Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Stylez


ok then, we wont discuss it.
Up to you
zazzbot reengages

[edit on 23-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hey there ! I wanted to let you know I am sorry I have kinda been busy with a few others but I read some of your posts and just letting you know I haven't forgotten about you. I think I have something you may wanna consider I wanted to talk to you about .

I have enjoyed discussing with you and didn't want to leave yu thinking I was angry or anything

Originally posted by zazzafrazz


ok then, we wont discuss it.
Up to you

zazzbot reengages

[edit on 23-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious you don't want to discuss anything you just like asking the same questions in differen't ways looking for an angle. I mean read your post then read the thread and all that has been answered.

Bottom line isn't that I won't discuss it, I just won't keep repeating it.

reply to post by Stylez


I asked for dot points
not a thesis.
One line on each would have sufficed, as i said it wasnt clear to me from your posts regardless from what you think was made clear,
Soooo nevermind
Ill stay unclear, and lose no sleep over it. And you enjoy co dependant dicussions

[edit on 23-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by Stylez

 

I asked for dot points
not a thesis.
One line on each would have sufficed, as i said it wasnt clear to me from your posts regardless from what you think was made clear,
Soooo nevermind
Ill stay unclear, and lose no sleep over it. And you enjoy co dependant dicussions

[edit on 23-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Like I said, read the thread, if I didn't want to answer "dot points" I would have thought it obvious, writing a thesis would be out of the question.

Or were you just trying to be cute?

reply to post by Stylez


So I will remain unclear on your premises.

Originally posted by Maslo
This mathematical proof is completely wrong. It is suposed to deal with abiogenesis not evolution. Abiogenesis is not proven and therefore is not taught as fact. And evolution and abiogenesis are NOT random.

And evolution and abiogenesis are NOT random.

Yeah we have said that all along except the part about abiogenesis not being proven yet proven enough to know it isn't random.

That part seems a stretch

Originally posted by zazzafrazz


So I will remain unclear on your premises.

I don't know? What part of read the thread did you not understand?

Seems academic to me

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

That is, unless you're one of those people who is offended by the suggestion that you might have anything in common at all with even other primates (in spite of the fact we share so much of our DNA with other primates).
[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

You say "other primates" suggesting evolution is true and that is what I think offends people. You are establishing a fact when their is more about DNA that suggests primates are nothing like us with the exception of similar shape and form.

The key reasons the atenberg 16 and now most other evolutionary scientists are desperate to revamp the TOE is because of the latest findings on DNA. Anything and everything about eveolution you learned in school is GONE! Out the window. Most of it was debunked our hoax anyway but the rest is all pre DNA speculation.

This is why we know Virus's don't really evolve like we were once taught.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1838ea8e0b61.jpg[/atsimg]

Now the neccesity for finding a new mechanism is first, natural selection doesn't really have anything to do with long term evolution and the so called beneficial mutation argument has been shot down too
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d33e60e4ab22.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e866d3c67ae7.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Stylez]

Mod Edit: Added source attribute to original author of content.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by Gemwolf]

I have been reading some of the posts here and it seems people who subscribe to evolutionary theory feel very threatend by people who do not.
Why is that? Both are beliefs and thats all they will ever be, yet people on the side of evolution feel the need to belittle those who do not agree with them. Evolution is no less "ridiculous" than creationism. Both have valid points and flaws, people who use evolutionary theory has a way to belittle someone elses intelligence are usually those who have little intelligence themselves.

reply to post by pyramid head


Hardly. One is the product of science and one is a product of appealing to faith. One is the product of intellectual pursuit and the other is the antithesis.

We'll have none of this "all ideas are equal" crap. Some are based on substance, others are not. Some are useful, others are not.

Originally posted by Welfhard



We'll have none of this "all ideas are equal" crap. Some are based on substance, others are not. Some are useful, others are not.

Is that the YOU in "we" or the "I" in we? Ironic you mention that too because that was the very premise, "all ideas are equal", Clarence Darrow used to defend John Scopes during the Monkey Trials. Isn't it sweet when the shoe is on the other foot, how quickly science forgets and never notices the monumental hypocricy they are so full of these days

One is the product of intellectual pursuit and the other is the antithesis.

Oh I think you mean intellectual and spiritual pursuit when talking about creationism don't you? . I wouldn't be so hard on the evolution side though. Calling them the antithesis is kinda rough

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Stylez]

reply to post by Welfhard


Evolutionary theory is a belief, thats what a belief is. Your belief is that magic stardust created the universe, and billions of random events then created humans, you are intitled to that opinon, but by no means does that make you intellectual

reply to post by Stylez

Oh I think you mean intellectual and spiritual pursuit when talking about creationism don't you?

I don't think anyone can honestly mean that. Creationism and the creationist method is simply believing bronze age stories with no empirical evidence - that is conclusion first and everything else after that is unimportant. The Theory of Evolution, or our best understanding of the phenomena is a product of the scientific method and inquiry. Creationism is hope based and Evolution-ism is seeking understanding based.

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Evolutionary theory is a belief, thats what a belief is. Your belief is that magic stardust created the universe, and billions of random events then created humans, you are intitled to that opinon, but by no means does that make you intellectual

Not all beliefs are equal because not all beliefs are based in reality or on substance. Some people believe whatever appeals to them is true, i.e. faith - we call these people religious. Others would rather disband preconceived dogma and learn about the natural world, i.e. investigation - we call these people students of science.

Plus there is nothing magic about stardust. It has special properties like gravity that make it condense into a hot ball of gas or an earthy-solid, life bearing planet.

Also just to correct you on 2 points:
>The universe came first, stardust came second.
>Evolution is not random. Randomness does not exist, it's just a description of the unpredictable or difficult to understand. Usually if a scientist refers to something as random that is what they mean, or that it was a circumstantial event. A truly random event is non-causal, which is also impossible.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Your belief is no more logical or scientifical than the other. If your theory is so sound that you can belittle creationism, explain to me this:

The flagella, which is neccessecary for certain cellular movement is comprised of 32 proteins, none of which work without the other, how does one such structure arise through your almighty "science"?, my genetics teacher did not know of an answer, but he was not a man of science like yourself he believed in the silly mysticism of intelligent design.

Originally posted by pyramid head
I have been reading some of the posts here and it seems people who subscribe to evolutionary theory feel very threatend by people who do not.
Why is that? Both are beliefs and thats all they will ever be, yet people on the side of evolution feel the need to belittle those who do not agree with them. Evolution is no less "ridiculous" than creationism. Both have valid points and flaws, people who use evolutionary theory has a way to belittle someone elses intelligence are usually those who have little intelligence themselves.

Well I wouldn't know. I don't consider myself all that intelligent and if they do, well, how nice for them. I see the ridicule of a pesky irritant like a fly you know it gets you distracted and ya just wish people didn't have to waste time interjecting little diggs here and there about spaghetti monsters or comparsions to santa clause etc. It just wastes time time and albeit true is immature for someone you are hoping has the kind of intellect that is above sophistry and childishness, the fact is many of them ARE grown adults who have read those little talking points usually on atheist or activist gay websites I see that kind of stuff a lot. It just goes with the territory I guess.

I am a firm believer in the scientific method and in its power to increase human knowledge of all knowable truth concerning the world outside the mind - to include "religious" ideas when those ideas make some sort of claim about some force acting on physical things around or within us with intelligent or deliberate intent.

Interestingly enough though, the scientific method does not detect truth directly. The power of the scientific method comes from its ability to detect error, thereby limiting the places where truth may be found. Since no theory is ever fully proven by the scientific method, no one should ever consider any theory or even "fact" above all question. When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma.

naturalselection.0catch.com...

The only difference is the object of worship.



added link to external material



[edit on 23/9/09 by masqua]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Stylez

 

Oh I think you mean intellectual and spiritual pursuit when talking about creationism don't you?

I don't think anyone can honestly mean that. Creationism and the creationist method is simply believing bronze age stories with no empirical evidence - that is conclusion first and everything else after that is unimportant. The Theory of Evolution, or our best understanding of the phenomena is a product of the scientific method and inquiry. Creationism is hope based and Evolution-ism is seeking understanding based.

You think evolution has empiracal evidence when they suggest something that happened well millions of years before the "Bronze age" ??
No way my friend if that is what you think then you better get a dictionary and find out what empircal evidence is.

The scientific method is another thing you have little understanding of.

Tell me, using your own words how would it sound to you In this thread We see how one post suggested the lemur as yet another supposed 'transitional' that once again allegedly closes a long standing gap? With of course it's basis in wishful thinking and standard Darwinian 'logic', which briefly stated goes like this, "it's a transitional because it looks like some of this and some of that; and mostly because we say so".

I mean this idea that similarities in cartiledge and bone shape is NOT proof but merely a very unscientific conclusion. I also seen a drawing of an otter used as another, this is all the evidence I need to change my beliefs on creation and why?

Well it looks like a preastoric otter that evolved into a modern otter. Just like tigers turned into sharks. I know this happend because the fossil records show that both animals had teeth. lol

Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, the tendency to seek confirming evidence over contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. One consequence of confirmation bias is when a scientific theory like evolution makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, the theory is simply modified to accommodate the new finding.

Umbrella theories, like evolution, are particularly amenable to tweaks and adjustments. in fact the theory is so different today then it was just last year they can't even decide on a new curriculim

Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating A
variety of explanations how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. The only one explanation we know of that is true, is not the one that is most scientific or has the most fossile artifacts. Both of us use the exact same evidence. The one that explains it best is the one YOU like.

Don't think for a second scientist's are above that same fault cuz they lie like a rug

Darwins answer to einstien?

E=mc2 ^ ][ = R?

No, in an ideal world yes but in the REAL world. evolution is a load of crap.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by Stylez]

reply to post by pyramid head


Ahh the flagellum. I remember it was a classic creationist argument back in the day.

Every organism that exists is riddled with redundant and vestigial structures and behaviours, a great deal of which eventually get utilised for other functions in later evolutionary development. The human tail bone and appendix are prime examples of this. My understanding of the evolution of the flagellum is that is would be just another cumulative adaptation of vestigial pieces, keeping in mind that the average amoeba replicates every 20 minutes, some structures will come and go while others will be so advantageous that get honed into just the perfect singular pieces as if they were designed that way. Like everything else, it's earlier forms would have been less functional and have more superfluous parts.

There are structures replete through biology that need every constituent part to exist at the time, but that doesn't mean that the constituent parts had to evolve at the same time for that one function.

Perhaps it's the reverse of the whales leg? Now it's totally contained inside the body of the whale and is used as an anchor for muscles in that region of the body, whereas when the whales ancestors walked on land, it actually used that bit of it's anatomy for moving.

reply to post by Welfhard



To correct you on two points

Evoution arises from genetic mutaiton
Genetic mutation:a "randomly" derived change to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. -that seems random?

The universe is everything that "physically" exists. The universe cannot come before stardust because it is stardust.