"Creationism is not science" [Archive] - Debate Policy

darin

01-03-2008, 12:15 PM

When watching some of my favourite Discovery or Nat'l Geographic shows I become literall nauseated when I hear them proclaim things like:

"This plant (somehow, magically - dp) evolved to be consumed by large animals, then have it's seeds pooped out, to use the dung as fertilizer."

or

"The search for water in space is the search for life, because life could (somehow, magically - dp) evolve where there's water"

or

"The crocodile (somehow, magically - dp) developed the ability to not destroy it's own jaw with it's massive closing power - 2000 psi or more!"

I think it's absolutely against anything remotely related to common sense to think all this - how our universe works - happened by luck and random chance or accident. It's silly. Macro Evolution is a JOKE. Absolute lunacy.

Immanuel

01-03-2008, 12:25 PM

Go back to school dude. :rolleyes:

This because she doesn't have an answer. Maybe she should go back to school? ;)

Personally, I agree Creationism is not science. That does not mean it is not the Truth. I also believe that if we are going to teach Evolution, and I believe that we should teach it, we should teach that there are other "theories" that counter, or in my belief, assist the science of Evolution.

I do not believe life formed out of a primordial soup. To believe such takes much more faith than I have, as there is NO evidence that this happened! But, I do believe that the laws of nature including Evolution, were created in the same way we were created and life goes on from there.

Immie

gabosaurus

01-03-2008, 12:25 PM

I think it's absolutely against anything remotely related to common sense to think all this - how our universe works - happened by luck and random chance or accident. It's silly. Macro Evolution is a JOKE. Absolute lunacy.

What about the idea that a Supreme Being created the heavens and universe? That is really unbelievable to a lot of folks.

darin

01-03-2008, 12:29 PM

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 12:36 PM

Frankly, the complexities of our universe POINT towards a designer. If people don't want to believe in God, they'll find plenty of excuses; they'll drum-up whatever "evidence" they want to support their preconceptions

I disagree. I think this is a lazy way of thinking about the universe. "It's too complex so it must've been designed." The fossil, genetic, chemical, and geological evidence overwhelmingly supports and reaffirms the theory of evolution. I don't think that should have any bearing on a person's religious beliefs. Loving God and your fellow man doesn't have anything to do with how we all got here.

darin

01-03-2008, 12:40 PM

The fossil, genetic, chemical, and geological evidence overwhelmingly supports and reaffirms the theory of evolution.

Except I believe it overwhelmingly supports intelligent design. Because I'm open minded. :)

gabosaurus

01-03-2008, 12:48 PM

Scientific people tend to rely on actual evidence. Fossils and remains are more important than theory. And they date back further than the 12,000 years dictated by the Bible.

darin

01-03-2008, 12:51 PM

what's dictated biblically at 12000 years? The bible doesn't estimate or indicate the age of the earth.

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 01:01 PM

Except I believe it overwhelmingly supports intelligent design. Because I'm open minded. :)

Riiiiiiight. I should've remembered that but I was too distracted with the mountain of fossil, genetic, chemical and geological evidence. :poke:

darin

01-03-2008, 01:03 PM

Riiiiiiight. I should've remembered that but I was too distracted with the mountain of fossil, genetic, chemical and geological evidence. :poke:

...which flies in the face of Macro evolution, yet you believe it because, perhaps, you're scared of the Truth. :)

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 01:05 PM

...which flies in the face of Macro evolution, yet you believe it because, perhaps, you're scared of the Truth. :)

Negative. The evidence flies in the face of the "creator" conjecture. Apparently desert nomads 2000-years-ago had about the same scientific understanding of the world that they have now--i.e. none. :cheers2:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_05_220.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

darin

01-03-2008, 01:13 PM

Negative. The evidence flies in the face of the "creator" conjecture. Apparently desert nomads 2000-years-ago had about the same scientific understanding of the world that they have now--i.e. none. :cheers2:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3416_01.html

You aren't linking to a Liberal-Godless place like PBS are you?

:)

That means as much to ME as a link to Answers in Genesis means to you.

BoogyMan

01-03-2008, 01:13 PM

Go back to school dude. :rolleyes:

This answer is indicative of most of those why deny the Creator.

For those refusing to consider the hand of God in creation I always point out that since they are making up the game as they go along, they can surely make up their own rules. However, when they finish their game they still will stand alone before God on judgment day and have to explain their actions.

Good luck with that.

darin

01-03-2008, 01:27 PM

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 01:30 PM

This answer is indicative of most of those why deny the Creator.

For those refusing to consider the hand of God in creation I always point out that since they are making up the game as they go along, they can surely make up their own rules. However, when they finish their game they still will stand alone before God on judgment day and have to explain their actions.

Good luck with that.

Look, God hasn't been "found" in anything we've discovered or figured-out yet. We know how photosynthesis works. We can replicate any chemical configuration found in nature-atleast theoretically. We can clone organisms--we've broken the genetic code. We can even leave our own planet and go to others with the technology we have now. Even if God exists, we're smart enough to unravel every secret our universe has to offer. The fact that some questions remain as to how life sprang forth to me doesn't indicate God. It indicates that we haven't figured it out YET.
By the way the whole "threat of hell/judgment" thing is really tired and lame. It's ludicrous too. If God is worth its salt it won't send people into a fiery pit of eternal despair and torture just for being curious and reaching logical conclusions based on physical evidence. If God didn't want us to pursue scientific inquiry, it wouldn't have given us the intellect we have in the first place. You really sound like a hillbilly when you say crap like this and then expect to be taken seriously.

darin

01-03-2008, 01:37 PM

And ALL of that mental ability happened by chance. By Luck. Or by Accident, right? The ability to do those things is PURELY the result of everything happening by accident, agsint ASTRONOMICAL ODDS?

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 01:48 PM

And ALL of that mental ability happened by chance. By Luck. Or by Accident, right? The ability to do those things is PURELY the result of everything happening by accident, agsint ASTRONOMICAL ODDS?

No way. The universe is near infinitely large. It contains Kazillions of stars and solar systems. Taking into account the number of planets and stars in the universe, the odds are astronomically in favor of intelligent life evolving here and elsewhere. Especially considering that we know it can happen since we're here in the first place.
I don't get why this is so hard for you. Evolution is a theory based on the evidence that we have. Evidence we can see and touch. Yet you think it's ridiculous why? Especially when your beliefs are based on nothing more than a collection of fables and oral histories passed down by camel-riding desert nomads who believed that cutting the tips of their penises off made them special. You might as well be arguing the tenants of the creation myth of the Amazon pygmies. I'm sure they have one since every culture does.

PostmodernProphet

01-03-2008, 02:01 PM

A scientific report has concluded that Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. It points out the difficulties in meshing religion and science. Religion is based on belief, while science relies on factual evidence.
Or, as Bill Hicks once said "I have a one word question for those who believe in creation -- Dinosaurs"

http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.com/2008/01/03/creationism-panned-in-report-co-authored-by-uci/

and I have one word for those who think that science understands creation....."purpose"........

origin is not comprehended by science, and as such science should not presume to teach origin.......

darin

01-03-2008, 02:04 PM

Taking into account the number of planets and stars in the universe, the odds are astronomically in favor of intelligent life evolving here and elsewhere.

You can't seriously believe what you just wrote. Dude - the odds are exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said. lmao.

Especially considering that we know it can happen since we're here in the first place.

Except we have scientific evidence Evolution DIDN'T "just happen" here on earth.

I don't get why this is so hard for you. Evolution is a theory based on the evidence that we have. Evidence we can see and touch. Yet you think it's ridiculous why? Especially when your beliefs are based on nothing more than a collection of fables and oral histories passed down by camel-riding desert nomads who believed that cutting the tips of their penises off made them special. You might as well be arguing the tenants of the creation myth of the Amazon pygmies. I'm sure they have one since every culture does.

Here's what's hard to buy - here's what absolutely takes MASSIVE AMOUNTS of faith:

Everything you believe about Evolution. Your 'evidence' CLEARLY points to ID. There are such massive gaping holes in your theory it'd be FUNNY if folk didn't actually buy into it.

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 02:10 PM

You can't seriously believe what you just wrote. Dude - the odds are exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said. lmao.

Except we have scientific evidence Evolution DIDN'T "just happen" here on earth.

Here's what's hard to buy - here's what absolutely takes MASSIVE AMOUNTS of faith:

Everything you believe about Evolution. Your 'evidence' CLEARLY points to ID. There are such massive gaping holes in your theory it'd be FUNNY if folk didn't actually buy into it.

Your post is laughable. To begin with, even the name "I.D." is a fallacy. It's a politically correct term invented by the Christian Coalition in order to sneak the story of Genesis into public science classrooms. From there every other facet of your position falls apart fast. And it's hilarious that you talk about "gaping holes" when your conjecture relies entirely upon the existence of a supernatural being no one can prove exists. :rolleyes:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

darin

01-03-2008, 02:38 PM

You're being obtuse. It's ironic you use the term 'fallacy' when starting your reply with a fallacy - Appeal to ridicule.

Macro evolution relies on fear of God, huge nasty gaping holes in this supposed 'evolution', random chance, and suspended reason.

Immanuel

01-03-2008, 03:02 PM

Look, God hasn't been "found" in anything we've discovered or figured-out yet. We know how photosynthesis works. We can replicate any chemical configuration found in nature-atleast theoretically. We can clone organisms--we've broken the genetic code. We can even leave our own planet and go to others with the technology we have now. Even if God exists, we're smart enough to unravel every secret our universe has to offer. The fact that some questions remain as to how life sprang forth to me doesn't indicate God. It indicates that we haven't figured it out YET.

Or, maybe, God just hasn't been found yet? If (and there are) there are still questions out there to answer, maybe one of those questions is how do we "find" God. Sure you have all those scientific questions to answer. Everytime we answer one, it develops a dozen more. But those questions could very well lead us to God.

The genetic code is a very good example of what I am talking about. We can read it. We can replicate it. But we can't tell what designed it in the first place. Let science lead us in the direction that it will. We can only learn more about life by doing so and maybe it will lead us directly to the creator of us all.

Immie

darin

01-03-2008, 03:06 PM

Immie - don't you see it won't matter? There's nothing anyone can find to convince those folk who refuse truth, and love the myths of 'evolution'.

PostmodernProphet

01-03-2008, 04:09 PM

Look, God hasn't been "found" in anything we've discovered or figured-out yet.

we have found no bees around here.....

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/new_captions/images/491_2007-05-07.jpg

Hagbard Celine

01-03-2008, 05:17 PM

Or, maybe, God just hasn't been found yet? If (and there are) there are still questions out there to answer, maybe one of those questions is how do we "find" God. Sure you have all those scientific questions to answer. Everytime we answer one, it develops a dozen more. But those questions could very well lead us to God.

The genetic code is a very good example of what I am talking about. We can read it. We can replicate it. But we can't tell what designed it in the first place. Let science lead us in the direction that it will. We can only learn more about life by doing so and maybe it will lead us directly to the creator of us all.

Immie

Even if God hasn't been found yet, you'll still be stuck with the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. :dunno: What then? If God simply gave the spark of life and then let evolution take over then that's a different story. Even if this was the case, it would mean that vast parts of the Bible are still simply not accurate, which would mean that the "creationists" arrived at truth by sheer dumb luck. The whole idea is ludicrous--as if a mystical belief in something incorporeal and supernatural is somehow superior to 2000 years of human scientific discovery. I'm putting my money on natural processes. Chemists are on the cusp of this discovery. The research is so close it's ridiculous that we're even still having this discussion.

we have found no bees around here.....

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/new_captions/images/491_2007-05-07.jpg

Wow. Thank you for that bit-o-wisdom. You've changed my life with your quaint, Jeff Foxworthy-esque colloquialism. Now go throw yourself down a flight of stairs.

PostmodernProphet

01-03-2008, 05:48 PM

You've changed my life with your quaint, Jeff Foxworthy-esque colloquialism. Now go throw yourself down a flight of stairs.

tried that....angels caught me before I hit bottom......

manu1959

01-03-2008, 07:11 PM

Go back to school dude. :rolleyes:

no come on.....dinosaurs evolved from what......

manu1959

01-03-2008, 07:13 PM

What about the idea that a Supreme Being created the heavens and universe? That is really unbelievable to a lot of folks.

faith is faith....you belive the supreme being is primodial ooooooze.....from which sprang all living things.....hell you might as well believe in god....

manu1959

01-03-2008, 07:15 PM

Riiiiiiight. I should've remembered that but I was too distracted with the mountain of fossil, genetic, chemical and geological evidence. :poke:

can you you point me to the evidence where the first living thing came from.....and where those elements came from.....:link:

Immanuel

01-03-2008, 07:18 PM

Even if God hasn't been found yet, you'll still be stuck with the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. :dunno: What then? If God simply gave the spark of life and then let evolution take over then that's a different story. Even if this was the case, it would mean that vast parts of the Bible are still simply not accurate, which would mean that the "creationists" arrived at truth by sheer dumb luck. The whole idea is ludicrous--as if a mystical belief in something incorporeal and supernatural is somehow superior to 2000 years of human scientific discovery. I'm putting my money on natural processes. Chemists are on the cusp of this discovery. The research is so close it's ridiculous that we're even still having this discussion.

Sheer dumb luck? What other "scientific" discoveries have been by "sheer dumb luck"?

Parts of the Bible are still simply not accurate? I disagree. The Bible is completely accurate. Our interpretations are what are inaccurate. Some of the "Bible Thumpers" want us to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years or so old. Based on scientific "evidence" which may or may not be accurate, this seems to be preposterous. But, so what if the Bible Thumpers are wrong? It does not make the Bible wrong.

As for being on the cusp of this discovery... do you know how long the MDA has being saying that they will have the cure for Muscular Dystrophy? Your statement that "the research is so close that it is ridiculous that we're even still having this discussion" only shows that you are close-minded to any possibility of something beyond what you WANT to believe. We're not any closer to this discovery than we are to discovering the exact number of stars in the universe.

Now to your "mountain of evidence", as a side note, those words sound familiar as in the OJ Simpson murder trial and he went free, but I see no "mountain of evidence" supporting your theory that we all came from a single primordial soup which sprang the vast array of life and the individual cells that make up life. Talk about preposterous!! That thought is exactly that preposterous!

I refuse to argue against micro evolution. It makes too much sense. Species do adapt to their surroundings. But there is no evidence that shows that a dog became a whale... wait! wouldn't a male dog and a female dog have to evolve to a whale together in order to continue the species further? Nor is there evidence to show that two apes suddenly became human beings, had sex together and the first human child was born.

No, I choose to remain open minded about the issue for as long as I live. I don't claim to know everything about God, his work in creating us and all the nuances that went along with that. I choose to leave scientists to their studies and just remain curious rather than taking your course of action putting my fingers in my ears and singing "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" until those who disagree with me go away.

Immie

glockmail

01-03-2008, 07:30 PM

No way. The universe is near infinitely large. It contains Kazillions of stars and solar systems. Taking into account the number of planets and stars in the universe, the odds are astronomically in favor of intelligent life evolving here and elsewhere. .....

About a dozen more parameters, such as the atmospheric transparency, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature gradient, other greenhouse gases, location of different gases and minerals, and mantle and core constituents and structures, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the 28 listed in Table 6 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see the not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life. http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_astroevidgodbible.html#design%20parameters

That scientific conclusion is based purely on 28 discrete physical factors, many more which can be added in, and doesn't even touch on the chance of life evolving in a livable environment.

Statistics do not support the evolutionists at all.

Missileman

01-03-2008, 07:42 PM

I refuse to argue against micro evolution. It makes too much sense. Species do adapt to their surroundings. But there is no evidence that shows that a dog became a whale... wait! wouldn't a male dog and a female dog have to evolve to a whale together in order to continue the species further? Nor is there evidence to show that two apes suddenly became human beings, had sex together and the first human child was born.
Immie

Where in the world did you ever learn that nonsense as being the theory of evolution ?

Said1

01-03-2008, 08:00 PM

Where in the world did you ever learn that nonsense as being the theory of evolution ?

:laugh2:

Immanuel

01-04-2008, 08:12 AM

Where in the world did you ever learn that nonsense as being the theory of evolution ?

What part?

Dogs becoming whales? Apes becoming human beings?

It is what they teach and claim to be proof of macro evolution. Because one bone is similar in whales as in dogs that is the proof there is a missing link out there somewhere! The same thing goes with apes to men.

My question about a male and female having to evolve at the same time? Well, that was sort of tongue in cheek.

Immie

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 08:18 AM

there would have been life on Mars, but when the second living thing crawled out of the primordial sludge there it found itself strangely attracted to the first living thing that had crawled out of the primoridal sludge....and, since they were of the same sex, nothing ever came of it......

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 08:22 AM

back to reality.....how do you folks explain away the fact that the first living thing either had a sufficiently "evolved" structure to reproduce itself.....or died leaving no heirs........

glockmail

01-04-2008, 08:39 AM

Immanuel

01-04-2008, 08:58 AM

back to reality.....how do you folks explain away the fact that the first living thing either had a sufficiently "evolved" structure to reproduce itself.....or died leaving no heirs........

Well, I don't believe in the primordial sludge BS but we know that Amoebas and other single cell, or I should say asexual, organisms reproduce without the help (as far as we know) of other beings of its own species.

But then how did we get from that form of life to all the other cells of life there are today?

Immie

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 09:38 AM

no come on.....dinosaurs evolved from what......

A self-replicating amino acid chain, the same thing everything living evolved from.

darin

01-04-2008, 10:38 AM

A self-replicating amino acid chain, the same thing everything living evolved from.

wow...do you read what you write? Does that make any sense, that a piece of amino acid could somehow transform - better itself all the way up to Human? I mean...does that not make you feel or of silly to even say?

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 10:46 AM

Not that same old argument: "homos can't reproduce"! :lol:

sorry, I have never had an old argument.....

Well, I don't believe in the primordial sludge BS but we know that Amoebas and other single cell, or I should say asexual, organisms reproduce without the help (as far as we know) of other beings of its own species.

But then how did we get from that form of life to all the other cells of life there are today?

Immie

it was single cell organisms I was referring to.....reproduction of self requires at least four individual "parts" produced by the cell from it's DNA memory.....it is nothing short of amazing that some random conglomeration of inert bits managed to shape themselves into those four parts, but even that ignores the fact that they seem to have done so with the ability to pass that DNA memory on to the replicated cell.....

A self-replicating amino acid chain, the same thing everything living evolved from.

interesting theory....I take it then that you aren't one of those who insist on having a scientifically testable basis for your belief assumptions.....

wow...do you read what you write? Does that make any sense, that a piece of amino acid could somehow transform - better itself all the way up to Human? I mean...does that not make you feel or of silly to even say?

forget "all the way up to Human", let's see him come up with a credible argument that a "self replicating piece of amino acid" could transform itself into a single cell reproducing creature......

darin

01-04-2008, 10:52 AM

interesting theory....I take it then that you aren't one of those who insist on having a scientifically testable basis for your belief assumptions.....

...but...radio carbon dating...b-b-but obscure pieces of Bone "scientists" use to create entire animals!! :)

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 10:53 AM

...but...radio carbon dating...b-b-but obscure pieces of Bone "scientists" use to create entire animals!! :)

nothing to do with "origin".....

darin

01-04-2008, 10:57 AM

nothing to do with "origin".....

It doesn't MATTER to Evolutionists. If they find ONE PIECE of a bone of a jaw, they can re-create what MUST have been a step in the "Evolutionary" process. It's all they need. There needs to be no scientific experiments or study - just the slightest glimmer that some part of their asinine theory may have a modicum of 'reason'.

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 11:11 AM

wow...do you read what you write? Does that make any sense, that a piece of amino acid could somehow transform - better itself all the way up to Human? I mean...does that not make you feel or of silly to even say?

You know what? You're right. It must've happened by magic since magic is such a common place occurance. Maybe if I had Jesus in my heart I wouldn't be so inquisitive. My bad.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld

Immanuel

01-04-2008, 11:18 AM

You know what? You're right. It must've happened by magic since magic is such a common place occurance. Maybe if I had Jesus in my heart I wouldn't be so inquisitive. My bad.

Maybe if you had Jesus in your heart, you would be open-minded rather than completely close-minded to the fact that there is something you do not understand particularly in reference to the creation of the universe. ;)

Immie

darin

01-04-2008, 11:28 AM

You know what? You're right. It must've happened by magic since magic is such a common place occurance. Maybe if I had Jesus in my heart I wouldn't be so inquisitive. My bad.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld

Yet you believe various chemical compounds MAGICALLY decided to become life. Belief in a Designer makes more sense. There's no magic - just obvious reason, when talking about Intelligent Design. The MAGIC is how something can better it's existence, all the way up to a higher form of life.

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 12:04 PM

Yet you believe various chemical compounds MAGICALLY decided to become life. Belief in a Designer makes more sense. There's no magic - just obvious reason, when talking about Intelligent Design. The MAGIC is how something can better it's existence, all the way up to a higher form of life.

I know chemistry may appear to be "magic" to the layman's eye, but I assure you that it isn't. :poke:
"Intelligent Design" is a fallacy. Quit playing the cup game and call it what it really is: "Creationism." The entire premise of Creationism is that a supernatural power magicked life into existence. You can't deny it.

darin

01-04-2008, 12:11 PM

The entire premise of Creationism is that a supernatural power magicked life into existence. You can't deny it.

As opposed to the magic which somehow formed non-life into life?

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 12:18 PM

As opposed to the magic which somehow formed non-life into life?

Chemistry isn't magic dmp. It's natural and it's all around you.

darin

01-04-2008, 12:28 PM

Chemistry isn't magic dmp. It's natural and it's all around you.

I'm not talking about Chemistry - I'm talking about the Magic that worked in Chemistry to, uh, MAGICALLY turn non-life into life. That's the Magic you hang your hat upon - that Magic keeps you from seeing the truth of a Creator.

glockmail

01-04-2008, 01:24 PM

Chemistry isn't magic dmp. It's natural and it's all around you. I noticed that you ignored post 36 that discusses exactly how natural it is.

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 01:25 PM

I'm not talking about Chemistry - I'm talking about the Magic that worked in Chemistry to, uh, MAGICALLY turn non-life into life. That's the Magic you hang your hat upon - that Magic keeps you from seeing the truth of a Creator.

You mean electricity? The force that animates everything living in the universe? I know it looks impressive when it flashes across the sky, but I assure you that it too is not magic dmp.

http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_astroevidgodbible.html#design%20parameters

That scientific conclusion is based purely on 28 discrete physical factors, many more which can be added in, and doesn't even touch on the chance of life evolving in a livable environment.

Statistics do not support the evolutionists at all.

Yeah right. Your first mistake is taking seriously any source that refers to Creationism as "Intelligent Design." If they're not honest enough to present their evidentially unfounded ideas straightforwardly without playing a cup game you can bet what follows will be pure bs. :lol:

BoogyMan

01-04-2008, 01:32 PM

glockmail

01-04-2008, 01:36 PM

Yeah right. Your first mistake is taking seriously any source that refers to Creationism as "Intelligent Design." If they're not honest enough to present their evidentially unfounded ideas straightforwardly without playing a cup game you can bet what follows will be pure bs. :lol:
Sorry I thought I was dealing with someone who was open minded. :finger3:

darin

01-04-2008, 01:37 PM

You mean electricity? The force that animates everything living in the universe? I know it looks impressive when it flashes across the sky, but I assure you that it too is not magic dmp.

Eh? You implying adding electricity to chemical compounds makes them form life?

glockmail

01-04-2008, 01:46 PM

Lemme guess- 3.3 VDC?

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 01:48 PM

Not one of the monkey ancestors amongst us has yet to explain the massive complexity they claim to have been put into place by a lucky coincidence. Even considering something as small as the atom and the drastic complexity contained within its minuscule frame. The demand that we accept the massively ordered outcome of a catastrophic event such as the so called "big bang" is little more than pure willful disdain for what is clear and right before your eyes.

The foolishness of the evolution argument could be compared to ramming your Volkswagen into a tree hundreds of times and when finished delighting in the fact that having done so has produced a Porsche in its place.

Sorry, but I'm unable to dismiss my brain's proclivity to independent thought. Maybe you can dismiss yours, I don't know. Maybe it will come with age, but until I do stop thinking I'll continue to understand that nature and the universe has produced and will always produce everything it produces through natural processes. If supernatural forces were behind the existence of every living thing on this:
http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/EarthBlueMarbleWestTerra.jpg
You'd think that there would be a tiny shred of evidence to back that up--like maybe the existence of a single supernatural element within the system. I think the fact that there are none is quite telling.

Eh? You implying adding electricity to chemical compounds makes them form life?

The rudimentary foundations of it, yes.
http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/news_notes/rus_121203_h.php
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/space_cells_010129-1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7041353.stm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ4-47X1RY7-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f648cf23a6272ee16f5c4a6f5597823a

glockmail

01-04-2008, 01:56 PM

Sorry, but I'm unable to dismiss my brain's proclivity to independent thought. Maybe you can dismiss yours, I don't know. Maybe it will come with age, but until I do stop thinking I'll continue to understand that nature and the universe has produced and will always produce everything it produces through natural processes. If supernatural forces were behind the existence of every living thing on this:
http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/EarthBlueMarbleWestTerra.jpg
You'd think that there would be a tiny shred of evidence to back that up--like maybe the existence of a single supernatural element within the system. I think the fact that there are none is quite telling.

What about the existence of all those living souls down there? Isn't that a bit more than a "shred" of evidence?

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 02:01 PM

Sorry I thought I was dealing with someone who was open minded.
Open mindedness doesn't mean acceptance of all ideas, it means consideration of them. I've thoroughly considered Creationism and I've determined that there's no way to prove or disprove it either way because there is no evidence to be found that God exists. Instead, I've looked at the world, considered it, and have come to the conclusion that, like everything else in the universe, living organisms got here the same way everything else did: natural processes. Evolution is the process that guides life. The process that sparked it I think is based in chemistry and physics, which I believe is thoroughly supported by current scientific research in those areas.

What about the existence of all those living souls down there? Isn't that a bit more than a "shred" of evidence?

"Souls?" Living beings, yes. But souls no. Souls are a product of the human talent for imagination and the human trait of egomania. Nothing more. Having a soul is a trait we've attributed to ourselves in order to separate ourselves in our minds from the other animals.

glockmail

01-04-2008, 02:05 PM

Dilloduck

01-04-2008, 02:08 PM

"Souls?" Living beings, yes. But souls no. Souls are a product of the human talent for imagination and the human trait of egomania. Nothing more. Having a soul is a trait we've attributed to ourselves in order to separate ourselves in our minds from the other animals.

Wrong---souls give us the ability to be "immortal". Anthropologists are the ones busy finding distinctions between humans and animals. Last I heard it was the ability to use a tool to make a tool but I'm sure it's changed since freshman physical anthropology.

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 02:17 PM

Greater than 90% of the human population would disagree with you about that.

Then I'd challenge 90 percent of the human world population to show a shred of evidence to support their position (shrug)
90 percent eh? Why does everyone always forget about China? :dunno: :laugh:

Wrong---souls give us the ability to be "immortal". Anthropologists are the ones busy finding distinctions between humans and animals. Last I heard it was the ability to use a tool to make a tool but I'm sure it's changed since freshman physical anthropology.

Ooh, a scathing attempt at making me feel inferior...based on the fact that I have..an...education? You lost me there. Anyway, yes, you're correct that "immortality" is the general idea behind the whole "soul" concept. However, you are wrong about there being a "difference" between humans and animals. Humans are animals Dillo. If you want me to prove it, go take a sh*t. That outta be all the proof you need. :laugh:

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 02:19 PM

The rudimentary foundations of it, yes.

which, unfortunately does nothing to support your claim....the fact that "rudimentary foundations" of life are formed by application of electrical current to chemical compounds still leaves you a far distance from the inception of life.....

you claim that you would have to stop thinking in order to reach some conclusion OTHER than that these things were produced by natural processes....however, since there is in fact NO scientific evidence that life was produced by a natural process, you are forced to concede that your choice regarding origin is no less "supernatural" than mine....the only difference is that I am honest about my choices, while you are not.....

Then I'd challenge 90 percent of the human world population to show a shred of evidence to support their position (shrug)

and I challenge YOU to show evidence supporting yours.....

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 02:22 PM

which, unfortunately does nothing to support your claim....the fact that "rudimentary foundations" of life are formed by application of electrical current to chemical compounds still leaves you a far distance from the inception of life.....

you claim that you would have to stop thinking in order to reach some conclusion OTHER than that these things were produced by natural processes....however, since there is in fact NO scientific evidence that life was produced by a natural process, you are forced to concede that your choice regarding origin is no less "supernatural" than mine....the only difference is that I am honest about my choices, while you are not.....

Sorry, but the heap of articles I linked to refutes what you've said here. All you need for life is chemistry and electricity. You can't argue with lab results. (shrug)
Living in denial isn't healthy PMP. It's as if you've run into a big, green wall and refuse to acknowledge that it's there despite the fact that you can no longer go forward :dunno: Haha, you said "honest." I take it the moniker you use when referring to your life origin beliefs is "Intelligent Design." :rolleyes: This phrase, of course, was coined by the Christian coalition in a dishonest cup-game attempt to sneak Creationism into public science classrooms following the famous Supreme Court ruling banning its teaching due to it's unscientific and foundationally religious nature. So you see, your beliefs are dishonest even in name. (shrug) What a joke. Pbbbt.

which, unfortunately does nothing to support your claim....the fact that "rudimentary foundations" of life are formed by application of electrical current to chemical compounds still leaves you a far distance from the inception of life.....

you claim that you would have to stop thinking in order to reach some conclusion OTHER than that these things were produced by natural processes....however, since there is in fact NO scientific evidence that life was produced by a natural process, you are forced to concede that your choice regarding origin is no less "supernatural" than mine....the only difference is that I am honest about my choices, while you are not.....

and I challenge YOU to show evidence supporting yours.....

I'm not going to repost all the links I posted earlier. It took a long time. You can read 'em if you want, but all it'll do is make you mad and embarrassed. It's your prerogative (shrug) :cheers2:

bullypulpit

01-04-2008, 03:09 PM

Hard science trumps fairy tales...Every time.

glockmail

01-04-2008, 03:57 PM

Then I'd challenge 90 percent of the human world population to show a shred of evidence to support their position (shrug)
90 percent eh? ....

I'd make the same challenge to you. Show me evidence of how life started.

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 04:03 PM

All you need for life is chemistry and electricity. You can't argue with lab results.

you are right....unfortunately for your argument, you have no lab results showing that all you need for life is chemistry and electricity....now, if you would care to actually provide that missing evidence we can continue the debate....

I'm not going to repost all the links I posted earlier.

good, because I read those already and they don't support your argument....you should try to provide some links which actually do something to help you.....

by the way, since it is so difficult for you to go back and find them, here they are....I would hate to have you miss the opportunity to see you are wrong.....

http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/n...s_121203_h.php
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/s..._010129-1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7041353.stm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5c4a6f5597823a

for example...in your link to the BBC article entitled "Creating Life in the Laboratory"....you will find this admission....

Drew Endy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, says: "Venter is not creating life from scratch.
"He is constructing a genome, which is more or less a slightly modified copy of an existing genome, then putting it back into an existing cell."

so, apparently what your lab results show is that in order to have life you need 1) electricity, 2) chemistry, and 3) life....which kind of blows your argument about creating life out of the soup.....

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 04:12 PM

http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/news_notes/rus_121203_h.php

Other scientists have developed single-gene systems, but this is this first time a three-gene “cell free” system has worked. The key to success, Libchaber’s team discovered, is in carefully balancing transcription chemistry against translation chemistry, an insight that paves the way for Libchaber and his two postdoctoral associates, Vincent Noireux and Roy Bar-Ziv, to combine synthetic gene expression with other features of cellular function.
Next steps may include: artificial cell membranes, followed by nanopores, to allow small molecules to move through that membrane, and, ultimately, reproduction capabilities for the tiny structures.

It's right here doofus. Rudimentary life being created in a lab from scratch. You lied about reading the articles I posted. Geez, a basic level of literacy is all I ask.
It's common sense man. Every single biological function, at least at the cellular level, is chemical in nature. All we are is an amalgam of cells (made of elements), which perform functions based on chemical reactions that are bunched together to form a larger organism (us) all animated by electricty (that's why they zap you with the zapper thing when you die because in death you become unanimated). :dunno: I'm just curious as to where the supernatural comes into play.

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 04:18 PM

It's right here doofus. Rudimentary life being created in a lab from scratch. You lied about reading the articles I posted. Geez, a basic level of literacy is all I ask.

actually, I didn't lie about reading it.....did you?....your claim was all you need for life is electricity and chemistry.....

in the opening paragraphs of this article it states....

. He studies, among other things, gene expression — which requires living cells.
Or, maybe, it doesn’t.
In what may be the initial step towards building a “minimal cell,” Libchaber has designed the first fully functional three gene network in vitro that processes genetic input and manufactures proteins.

in other words, Libchaber's experiments are all about inventing a cell which is NOT alive.....yet you submit it to support your claim that life has been created......

now, what was that about a basic level of literacy?......

glockmail

01-04-2008, 04:22 PM

:popcorn:

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 04:22 PM

that's two of your posted articles that say the opposite of what you claimed they say.....want to try for a hat trick?.....

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 04:25 PM

actually, I didn't lie about reading it.....did you?....your claim was all you need for life is electricity and chemistry.....

in the opening paragraphs of this article it states....

in other words, Libchaber's experiments are all about inventing a cell which is NOT alive.....yet you submit it to support your claim that life has been created......

now, what was that about a basic level of literacy?......

What is a cell if not a tiny machine that performs a function and reproduces itself? I don't want to go over your head a third time so let me know if I'm talking too fast kay kay?

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 04:30 PM

What is a cell if not a tiny machine that performs a function and reproduces itself? I don't want to go over your head a third time so let me know if I'm talking too fast kay kay?

and, if it can't reproduce itself?......which none of the experiments you posted are capable of?.... .....

/grins.....Libacher's experiment is called "cell-free protein synthesis".....I don't think it is a very good example of creating "cells"......

darin

01-04-2008, 04:37 PM

fwiw, Hagbard - you're being pwn3d. Really. Maybe you two should do a 'debate' in that forum? :)

PostmodernProphet

01-04-2008, 04:41 PM

. Maybe you two should do a 'debate' in that forum? :)

my avatar is too young for the steel cage.....

darin

01-04-2008, 04:41 PM

I mean the 'member debate' forum - where you and Hag could do a 'debate thread'. :) NOT the cage.

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 04:50 PM

and, if it can't reproduce itself?......which none of the experiments you posted are capable of?.... .....

/grins.....Libacher's experiment is called "cell-free protein synthesis".....I don't think it is a very good example of creating "cells"......

:rolleyes: Again:

Next steps may include: artificial cell membranes, followed by nanopores, to allow small molecules to move through that membrane, and, ultimately, reproduction capabilities for the tiny structures.

You act like since this research isn't complete that it doesn't exist. Are you incapable of drawing a conclusion unless it's painted on your face? You asked for evidence that all you need for life is chemistry and electricity. Here it is. It's been here all along but apparently you're incapable of grasping it. (shrug)

Dilloduck

01-04-2008, 04:50 PM

However, you are wrong about there being a "difference" between humans and animals. Humans are animals Dillo. If you want me to prove it, go take a sh*t. That outta be all the proof you need. :laugh:

Then why is science determined to understand how we are a DIFFERENT form of animal ?

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 04:56 PM

I mean the 'member debate' forum - where you and Hag could do a 'debate thread'. :) NOT the cage.

What's wrong with this thread?

Then why is science determined to understand how we are a DIFFERENT form of animal ?

What are you talking about? If I'm reading you right, I'll answer that understanding genetic differences is the key to understanding genetics and unlocking its usefulness to us.

fwiw, Hagbard - you're being pwn3d. Really. Maybe you two should do a 'debate' in that forum? :)

Yeah right. I'm not the one who can't understand simple concepts or read. Clouding issues and selectively ignoring posted evidence may be your recipe for a "successful debator," but it isn't mine. I think you may be biased dmp.

darin

01-04-2008, 04:58 PM

Yeah right. I'm not the one who can't understand simple concepts or read. Clouding issues and selectively ignoring posted evidence may be your recipe for a "successful debator," but it isn't mine. Your bias on this issue is clouding your judgment I think.

EVERY TIME He posts showing you're wrong, or showing the fallacy of your argument, you change what you said, you said. Every time. You deflect, or change the subject. (shrug)

Dilloduck

01-04-2008, 05:09 PM

What are you talking about? If I'm reading you right, I'll answer that understanding genetic differences is the key to understanding genetics and unlocking its usefulness to us.

I believe we are talking about creationism and evolution. Science has been quite busy looking for how humans became different than other animals. I don't see how that's any different than creationists simply stating how they think it occurred.
Both imply that man is in some way superior. The question is how we got "this way".

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 05:23 PM

EVERY TIME He posts showing you're wrong, or showing the fallacy of your argument, you change what you said, you said. Every time. You deflect, or change the subject. (shrug)

No way. I've said the same exact thing all along. All you need for life is chemistry and electricity to animate it. I've posted research showing just that. Apparently some people would rather muddle issues and ignore posted material and the obvious conclusions it leads to and instead opt for running in circles. That's not my fault.
I was asked to provide evidence. That's what I did and it was rejected out of hand by people who ironically have absolutely nothing to back-up their beliefs. (shrug) It's developing science against faith. You can believe what you want or you can learn from discovery. Apparently I'm the only one who takes the second route.

I believe we are talking about creationism and evolution. Science has been quite busy looking for how humans became different than other animals. I don't see how that's any different than creationists simply stating how they think it occurred.
Both imply that man is in some way superior. The question is how we got "this way".

Man has a superior talent for using his environment to suit his interests. In the end though, he's still just a smart animal. Scientific evidence suggests that we got this way through evolution.

Dilloduck

01-04-2008, 05:27 PM

Man has a superior talent for using his environment to suit his interests. In the end though, he's still just a smart animal. Scientific evidence suggests that we got this way through evolution.

Man has only deemed himself as superior and creationists attribute that to a power greater than we are currently able to prove scientifically.

darin

01-04-2008, 05:29 PM

No way. I've said the same exact thing all along. All you need for life is chemistry and electricity to animate it. I've posted research showing just that. Apparently some people would rather muddle issues and ignore posted material and the obvious conclusions it leads to and instead opt for running in circles. That's not my fault.
I was asked to provide evidence. That's what I did and it was rejected out of hand by people who ironically have absolutely nothing to back-up their beliefs. (shrug) It's developing science against faith. You can believe what you want or you can learn from discovery. Apparently I'm the only one who takes the second route.

PMP has done a good job of showing why the 'evidence' you link to doesn't support what you claim it supports.

happyfeet

01-04-2008, 05:54 PM

This is one of those strange dichotomies in life. What came first, the chicken or the egg. There are good arguments on both sides. I fall on the side of evolution. This does not mean creationism didn't happen, I just see no evidence of it. With science I do.

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 05:54 PM

Man has only deemed himself as superior and creationists attribute that to a power greater than we are currently able to prove scientifically.

I concur.

Missileman

01-04-2008, 05:59 PM

What part?

Dogs becoming whales? Apes becoming human beings?

It is what they teach and claim to be proof of macro evolution. Because one bone is similar in whales as in dogs that is the proof there is a missing link out there somewhere! The same thing goes with apes to men.

My question about a male and female having to evolve at the same time? Well, that was sort of tongue in cheek.

Immie

Here's what they're teaching in school.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/348/Anatomy-Comparative.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2607/Evolution.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2603/Evolution-Evidence-evolution.html

Hagbard Celine

01-04-2008, 06:10 PM

Yurt

01-04-2008, 06:11 PM

A scientific report has concluded that Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. It points out the difficulties in meshing religion and science. Religion is based on belief, while science relies on factual evidence.
Or, as Bill Hicks once said "I have a one word question for those who believe in creation -- Dinosaurs"

http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.com/2008/01/03/creationism-panned-in-report-co-authored-by-uci/

Great, the Bible is not manmade science...... thank you gabs

PostmodernProphet

01-05-2008, 12:44 AM

I've posted research showing just that.

Hag....we need to consider this carefully.....the research you have linked to does NOT show that all you need for life is chemistry and electricity.....in fact, the article you have quoted the most, the one about Libacher's experiment is not even about living cells....you say that I am acting as if this research doesn't exist because it isn't complete....yes, I am acting as if this research doesn't exist.....because it doesn't exist.....the reason it doesn't exist isn't because it isn't complete......it doesn't exist because it hasn't even been begun....no one has made life in an experiment....no-one is getting close to making life in an experiment.....the closest they have come is an expected upcoming attempt to alter life that already exists.....do you understand that?......what they are going to do is insert a modified genetic code into a living cell....it won't work unless they use a living cell....do you understand why that is, Hagbard?.....it's because they don't know how to make a cell live.....they don't know how to make a cell live because even though they have living cells to study and copy they haven't got a clue how to do it on their own.....so, all they can do is copy the ones that God provided.....

look at it this way.....the monkeys found a computer sitting in the jungle.....they don't know how to make a computer...in fact, they just figured out how to read it's programming.....they are about to insert a new segment of code into the programming to see if the computer still runs.....they don't know what the computer will do after it's reprogramming.....they don't even know if it will still be a computer....but one thing is certain.....it is NOT valid to say that they are creating the computer when they do it......

Said1

01-05-2008, 12:02 PM

Immanuel

01-05-2008, 06:37 PM

Here's what they're teaching in school.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/348/Anatomy-Comparative.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2607/Evolution.html

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2603/Evolution-Evidence-evolution.html

Maybe when you were in school three or four years ago. ;) But, thirty five years ago... well, things were different or were they?

j/k

Look, what they teach now and what they taught when I was in school may be two different things. But, I don't think so, they are still teaching and claiming that we came from apes. They are still teaching that there ARE missing links out there that they just can't find and when they do "find" them, they are inevitably exposed as frauds. They still teach that we all came from some primordial soup and have evolved out of a single life form billions upon billions of years ago. In fact, your evolution-evidence link basically hints of that we came from apes in this quote:

Organisms with similar anatomical features are assumed to be relatively closely related evolutionarily, and they are assumed to share a common ancestor. As a result of the study of evolutionary relationships, anatomical similarities and differences are important factors in determining and establishing classification of organisms.

Some organisms have anatomical structures that are very similar in embryological development and form, but very different in function. These are called homologous structures. Since these structures are so similar, they indicate an evolutionary relationship and a common ancestor of the species that possess them. A clear example of homologous structures is the forelimb of mammals. When examined closely, the forelimbs of humans, whales, dogs, and bats all are very similar in structure. Each possesses the same number of bones, arranged in almost the same way. While they have different external features and they function in different ways, the embryological development and anatomical similarities in form are striking. By comparing the anatomy of these organisms, scientists have determined that they share a common evolutionary ancestor and in an evolutionary sense, they are relatively closely related.

So, although they add about a hundred words in order to hide that they think we came from apes, that is in fact what they are really saying here.

And when you get right down to it, they cannot come up with anymore evidence that shows how life began than can those of us who believe it was started by God or an intelligent being and has evolved since creation. They can show evidence as to what has happened from some point after the creation, but cannot come up with anything at all about how life was formed.

So tell me, how did a single ape evolve into a man and maintain its ability to reproduce with others of its prior species? If there were a gradual evolution from ape to man, why is it that we can't find evidence of such a transition?

Once again, for the record, I believe that evolution should be taught. However, I believe that when it is taught information on other "theories", quotes because I realize creationism is not a scientific theory, such as intelligent design and creationism should be given as well. I do not believe that creationism should be taught in public schools as it is a religious and faith based idea. But, I do think that it should be recognized as an alternative idea.

Immie

Chessplayer

01-05-2008, 08:41 PM

[quot]But, I do think that it should be recognized as an alternative idea.[/quote]

From this discussion here, it seems apparent that it is, in some way, recognized as an alternative idea...

What was your complaint, exactly?

Also, does evolution claim that Man evolved from Apes? I thought it was that Man and Apes had a common ancestor.

Pale Rider

01-05-2008, 08:57 PM

Well here's a little tid bit that no one has explained yet, not science anyway. The earth began it's existence as a massive ball of molten rock, thousands of degrees in temp. Far too hot for any life to exist. There was no atmosphere, no water, and no life. The earth however did cool, and "magically" got water. Then "magically" life appeared, out of nowhere. Life did NOT just happen. Somehow it was PUT here. Was it God that put it here. I think so. Because it didn't come blazing in on a comet or meteor either. Life had to have been delicately, guardedly and preciously put here, intact, living. It did not crawl out of the water "all by itself." People that believe life just "magically" happened, and then over a few thousand years became what we are today have to be the most ignorant of all believers of anything. Evolution is by far the worst explanation we have of how life started on this planet.

I say the explanation for how life got here is beyond what we can comprehend. The power of the source that could have put it here is beyond what we can comprehend. But here comes Johnny Jingle Nuts theory creator and he says life "magically happened and crawled out of the ocean and became man," and without any scientific evidence to back that up what so ever, people believe it because it's all they have. They can't think any deeper than that. They can't comprehend that possibly something else is the truth, so they cling to that because it sounds good and it's a convenient answer, even if it isn't true. Problem is, it makes them look dumber than the person that admits evolution has never been proven, so it really isn't wise to believe it. Also these theory believers find it impossible to believe that there just may be higher powers at work in the universe that we cannot explain. They're far too sophisticated and out of our comprehension level to understand. The type of powers that actually would have the power to put life here. Like God.

So... "Creationism is not science"... well, not a science that we can explain anyway. It's still too far beyond what we can explain. In all actuality, we may never be able to explain it.... scientifically. However, it may very well be explained by the divine.

Psychoblues

01-05-2008, 09:41 PM

How is the "devine" helping you, pr? So far I haven't seen much from you that I would admit in Church. Maybe you're turning a corner into true enlightenment?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

Missileman

01-05-2008, 10:09 PM

Maybe when you were in school three or four years ago. ;) But, thirty five years ago... well, things were different or were they?

j/k

I too went to school in the 60s and 70s, though it wasn't in Kansas. :poke:

And when you get right down to it, they cannot come up with anymore evidence that shows how life began than can those of us who believe it was started by God or an intelligent being and has evolved since creation. They can show evidence as to what has happened from some point after the creation, but cannot come up with anything at all about how life was formed.

Agreed, they haven't proven how life started on earth. That is hardly a valid reason to give credit to some supreme being, especially when there is absolutely, positively, undeniably no proof of this being's existence.

So tell me, how did a single ape evolve into a man and maintain its ability to reproduce with others of its prior species? If there were a gradual evolution from ape to man, why is it that we can't find evidence of such a transition?

As was pointed out in the links I provided, evolution does not happen to an individual. There isn't a single evolutionist claiming that a single ape morphed into a man or gave birth to a man. If you were taught that crap as evolution in your schools, you need to seek a refund. As for transition, I believe you're mistaken. I believe they have found the remains of several different non-homo sapien humanoids.

Once again, for the record, I believe that evolution should be taught. However, I believe that when it is taught information on other "theories", quotes because I realize creationism is not a scientific theory, such as intelligent design and creationism should be given as well. I do not believe that creationism should be taught in public schools as it is a religious and faith based idea. But, I do think that it should be recognized as an alternative idea.

What are you suggesting...some kind of disclaimer in science books that there are other non-scientific proposals on how life began on earth?

Missileman

01-05-2008, 10:21 PM

Psychoblues

01-05-2008, 10:23 PM

Don't let the idiots tease you, Mm. That is their only purpose even though they would rather it be inspired and excused from a higher source.

Chessplayer

01-05-2008, 10:35 PM

The earth however did cool, and "magically" got water. Then "magically" life appeared, out of nowhere.

Is that what scientists who support evolution claim?

Was it God that put it here. I think so.

And that merely sidesteps the problem of the "magical" origin of water and life, and puts them in the hands of "god," without addressing the origins of "god" or claiming that "he has always existed."

Psychoblues

01-05-2008, 10:42 PM

I don't think those scientists actually support that theory, Cp.

Is that what scientists who support evolution claim?

And that merely sidesteps the problem of the "magical" origin of water and life, and puts them in the hands of "god," without addressing the origins of "god" or claiming that "he has always existed."

On the other hand maybe it was "magic" rather than a chemical reaction. I've certainly seen a lot of "magic" in the laboratories!!!!!!!!!!!

Said1

01-05-2008, 11:16 PM

Like anyone here has any real knowledge of things such as chemistry, biochemisty and physiology. What makes our hearts beat? People are arguing about amino acids like they actually know what that is. :laugh2:

Psychoblues

01-05-2008, 11:38 PM

It's magic, S1.

Like anyone here has any real knowledge of things such as chemistry, biochemisty and physiology. What makes our hearts beat? People are arguing about amino acids like they actually know what that is. :laugh2:

How else does the earth revolve and the Sun sets in the west?

Said1

01-05-2008, 11:40 PM

It's magic, S1.

How else does the earth revolve and the Sun sets in the west?

Why you asking me, dumbass?

manu1959

01-05-2008, 11:41 PM

It's magic, S1.

How else does the earth revolve and the Sun sets in the west?

an object in motion stays in motion....and the sun does not set.....

Psychoblues

01-05-2008, 11:52 PM

Because I knew you couldn't answer the question, whatever it was.

Why you asking me, dumbass?

You gotta get that chip off you shoulder, S1. Your stupidity belies your intelligence.

Psychoblues

01-05-2008, 11:53 PM

And you call that "magic"?

an object in motion stays in motion....and the sun does not set.....

Tell me that you have a more analytical mind, m'59?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?

actsnoblemartin

01-06-2008, 03:52 AM

why dont they just teach both theories. What is wrong with exposing the kids to as many ideas as possible?

Is god really worse then pornography?

Psychoblues

01-06-2008, 04:18 AM

I want my kids to learn about the mumbo jumbo of the west African and Carribean Islands.

why dont they just teach both theories. What is wrong with exposing the kids to as many ideas as possible?

Is god really worse then pornography?

If your primary concern is that God is somehow worse than pornography then maybe that thought should be more closely examined in the higher echelons of education. What proof can you offer that supports such a theory? I have certainly never offered such a theory as you imply.

actsnoblemartin

01-06-2008, 04:20 AM

i want americans to learn honest and accurate history of america, in u.s. history, and world history, you teach history of the world

As far as the god and pornography reference, it has nothing to do with you, it has to do with our culture

I want my kids to learn about the mumbo jumbo of the west African and Carribean Islands.

If your primary concern is that God is somehow worse than pornography then maybe that thought should be more closely examined in the higher echelons of education. What proof can you offer that supports such a theory? I have certainly never offered such a theory as you imply.

PostmodernProphet

01-06-2008, 08:01 AM

And FYI, it's not evolutionists claiming life arrived where it is in a few thousand years. That theory was put forth by ancient Jews.

no, actually it was a guy named Usher in the 1600s......

PostmodernProphet

01-06-2008, 08:04 AM

On the other hand maybe it was "magic" rather than a chemical reaction. I've certainly seen a lot of "magic" in the laboratories!!!!!!!!!!!

you have not, however, seen any chemical reactions in the laboratory that resulted in 'life'....nor will you find a scientist who can explain origin in scientific terms....they have to resort to the unknown.....

Missileman

01-06-2008, 08:30 AM

no, actually it was a guy named Usher in the 1600s......

So how long ago DID the Great Flood and Noah's Ark take place according to the Bible? Millions of years? Billions?

Said1

01-06-2008, 10:23 AM

Because I knew you couldn't answer the question, whatever it was.

You gotta get that chip off you shoulder, S1. Your stupidity belies your intelligence.

Always insulting the women. Perhaps that's worth examining. Further.:laugh2:

PostmodernProphet

01-06-2008, 11:52 AM

So how long ago DID the Great Flood and Noah's Ark take place according to the Bible? Millions of years? Billions?

"according to the Bible"?.......there is no "how long ago" in the Bible.....

Pale Rider

01-06-2008, 06:28 PM

How is the "devine" helping you, pr? So far I haven't seen much from you that I would admit in Church. Maybe you're turning a corner into true enlightenment?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

I have been witness to full blown miracles, and am 100% convinced I have a guardian angel. Is that divine enough for you?

glockmail

01-06-2008, 07:36 PM

Open mindedness doesn't mean acceptance of all ideas, it means consideration of them. I've thoroughly considered Creationism and I've determined that there's no way to prove or disprove it either way because there is no evidence to be found that God exists. Instead, I've looked at the world, considered it, and have come to the conclusion that, like everything else in the universe, living organisms got here the same way everything else did: natural processes. Evolution is the process that guides life. The process that sparked it I think is based in chemistry and physics, which I believe is thoroughly supported by current scientific research in those areas.OIC. Open minded, just stoopid.

Pale Rider

01-06-2008, 10:42 PM

And yet you have no problem believing that the first man was MAGICALLY made from a ball of clay and the first woman was MAGICALLY made from a piece of bone. And FYI, it's not evolutionists claiming life arrived where it is in a few thousand years. That theory was put forth by ancient Jews.

What you don't understand, and don't seem to be able to comprehend is, what seems like "magic" to you, very well could an accomplishment from the hand of a power far beyond what you OR I can either understand or comprehend, and may never. It "SEEMS" like magic because we can't explain it.

Now I know what your response is going to be, "I can't prove it." True. But I say to that, "you can't prove it wasn't." So that leaves these conversations, as always, in a stale mate.

Pale Rider

01-06-2008, 10:49 PM

Is that what scientists who support evolution claim?
You tell me checkers.

And that merely sidesteps the problem of the "magical" origin of water and life, and puts them in the hands of "god," without addressing the origins of "god" or claiming that "he has always existed."
No... I gave you my opinion, which is not the facts. My point is, no one knows. Not me, not you, not anyone. So I'm not side stepping anything. I do however believe in a higher power. If you don't, I can't help you.

Missileman

01-07-2008, 12:05 AM

What you don't understand, and don't seem to be able to comprehend is, what seems like "magic" to you, very well could an accomplishment from the hand of a power far beyond what you OR I can either understand or comprehend, and may never. It "SEEMS" like magic because we can't explain it.

Now I know what your response is going to be, "I can't prove it." True. But I say to that, "you can't prove it wasn't." So that leaves these conversations, as always, in a stale mate.

Spin as much as you like, but a being that is omniscient and omnipotent, that can whip up a universe out of nothing, that can turn a ball of clay into a lifeform is the epitome of magic.

Pale Rider

01-07-2008, 07:41 AM

Spin as much as you like, but a being that is omniscient and omnipotent, that can whip up a universe out of nothing, that can turn a ball of clay into a lifeform is the epitome of magic.

Well I think that just shows your ignorance of the power that can and most likely does exist in the universe.

Missileman

01-07-2008, 08:14 AM

Well I think that just shows your ignorance of the power that can and most likely does exist in the universe.

mag·ic (māj'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

Pale Rider

01-07-2008, 08:24 AM

mag·ic (māj'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/ Pronunciation Key
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

PostmodernProphet

01-07-2008, 09:38 AM

mag·ic (māj'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

would that be contrasted with the belief that the supernatural controls natural events and forces without being invoked?......if so "magic" would not be involved in religion......

Hagbard Celine

01-07-2008, 10:10 AM

Hag....we need to consider this carefully.....the research you have linked to does NOT show that all you need for life is chemistry and electricity.....in fact, the article you have quoted the most, the one about Libacher's experiment is not even about living cells....you say that I am acting as if this research doesn't exist because it isn't complete....yes, I am acting as if this research doesn't exist.....because it doesn't exist.....the reason it doesn't exist isn't because it isn't complete......it doesn't exist because it hasn't even been begun....no one has made life in an experiment....no-one is getting close to making life in an experiment.....the closest they have come is an expected upcoming attempt to alter life that already exists.....do you understand that?......what they are going to do is insert a modified genetic code into a living cell....it won't work unless they use a living cell....do you understand why that is, Hagbard?.....it's because they don't know how to make a cell live.....they don't know how to make a cell live because even though they have living cells to study and copy they haven't got a clue how to do it on their own.....so, all they can do is copy the ones that God provided.....

look at it this way.....the monkeys found a computer sitting in the jungle.....they don't know how to make a computer...in fact, they just figured out how to read it's programming.....they are about to insert a new segment of code into the programming to see if the computer still runs.....they don't know what the computer will do after it's reprogramming.....they don't even know if it will still be a computer....but one thing is certain.....it is NOT valid to say that they are creating the computer when they do it......

I think the experiment you brought up here is evidence that life began or "sparked" naturally. I don't think you can cite this as an example of "proof of life's divine nature." On the contrary, I think it shows proof that we have all the ingredients for making life already at our disposal. You can't say it shows the opposite simply because it's incomplete. If Edison had stopped trying after his first dozen or so failures at making the lightbulb, we'd all still be reading scrolls by candlelight (someone else probably would've invented it eventually, but you get the idea.)
Physics teaches us that all things organize themselves naturally so-to-speak in our universe. Given factors like geo-pressure, temperature, chemistry, physics, etc. I think we'll figure out the secrets to life's beginnings and I don't think we'll find that they're in any way "divine." We keep finding that life can survive almost anywhere on this planet, from the most icy deeps of the Arctic ocean, to the most boiling-hot magma fissures on the ocean floor. I think Pale's comment earlier about "water" appearing magically is not-well-thought-out. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in the universe. We already know it exists on atleast three other celestial bodies within our own solar system including our moon. And knowing what we know about the vitality of organic life and it's uncanny ability to survive the most inhospitable environments, I think it's totally plausible that the chemically, gaseous, volcanic early-Earth is the perfect place for it to have sparked and/or taken hold.

Immanuel

01-07-2008, 10:28 AM

Agreed, they haven't proven how life started on earth. That is hardly a valid reason to give credit to some supreme being, especially when there is absolutely, positively, undeniably no proof of this being's existence.

I do not give credit to a supreme being based on the fact that no one has proven how life started. I give credit to that supreme being based on other information provided in His word that I trust.

I do not believe that we started from the primordial soup myth and that life has evolved from there. To me that is just plain unbelievable.

As was pointed out in the links I provided, evolution does not happen to an individual. There isn't a single evolutionist claiming that a single ape morphed into a man or gave birth to a man. If you were taught that crap as evolution in your schools, you need to seek a refund. As for transition, I believe you're mistaken. I believe they have found the remains of several different non-homo sapien humanoids.

I realize they didn't simply morph from ape to human, again, my comment was tongue in cheek. However, I believe you are wrong. They have not found the missing links that they claim to find very regularly. Everytime they come up with the so called "missing links" they are proven to be wrong.

What are you suggesting...some kind of disclaimer in science books that there are other non-scientific proposals on how life began on earth?

I am simply suggesting that when evolution is taught (and it should be taught) that there be a recognition that this theory is not proven and that there are other thoughts as to how life was formed and examples of those thoughts be given. Science has not proven many things and to exclude the existance of other ideas and questions simply because we do not like where they may take us is foolhardy.

Immie

Pale Rider

01-07-2008, 11:30 AM

I think Pale's comment earlier about "water" appearing magically is not-well-thought-out. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in the universe. We already know it exists on atleast three other celestial bodies within our own solar system including our moon. And knowing what we know about the vitality of organic life and it's uncanny ability to survive the most inhospitable environments, I think it's totally plausible that the chemically, gaseous, volcanic early-Earth is the perfect place for it to have sparked and/or taken hold.

I'm just going by what information there is. No one has any idea how water or oxygen got here. There's theories, just like evolution, but nobody has any proof of anything. So with that, some theories are better than others, but the fact remains, they're all theories.

We can all come in here and say "I believe this," and "I believe that," but that's what it all amounts to. Our "beliefs." Because there is no proof in existence that proves life was created by a higher power OR that we evolved. None. It does make for an interesting debate though for sure.

Hagbard Celine

01-07-2008, 11:37 AM

I'm just going by what information there is. No one has any idea how water or oxygen got here. There's theories, just like evolution, but nobody has any proof of anything. So with that, some theories are better than others, but the fact remains, they're all theories.

We can all come in here and say "I believe this," and "I believe that," but that's what it all amounts to. Our "beliefs." Because there is no proof in existence that proves life was created by a higher power OR that we evolved. None. It does make for an interesting debate though for sure.

I think that's an inaccurate way of looking at things. By that logic you could say it's impossible to know what happened yesterday because we're not there now. It's entirely possible to say with relative certainty what conditions were like on early Earth because it's recorded geologically and in the ice at the poles and elsewhere on the planet. Plus we know how water is formed because we know what its made of. If you know that water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen, and that those two elements are ubiquitous in space and in our solar system then you can bet those two elements were in the mix when the earth was forming. It's that simple. You're right that nobody can know for sure because we weren't there, but c'mon, when it's this obvious you don't need to have been there to know heat and cold causes condensation of gases, which equals water. As for life, if you look at every other thing in the universe, it's all governed by natural, physical laws. Why would life be any different?

Pale Rider

01-07-2008, 11:45 AM

I think that's an inaccurate way of looking at things. By that logic you could say it's impossible to know what happened yesterday because we're not there now. It's entirely possible to say with relative certainty what conditions were like on early Earth because it's recorded geologically and in the ice at the poles and elsewhere on the planet. Plus we know how water is formed because we know what its made of. If you know that water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen, and that those two elements are ubiquitous in space and in our solar system then you can bet those two elements were in the mix when the earth was forming. It's that simple. You're right that nobody can know for sure because we weren't there, but c'mon, when it's this obvious you don't need to have been there to know heat and cold causes condensation of gases, which equals water. As for life, if you look at every other thing in the universe, it's all governed by natural, physical laws. Why would life be any different?

Well I think you're over simplifying things a tad Hag. You make it sound as though the formation of our oceans, atmosphere and subsequently life was as easy as some parlor trick, when the truth is, how our oceans got here is still an unexplained phenomenon, as is life. Now if you've got a link to some proof, and not just a theory, I'd love to see it.

Hagbard Celine

01-07-2008, 12:03 PM

Well I think you're over simplifying things a tad Hag. You make it sound as though the formation of our oceans, atmosphere and subsequently life was as easy as some parlor trick, when the truth is, how our oceans got here is still an unexplained phenomenon, as is life. Now if you've got a link to some proof, and not just a theory, I'd love to see it.

(shrug) In my opinion it is simple. In space, mass has gravity. Gravity pulls things towards it. If there's a gas nebula floating in space (as we know there is in developing solar systems because it can be seen in telescopes plus it's essential to the formation of stars) it'll be pulled toward the gravitational field produced by the developing planetoid and gobbled up as will other floating debris in the planetoid's orbital path. Voila, oceans. Simple.

PostmodernProphet

01-07-2008, 12:25 PM

I think the experiment you brought up here is evidence that life began or "sparked" naturally. I don't think you can cite this as an example of "proof of life's divine nature." On the contrary, I think it shows proof that we have all the ingredients for making life already at our disposal. You can't say it shows the opposite simply because it's incomplete. If Edison had stopped trying after his first dozen or so failures at making the lightbulb, we'd all still be reading scrolls by candlelight (someone else probably would've invented it eventually, but you get the idea.)
Physics teaches us that all things organize themselves naturally so-to-speak in our universe. Given factors like geo-pressure, temperature, chemistry, physics, etc. I think we'll figure out the secrets to life's beginnings and I don't think we'll find that they're in any way "divine." We keep finding that life can survive almost anywhere on this planet, from the most icy deeps of the Arctic ocean, to the most boiling-hot magma fissures on the ocean floor. I think Pale's comment earlier about "water" appearing magically is not-well-thought-out. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in the universe. We already know it exists on atleast three other celestial bodies within our own solar system including our moon. And knowing what we know about the vitality of organic life and it's uncanny ability to survive the most inhospitable environments, I think it's totally plausible that the chemically, gaseous, volcanic early-Earth is the perfect place for it to have sparked and/or taken hold.

First, I did not bring this experiment up, you did...

second, it is ridiculous to say it is evidence that life began naturally, when the guy who conducted the experiment specifically states the experiment is making something which is NOT alive....

third, I have not cited this experiment as "proof" of life's divine nature....I do not believe that such is susceptible to proof, any more than I believe your position is susceptible to proof....

fourth, yes, we have all the ingredients for life at our disposal....yet surprisingly according to your assumptions those ingredients have only produced "life" once in the billions of years of earth's existence.....why didn't those ingredients spring into "life" last Thursday, or in 1235 AD.......

fifth, yes all nature seems to have a tendency to organize itself....according to certain natural laws......where did those laws come from?......did gravity come into being with the Big Bang or did it precede it?.....has pi always been pi?......were there laws governing matter before there was matter?.....

sixth, "Hydrogen and Oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in the universe.".....why?.....why aren't Nitrogen and Helium the most abundant, why not lead and chromium......

PostmodernProphet

01-07-2008, 12:29 PM

Why would life be any different?

because while science has been able to experimentally reproduce the condensation of gases, they have NOT been able to reproduce life.......nor, despite their claims, are they close to it.....

PostmodernProphet

01-07-2008, 12:30 PM

Simple.

cool, do it again.....and while you are at it, throw in some life.....

Immanuel

01-07-2008, 12:34 PM

second, it is ridiculous to say it is evidence that life began naturally, when the guy who conducted the experiment specifically states the experiment is making something which is NOT alive....

Just a quick point of observation here... even if the product of this experiment were alive, it still took a somewhat intelligent being to induce the experiment and to create life. It didn't spark naturally.

Immie

Pale Rider

01-07-2008, 12:34 PM

(shrug) In my opinion it is simple. In space, mass has gravity. Gravity pulls things towards it. If there's a gas nebula floating in space (as we know there is in developing solar systems because it can be seen in telescopes plus it's essential to the formation of stars) it'll be pulled toward the gravitational field produced by the developing planetoid and gobbled up as will other floating debris in the planetoid's orbital path. Voila, oceans. Simple.

:laugh: - - alrighty Hag... you should have been a scientist, although I think if you were, you'd be disappointed more often than not.

Missileman

01-07-2008, 04:48 PM

would that be contrasted with the belief that the supernatural controls natural events and forces without being invoked?......if so "magic" would not be involved in religion......

A being using it's supernatural abilities to control natural events and forces fits the definition of magic. I've no idea why some of you are so loathe to admit it.

Missileman

01-07-2008, 04:58 PM

ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/ Pronunciation Key
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

For someone who whines like a fucking little girl about personal attacks, you sure do like to engage in it. Maybe it's not possible to have a reasonable debate with you. Seems every time you start not doing so well you resort to insults and lies, I assume to end things before a total defeat.

PostmodernProphet

01-07-2008, 08:04 PM

A being using it's supernatural abilities to control natural events and forces fits the definition of magic. I've no idea why some of you are so loathe to admit it.

because your definition implies primarily that we control the supernatural being, which would NOT fit the understanding of Christianity......

Chessplayer

01-07-2008, 08:25 PM

In space, mass has gravity. Gravity pulls things towards it. If there's a gas nebula floating in space (as we know there is in developing solar systems because it can be seen in telescopes plus it's essential to the formation of stars) it'll be pulled toward the gravitational field produced by the developing planetoid and gobbled up as will other floating debris in the planetoid's orbital path. Voila, oceans. Simple.

Sorry, but you are referring to Gravity, also known as the "Theory of Gravity."

Missileman

01-07-2008, 10:04 PM

because your definition implies primarily that we control the supernatural being, which would NOT fit the understanding of Christianity......

It implied no such thing, you did.

PostmodernProphet

01-07-2008, 10:13 PM

It implied no such thing, you did.
/shrugs.....I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that saying "invoking the supernatural" is a bit different that saying that the supernatural acts on it's own......

Missileman

01-07-2008, 11:55 PM

/shrugs.....I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that saying "invoking the supernatural" is a bit different that saying that the supernatural acts on it's own......

The magician (God) invokes the supernatural, not the audience...so yeah, it was a long stretch.

Hagbard Celine

01-23-2008, 04:18 PM

Sorry, but you are referring to Gravity, also known as the "Theory of Gravity."

Jesus...H....can't breathe....due..to...thickness of.....stupidity in the room...*gasp*....

hjmick

01-23-2008, 04:20 PM

Sorry, but you are referring to Gravity, also known as the "Theory of Gravity."

Actually, gravity is a scientific law, not a theory.

SpidermanTUba

01-23-2008, 05:59 PM

I think it's absolutely against anything remotely related to common sense to think all this - how our universe works - happened by luck and random chance or accident. It's silly. Macro Evolution is a JOKE. Absolute lunacy.

'common sense' ? LOL!

If all we needed was 'common sense' there would be no need for science in the first place. Your saying 'evolution is wrong because my common sense says so' is enough to refute mountains of evidence to the contrary?

SpidermanTUba

01-23-2008, 06:03 PM

Actually, gravity is a scientific law, not a theory.

Gravity is most certainly a scientific theory. I think perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word 'theory' in the context of science.

Nukeman

01-23-2008, 06:04 PM

Jesus...H....can't breathe....due..to...thickness of.....stupidity in the room...*gasp*....
Now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::clap::clap ::laugh2::laugh2:

hjmick

01-23-2008, 06:20 PM

Gravity is most certainly a scientific theory. I think perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word 'theory' in the context of science.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

Yurt

01-23-2008, 10:14 PM

'common sense' ? LOL!

If all we needed was 'common sense' there would be no need for science in the first place. Your saying 'evolution is wrong because my common sense says so' is enough to refute mountains of evidence to the contrary?

evolution is not fact, deal with it....what must it be like to have "mountains of evidence" yet you can't conclusively prove the theory...LOL

SpidermanTUba

01-24-2008, 09:32 AM

evolution is not fact, deal with it....what must it be like to have "mountains of evidence" yet you can't conclusively prove the theory...LOL

... to you.

Because you've made up your mind a priori. But it is conclusively proven to the tens of thousands of biologists and research MD's who use it everyday in their work. Maybe you should go tell them all of their science is wrong since its all based on something that hasn't been 'conclusively proven' to your standards. Or maybe you should just take high school biology over again.

Yurt

01-24-2008, 10:29 AM

... to you.

Because you've made up your mind a priori. But it is conclusively proven to the tens of thousands of biologists and research MD's who use it everyday in their work. Maybe you should go tell them all of their science is wrong since its all based on something that hasn't been 'conclusively proven' to your standards. Or maybe you should just take high school biology over again.

its called:

evolution theory and they keep changing their minds all the time on the "facts"

:laugh2:

-Cp

01-24-2008, 11:29 AM

Here's what KILLS me when it comes to ninnies choosing to believe in the random creation of the entire Universe...

If "they" found a car floating around in space somewhere... their first question would be "Gee, I wonder what sort of Intelligent life created this car?" - I mean, just look at how well it's designed! - we must seek out its creator"..

Yet, when it comes to a PERFECTLY TUNED FOR LIFE PLANET SUCH AS EARTH - these same "folk" all chock it up to random chance? Really? Wow...

One has GOT to be mentally unbalanced to accept the following as random chance:

- The Earth is the PERFECT Distance from the sun for sustained life.
- The Earth has the perfect atmosphere for life
- The Moon is the PERFECT distance from the Earth to make the tides go in and out
- The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
- Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
- Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
- Our sun is the right color. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
- Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
- The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
- The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapor and ozone levels are just right.

All random chance, yet when it comes to finding anything else, "oh, it must have a creator behind it - surely this car in space couldn't have just made itself"....

Really..........???

Yurt

01-24-2008, 11:49 AM

darin

01-24-2008, 11:52 AM

Here's what KILLS me when it comes to ninnies choosing to believe in the random creation of the entire Universe...

If "they" found a car floating around in space somewhere... their first question would be "Gee, I wonder what sort of Intelligent life created this car?" - I mean, just look at how well it's designed! - we must seek out its creator"..

Yet, when it comes to a PERFECTLY TUNED FOR LIFE PLANET SUCH AS EARTH - these same "tools" all chock it up to random chance? Really? WoW...

One has GOT to be mentally inbalanced to accept the following as random chance:

- The Earth is the PERFECT Distance from the sun for substained life.
- The Earth has the perfect atmosphere for life
- The Moon is the PERFECT distance from the Earth to make the tides go in and out
- The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
- Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
- Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
- Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
- Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
- The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
- The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

All random chance, yet when it comes to finding anything else, "oh, it must have a creator behind it - surely this car in space couldn't have just made itself"....

Really..........???

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

-Cp

01-24-2008, 11:52 AM

Hagbard Celine

01-24-2008, 01:40 PM

Here's what KILLS me when it comes to ninnies choosing to believe in the random creation of the entire Universe...

If "they" found a car floating around in space somewhere... their first question would be "Gee, I wonder what sort of Intelligent life created this car?" - I mean, just look at how well it's designed! - we must seek out its creator"..

Yet, when it comes to a PERFECTLY TUNED FOR LIFE PLANET SUCH AS EARTH - these same "tools" all chock it up to random chance? Really? WoW...

One has GOT to be mentally inbalanced to accept the following as random chance:

- The Earth is the PERFECT Distance from the sun for substained life.
- The Earth has the perfect atmosphere for life
- The Moon is the PERFECT distance from the Earth to make the tides go in and out
- The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
- Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
- Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
- Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
- Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
- The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
- The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

All random chance, yet when it comes to finding anything else, "oh, it must have a creator behind it - surely this car in space couldn't have just made itself"....

Really..........???

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty." -Stephen Hawking

Missileman

01-24-2008, 06:59 PM

Exactly. The odds of producing the earth are far greater than a car being "suddenly" produced in space. Its like when they find artifacts that "seem" manmade, they automatically assume it "must" be manmade and then embark on some historical research to discover the creator of such and object.

What might you estimate the odds to be?

Now go here and estimate the numbers of possible locations in this TINY fraction of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg

"Representing a narrow "keyhole" view stretching to the visible horizon of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field image covers a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime 75 feet away. Though the field is a very small sample of the heavens, it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space, because the universe, statistically, looks largely the same in all directions. Gazing into this small field, Hubble uncovered a bewildering assortment of at least 1,500galaxies at various stages of evolution."

From http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.20495

How many stars and galaxies in the universe?
The best estimates suggest that there are at least 70 thousand million million million (70 sextillion or 7 × 10E22) stars in the Universe. The Universe probably contains more than 100 thousand million (100 billion or 10E11) galaxies.

SpidermanTUba

01-25-2008, 01:16 AM

its called:

evolution theory and they keep changing their minds all the time on the "facts"

:laugh2:

Do you know what the word 'theory' means, and which 'facts' have they changed their minds, on, and more importantly, who is 'they'?

Here's what KILLS me when it comes to ninnies choosing to believe in the random creation of the entire Universe...

If "they" found a car floating around in space somewhere...

Cars don't have survival motive. Even a complete idiot can see that. Next.

All random chance,

Unless you can rigorously calculate what those chances are, you have no point.

Exactly. The odds of producing the earth are far greater than a car being "suddenly" produced in space. Its like when they find artifacts that "seem" manmade, they automatically assume it "must" be manmade and then embark on some historical research to discover the creator of such and object.

Who is 'they' and what artifacts are you specifically referring to?

No doubt.. and what I listed doesn't even BEGIN to scratch the surface as evidence that points to a creator...

Don't even get me started on the amazing complexity of the Human Body...

That's not evidence for a creator, that's evidence that the human body is complex.

What might you estimate the odds to be?

Now go here and estimate the numbers of possible locations in this TINY fraction of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg

"Representing a narrow "keyhole" view stretching to the visible horizon of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field image covers a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime 75 feet away. Though the field is a very small sample of the heavens, it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space, because the universe, statistically, looks largely the same in all directions. Gazing into this small field, Hubble uncovered a bewildering assortment of at least 1,500galaxies at various stages of evolution."

From http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.20495

How many stars and galaxies in the universe?
The best estimates suggest that there are at least 70 thousand million million million (70 sextillion or 7 × 10E22) stars in the Universe. The Universe probably contains more than 100 thousand million (100 billion or 10E11) galaxies.

Not to mention the fact that there could be multiple universes - or even infinite number of them. Also, if the universe is reborn in a 'big crunch' and subsequent 'big bang' - even if there were only one universe, it may have have had an infinite number of the cycles going back in time forever.

In an infinitely large reality, its not at all surprising that life would develop by chance.

The poster who first posted that acts as if this is the only solar system available.

With 10E22 stars in the universe, even if only one in a BILLION have planets orbiting them at the distance that is 'just right' for life, that still leaves 10E13 planets suitable for life.

Yurt

01-25-2008, 01:35 AM

Do you know what the word 'theory' means, and which 'facts' have they changed their minds, on, and more importantly, who is 'they'?

i really don't care how the scientists mangle and twist the word to suit their agenda, the "fact" is, while evolution is obversable, the notion that science has "proven" our origins and "disproved" God is laughable.

is the universe shrinking or expanding? this changes. how old the universe changes.

if you don't know who "they" are, look up the word "context"

-Cp

01-25-2008, 01:40 AM

That's not evidence for a creator, that's evidence that the human body is complex.

much more complex than a car - yet you'd swear up and down it must've had a creator....

You really are retarded... really...

-Cp

01-25-2008, 01:42 AM

Cars don't have survival motive. Even a complete idiot can see that. Next.

And a planet does?

Psychoblues

01-25-2008, 01:50 AM

Creationism is not Science. I'll go along with that. What's your beef?

-Cp

01-25-2008, 10:47 AM

Creationism is not Science. I'll go along with that. What's your beef?

And Darwin's THEORY of Evolution is?

Here's some stuff for you to chew on:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features— at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels—that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.