a science tht is now relegated to historical science.

if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, Oh yeah yeah that is MUCHmore likely to be true then and why? Because then it become EVOLUTION!


PffffffT!!!


Hey using that logic, given enough time I suppose elvis can come back


Today they just can't explain how! With enough time the impossible becomes probable!


Archaeopteryx, once the star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted .

Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677,reported this in 1986,: "Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary Hypotheses", "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features tend to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Au revoir Archaeopteryx!

Australopithecus one of the oldest hominid fossils known or "Lucy", It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. another big star to the evolutionists' stage show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey's never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man and considered it simply and extinct ape.

Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', , and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89 says: Good-bye Lucy!


The problem isn't that we don't understand evolution, the problem is that evolution isn't really being taught. Even the examples most of you have been given to support evolution have been long considered lies, hoax, fudged data, biased computer models, manufactured evidence using alibaster skulls created by palentology artisans, pitifully and pathetically piled high onto the piltdown pile of fraud they call the mountain of evidence piled high like that to punk, prank pollute the multitudes of students who like you have all displayed, buy this load of crap, lock, stock and by the barrel full.


New York Times had an article called, Inherits the Spin, and Republishes Darwinists' Error-Filled "Answers" to Jonathan Wells' "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher"

| Main | New York Times Rehashes Darwinist Myths about Haeckel's Embryo Drawings and Evolution »

Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution" With Evasions and Falsehoods

According to the NCSE, many of the claims in my questions "are incorrect or misleading," and they are "intended only to create unwarranted doubts in students' minds about the validity of evolution as good science." It is actually the NCSE's answers, however, that are incorrect or misleading. My original questions (in italics) are posted below; each question is followed by the NCSE's answer (in bold), a brief outline of my response, and then my detailed response. Numbers in parentheses refer to research notes at the end.

Please feel free to copy and distribute this document to teachers, students, parents, and other interested parties.


My Question: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth--when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

NCSE’s Answer: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth’s early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

My Response in Outline:

(a) Most biology textbooks include the origin of life--and the Miller-Urey experiment--in their treatments of evolution. If the NCSE feels that the origin of life is really “not a question about evolution,” the organization should launch a campaign to correct biology textbooks.

(b) Because the Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated atmosphere that geochemists now agree was incorrect, it was not the “first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.” When conditions are changed to reflect better knowledge of the Earth’s early atmosphere, the experiment doesn’t work.

(c) If the origin of life “remains a vigorous area of research,” it is only because origin-of-life researchers are dedicated to their work, not because they have discovered anything that demonstrates how life originated.

Jonathon Wells has become somewhat of a pain in the NCSE's ass and has become the target of ridicule using the same asinine tactic suggesting such truth be brought to light is deserving of such ridicule as the OP has subscribed to, is only safe to consider on the internet, I think it is also safe to assume such tactics being said in person just might get the OPs lungs pulled up right out of his mouth if done in person. That isn't a threat, by the way, it is just real good advice.

Wells continues,

My Response in Detail:

(a) The NCSE’s claim that the origin of life is “not a question about evolution” ignores the fact that most biology textbooks include it--along with the Miller-Urey experiment--in their treatments of evolution. For example, Campbell, Reece and Mitchell’s Biology (5th Edition, 1999), one of the most widely used introductory textbooks for college undergraduates, discusses the Miller-Urey experiment in “Unit Five: The Evolutionary History of Biological Diversity.” Similarly, Mader’s Biology (6th Edition, 1998), Starr and Taggart’s Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th Edition, 1998), Schraer and Stoltze’s Biology: The Study of Life (7th Edition, 1999), Guttman’s Biology (1999), Audesirk, Audesirk and Byers’s Life On Earth (2nd Edition, 2000), and Purves, Sadava, Orians and Heller’s Life: The Science of Biology (6th Edition, 2001) all feature the Miller-Urey experiment in their sections dealing with evolution. Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts and Watson’s upper-division textbook for biology majors, Molecular Biology of the Cell (3rd Edition, 1994), discusses it in a chapter titled “Evolution of the Cell.” The Miller-Urey experiment is also standard fare in upper division and graduate-level textbooks devoted entirely to evolution, such as Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology (3rd Edition, 1998) and Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis (2nd Edition, 2001). If the NCSE feels that the origin of life is really “not a question about evolution,” the organization should launch a campaign to correct biology textbooks.1

(b) The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated hydrogen-rich atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor. By 1970, however, geochemists were nearly unanimous in agreeing that the Earth’s primitive atmosphere was nothing like this. Excess hydrogen is quickly lost to space because the Earth’s gravity is too weak to hold it, so the early atmosphere would almost certainly have consisted of gasses emitted from volcanoes--mainly carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. When this more realistic mixture is put into a Miller-Urey-type apparatus, the experiment doesn’t work. Stanley Miller himself reported in 1983 that the most he could produce in the absence of methane was glycine, the simplest amino acid, and then only if free hydrogen were present. But free hydrogen is precisely what geochemists now agree was essentially ABSENT. So the Miller-Urey experiment was unsuccessful, and NCSE’s claim that it was the “first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth” is false. The NCSE’s claim that “when modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth’s early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks” is also false.

(c) If the origin of life “remains a vigorous area of research,” it is only because origin-of-life researchers are dedicated to their work, not because they have discovered anything that demonstrates how life originated. As New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade wrote in 2000: “Everything about the origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get.”

One of the most obvious indicators proving evolution keeps getting more absurd the more research discovers the more evoltion has to explain and the more time has to be added to the species the more unlikely the original "story" of how it came to be is far fetched.

In 1989 a “glucose pump” was discovered in certain mammals. Existing in mammalian cells, hundreds of these molecules “pop” up into the membrane of skeletal muscle cells to crisscross the cell membrane several times over. When activated by insulin, glucose is actively pumped into the cells, thus lowering blood sugar. When insulin levels drop the “glucose pumps” drop back inside the cell. Evolutionary molecular biologists estimate that this process alone required 20-45 million years to evolve.

Stasis is what we see in the fossil record and although evolutionist's claim evolution is happening all the time, where are the three handed humans? Surely we could all use an extra hand giving us the advantages an extra hand would offer, Where are the many different mutating humans?

Wells continues:

My Question: [DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor--thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

NCSE’s Answer: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian--aren’t these “major groups”? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as “modern”; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals--but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.


My Response in Outline:

(a) The NCSE is wrong: Fish DID make their first appearance in the Cambrian explosion.

(b) The “major groups” to which my question refers are the animal phyla. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are sub-groups (classes) of a single phylum. The NCSE is using semantics to give the illusion that the Cambrian explosion never happened.

(c) It is through assumption and extrapolation, not “fossils” and “data from developmental biology,” that Darwinists are supposedly “linking” the Cambrian groups.

My Response in Detail:

(a) The fossil record shows that fish were among the animals that made their first appearance in the Cambrian explosion.

www.evolutionnews.org...

You can read how wells proves the entire academic structure is flawed from stem to stern and how it affects all of us.

DNA typically includes three billion rungs of a digital, error-correcting code. A digital code gets its significance from arbitrary, but consistent, definitions. A digital code language requires context! Evidence indicates that this 4 letter alphabet and its associated codes have not changed throughout the history of the earth.

the most important protein is hemoglobin. It is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing. there is only one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. there are about 10650 permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.

In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10500+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 1017 seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe, so you would have had to work rather quickly. Also, realize that there are only about 10 66 atoms in the universe, so you can't waste material on false tries and THIS is where we find errors in probability don't add up. You see, again, the more we find out about the complexities of life, the more time evoltion has to account for it, and there just isn't time left. There are, of course, no dead atheists (James 2:19).

It takes a lot of commitment to blindness and fallacies to be an atheist in these times.
Considering that DNA only allows two mutations and that those are usually having nothing to do with the advancement of the species if not lethal to it.

Life happening any other way but by design is absurd and it is for that reason, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist, and certainly don't have enough trust in a science when the science is nothing but a pack of lies.


,
R.I.P. Darwin!






[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by ChildOfUranus

This is my first post, but this is something I am passionate about.

There are so many arguments for both sides and unfortunately as evidenced here there is some sort of line in some peoples brains for what is and is not science, what is and is not fact and so on. Which ever side you are on you are opposite to the other.

Evolution is one of these subjects where this line seems to blur, alot of times in an evolution versus religion debate. I would say in general they are not something that is against each other but can work in a sense without totally taking the Bible as fact.

But then again why not continue to take a 2000 year old book as absolute truth.

Very few modern school classes grade school through college use textbooks that old, in fact if they are more than a couple of years old they are often out of date with considered facts and teachers must make corrections.

Just something to think about.

Well most of what is in "modern" text books should have been removed many years ago. It took over 45 years to finally get pilt down man off the list of proofs. The idea that books become outdated if it deals in truth must mean they don't have the truth. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is the truth even if no one believes it no matter how old it is.

Learning about Darwin won't hurt anyone.

Wasn't it you saying how backward the US is about science and new ideas etc? Well that sure as hell isn't because creationist have been allowed to say anything. Evolution is the paradigm and it has failed as it should have.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Of course it raises the question about why God would do that. And it basically renders any science based on observation meaningless (either traditional science or "creation science") because the sciences are based on the principle that our observations don't lie to us, and in that event, the observations would be lying to us, making us think the Earth was ancient when it's really not.

Well, exactly. That's really this whole debate in a nutshell. Science is based on observation & thus only hypotheses which can be tested by observation can be considered scientific. Even if it turns out that a divinity did create everything in a deliberately misleading fashion, that would not change the definition of science.
As to the claims that evolution cannot be tested by observation, they are simply false. By analysing & cataloguing as much of the flora & fauna of earth as we can, continually, if evolution happens, eventually it will be observed, by future scientists comparing their data to that which has been previously collected. However, maybe something else will be observed in stead. Then the theory will be revised to fit the new data.
I find it quite amusing that some people in this thread have cited the way science does continually update its theories as a problem with it. As if there can be no merit to a theory unless its hypotheses were guessed exactly right 1st time!

Originally posted by John Matrix
Man has evolved technical knowledge in many areas, much more so in the last 50 years than in all of combined known history, but he has not evolved physically into anything new.

100% BS.

How do you think Europeans, during the period of colonalisation surived in new lands? How do you think the natives managed to, in time, deal with old world disease?

It is called adaptation, which is apart of the evolution theory. Species adapt towards their new surroundings without the help of a magical friend in the clouds. Are you suggesting that humans are all equally the same, regardless of their environment?

Originally posted by John Matrix
I think Bunken Drum used an article to discredit a point I made a few pages back, in which he claimed scientists had made living cells. I read the article and found the cells to by "synthetic" using parts of already living cells. Not quite making life completely from non living particles.

That is incorrect. Why would I mention "cells" when the article was about ribosomes? What those Harvard scientists have done is copy parts of naturally occuring ribosomes to create the 1st synthetic, self-replicating organic components of life.
Nor did I claim that they had made synthetic life. My point was simply that it is not only possible to test the hypothesis that life can form from non-life, in a proper scientific manner, but that scientists are busily doing so right now. Thus the theory of abiogenesis is scientific, since it is subject to being disproved by observation, whilst creationism is not since we have no means to test for the presence of any gods.
Was this an instance of misunderstanding science combined with poor reading comprehension &/or a bad memory, or did John Matrix deliberately misrepresent my position? Since we have prior evidence suggesting all of the above, its difficult to say for sure...

Originally posted by ChildOfUranus
But then again why not continue to take a 2000 year old book as absolute truth. Very few modern school classes grade school through college use textbooks that old, in fact if they are more than a couple of years old they are often out of date with considered facts and teachers must make corrections.

I take your comment as sarcasm aimed at making people look stupid for taking the Bible seriously, and your follow up comments prove my initial assumption to be correct.

Look! The Bible is an important historical document that has proven over and over again to be historically, scientifically, geographically, geologically, archaeologically accurate.

The Bible contributes to many areas of study such as psychology, philosophy, poetry, social sciences, teaching etc.

Much of the Bible is prophecy. The prophecies that have been fulfilled already, have been fulfilled perfectly and literally, exactly as they were written. But those under a strong delusion refuse to give it credibility, while listening to modern prophets who fail over and over again on ATS and other forum sites.

Most importantly, the Bible directs mankind to seek the divine attributes of God's character through following after his Son, the Christ, and desiring the things of the Spirit, such as spiritual fruit over material things. Spiritual fruit is described as Love, Joy, Peace, Goodness, Kindness, Gentleness, Patience, Forgiveness, Compassion, etc. Against such things there is no LAW. What's so harmful about teaching people about that? But the Evolutionists and atheists stand against it, by discarding the Bible as a book of fairy tales.

The Bible gives people hope where there is no hope.

I am not saying religion is bad or anything, in fact I don't care what you believe in. Spirituality is good for a lot of people. But don't sit here and confuse science with religion; they are separate beasts.

Don't sit here and confuse evolution with science.
Don't confuse spirituality with religion.
Don't confuse one's belief in what the Bible teaches with religion.
Don't confuse creation with religion.
If you are going to start don'ting on people, start with yourself.

That the bible, or religious groups support creation science does not make creation science a religion.

Learning about Darwin won't hurt anyone.

How do you know this? How do you know that people don't go out and commit all manner of lawless acts and murders as a result of accepting the delusion that they evolved and are no different than animals, thinking they won't be held accountable to God for their evil acts becasue they are just a product of chance, like all the other forms of life?

But learning about creation won't hurt anyone, because it leads people to understand their creator, opens their creative capacities, encourages individual responsibilty, and promotes divine character in mankind.

OOOOO such a bad thing!!

Ah well, I myself am an evolutionist,

I saw that coming from your first statement...LOL

Evolution never happened. It is mathematically impossible.

The proof of creation is in the design. It's everywhere. It's self evident!

You would do well to ask yourself why others see it so plainly while you do not.

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by John Matrix
Man has evolved technical knowledge in many areas, much more so in the last 50 years than in all of combined known history, but he has not evolved physically into anything new.

100% BS.

How do you think Europeans, during the period of colonalisation surived in new lands? How do you think the natives managed to, in time, deal with old world disease?

It is called adaptation, which is apart of the evolution theory. Species adapt towards their new surroundings without the help of a magical friend in the clouds. Are you suggesting that humans are all equally the same, regardless of their environment?

Regardless of any adaptations, man has not evolved into anything else. A human is still a human. Man is still man. Male is male, female is female.

So you are 100% out of line with your comment.

Don't confuse the adaptive responses of our genetic make up with evolution.

Adaptive responses never caused any new species. There is no evidence whatsoever for speciation.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


The evidence for creation is all around you. The proof is in the design. It's everywhere. It's self evident. You are under a strong delusion if you cannot see it.

YOU don't want to see it because YOU don't like the idea that someday YOU will give account to HIM for YOUR deeds, whether good or bad.

Have you hurt someone? Maybe feel a bit of guilt? What are you afraid of?....becoming more intelligent, more creative, Understanding the mind of God, gaining wisdom, developing a better character, does humility scare you?

The mathematical odds for ambiogenisis occuring by random spontaneous generation of inanimate matter demonstrate it is impossible. Go back and do the math yourself. I posted source links, as did Stylez, so you can do the math. Stylez also posted his equations.

But, all you have done is shoot your mouth off, snipe me and make a fool of yourself.

I'm considering placing you front and center on my igore list, so mind your manners.

[edit on 21/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Well, exactly. That's really this whole debate in a nutshell. Science is based on observation & thus only hypotheses which can be tested by observation can be considered scientific.

Hypothesis: Intelligent design (can be tested by observation from looking at the constellations to microbes, polypeptides to DNA. The evidence is observed everywhere. It is a scientific FACT.

Evolution is not science. God's intelligent design is science.

Even if it turns out that a divinity did create everything in a deliberately misleading fashion,

Don't blame God for your refusal to believe that which is self evident. It's your acceptance and belief in a delusion that is the problem. Your denial of intelligent design is another problem.

Ever learning, but never able to accept the truth.
A Prophecy surely fulfilled by evolutionists.


[edit on 21/9/09 by John Matrix]

Delete post - cannot be bothered to deal with fundamentalists.

*clicks ignore*




[edit on 21-9-2009 by infinite]

reply to post by John Matrix


So let’s sum it up shall we. We have shown that even now as I type this post, modern text books are filled with garbage that is either debunked, fraudulent, hoax, and wishful thinking.

Then we have the many Scientists whose whole careers were a sham and their entire fossil records found to be hoaxes. Not just one but MANY starting with haekel and his fraudulent embryo's some of which were used to present proof humans have a vestigial tail! The make excuses for it knowing it is fraud, they go right on teaching it and do you know why?

BECAUSE behind closed doors, these same scientists will tell you it is ALL FRAUD so what the hell difference would it make. Google fraud in evolution and case after case after case after case is all there.

EVEN the famed Brontosaurus used by Sinclair Gasoline during the 60's you would take a drive down the legendary route 66 and see the famous signs everywhere. No such thing ever existed.

Then we have the many so called living fossils that haven't changed an IOTA over 30 million years. Every time one of these shows up, we ask this question and evolutionists will tell us that it was perfectly suited for its environment, that their were no selection pressures causing it to "evolve" or change much. Change much? I could get a sun tan and change more than that thing did in 30 millions years.

Not just some but ALL living fossils have had this excuse given them. Funny thing is, if their were no selection pressures why were they damn close to becoming extinct? Silly to even ASK I know. Even more silly is the answers we get.

When Piltdown man was discovered to be a fraud, you must realize the cocky arrogant atheist were defending it no different then we see them defending today’s current frauds and fakes. 50, PhD’s wrote peer reviewed praises of this pile of punked piffle 50! These were men of SCIENCE!!!!! Pffft yeah as if that makes them anything more than the duped dimwits of Darwinian indoctrination.

When you consider these men of science have taken some of the most obviously manufactured evidence and have used them as some of the foundational keystone artifacts to substantiate this religion of atheistic materialism, I mean COME ON a Tooth from a PIG! What we got to see created around that tooth is another entire generation of associated discovery and spin off hypothesis using the geographical area this alleged caveman was found adding to the inaccuracy of the science was that even after these frauds are discovered to be fraud and BUSTED, they never ever clean up the mess it has created. The assumptions for further archaeological digs erroneous as they are, continued to get tax payer grants and subsidies etc. The enormous branches off the evolutionary tree were never corrected to this day.

Then came the latest genre of manufactured evidence and so much of it was being created that it actually became a very lucrative industry for the Chinese to make money off the desperate to prove dino to bird theorists who paid for so many manufactured Frankenstein feathered foibles and fables, eventually the efforts to convince the public became so jaded from seeing one after another after another where you can find them still being touted as the PROOF! I have seen many here using the same examples where had they bothered to check the retraction archives where they were begrudgingly re-canted on the back pages of national geographic.

Then they could see how silly you and I see them now.

If they knew that lenskys famous citrate eating e-coli contained sugar or had figured out what was so painstakingly clear, that they had not evolved anything you would not have expected to see already coded as an adaptation variance in our DNA. That e-coli evolve into e-coli and I don't care if it were ten BILLION years from now carrying on lensky's experiments you would still have E-COLI and by then, you'd at least expect to see a pitri dish to monkey wouldn't you say?

One of the posts above got angry when you said man has not evolved. He thinks adaptation is something we are supposed to be astounded by as phenomena. Hehehe Even the mocked up valence we see here where the over embellished astonishment of the op and his surprise how many people STILL don't believe in evolution! My god is something didn't look more contrived and cagier. It makes you wonder "uhh like yeah, where have YOU been? In a cave?" Nothing bout those statistics are alarming and nothing about the U.S. being unimpressed with the likes of Darwin should surprise anyone. The fact is we have had so much of this over hyped under achiever whose plagiarized theory and complicit haekel hoaxed to coaxed peer reviewed papers and atheist advanced accomplishments are OLD news here and we Americans move on without batting an eye for the guy. He was nothing then, so why should he be anyone now. He is no Louis Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, hell he doesn't even cut it as a scientist and do you know why? BECAUSE he wasn't trained as one and that is obvious by reading his book!

My god if you ever wanted to read someone so desperate to sound like a scientists that wasn't one, READ Origins. LOL if you can bear it.

I love it especially when the UK starts criticizing us when it was the UK that bought that silly Piltdown piece of garbage and kept us from debunking it for 45 years. Then again, they still believe the queen has "superior" blood then the rest of us do.

Then the last nail in the coffin is DNA where now we know NO way No how could mutation be the mechanism driving evolution. It just doesn't happen when we know a fixed number of mutations are allowed and of those that get thru the chances of them being fixed are far far worse than anyone ever anticipated.

Darwinism, evolution is the sad commentary on a religion so passionately guarded and so well preserved yet so intent to die a very deserving and dishonored death.

Good riddance to it


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Stylez

Well most of what is in "modern" text books should have been removed many years ago. It took over 45 years to finally get pilt down man off the list of proofs. The idea that books become outdated if it deals in truth must mean they don't have the truth. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is the truth even if no one believes it no matter how old it is.

Wasn't it you saying how backward the US is about science and new ideas etc? Well that sure as hell isn't because creationist have been allowed to say anything. Evolution is the paradigm and it has failed as it should have.
[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]

What are you talking about?

With absolutely every single last DROP of "all due respect," Creationists never shut the hell up. At least in America. I can't turn on the television, radio, read the newspaper or anything else without IMMEDIATELY hearing the Creationist view point on EVERYTHING.

And I don't mind, as many people say, to each their own. While I disagreee with your beliefs, I don't disagree with YOU believing them.

But please, don't try and act like Creationists are some forgotten tribe who has never gotten to have their say. They are the most vocal of everyone, near as I can tell, just look at the Abortion debate.

Why is there a debate?

Because Creationists believe every life is precious.

When it's brand new that is. Not Muslims. Not those who disagree. Not Satanists and Socialists and Communists.

And that's the rub. If Creationists weren't always talking and sharing their point of view, there wouldn't even BE an abortion debate. Because those who are not religious certainly have not banded together to fight against it in the way Creationists have.

Creationists are constantly constantly arguing their beliefs and why their beliefs and values are more correct and important than those who believe otherwise. They are not and never have been silent. So basically for better or worse I wildly disagree with your post and I think you're wrong.

"The idea that books become outdated if it deals in truth must mean they don't have the truth." So you are renouncing your religion?

"Evolution is the paradigm and it has failed as it should have." Evolution hasn't failed anything. It's Been tested to death. It's real. Absorb it.

Oh and using the word 'paradigm' in a serious way is hilarious to me, maybe it only is if you come from the business world, and hear windbags using it all day.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b5666701607.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 21-9-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]