quade 3 #101 January 30, 2004 Quote How long before a simple bacterium? 10 years, maybe. I think that once we can do single cells from scratch, that is totally from scratch, we'll jump right into some really interesting stuff -- large scale biomachines (really, that's all we are anyway). The day is coming. I dunno if it's 10 years, but it's coming.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #102 January 30, 2004 QuoteI don't know, but I'm getting on an ark with 2 of each of 31,000,000 species... that's in the bible, right? I don't think that you have to take the fish. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #103 January 30, 2004 Quote I don't think that you have to take the fish. Bwaaaahahahahahhahahahahah LMAO - that was so obvious it was funny. Does cut the numbers down though. I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #104 January 30, 2004 Quote The first part of my post: As far as the creation of life is concerned - lets say the definition includes metabolism as LR describes, and self awareness as well. Again, I refer you to the tadpole/frog conundrum. If you really want to add in self-awareness into your equation, then at what point is a person a person? Certainly a new-born human baby isn't self-aware. By all accounts, it's alive. Maybe if you could give us a hint as to where you're going with this it would make more sense to us.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #105 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Describe to me, if you please, the point in which life becomes self aware, and what energy transference, or evolutionary process is involved at that moment. Quote The first part of my post: As far as the creation of life is concerned - lets say the definition includes metabolism as LR describes, and self awareness as well. From www.medterms.com "Salk vaccine: Vaccine against poliomyelitis named for Dr. Jonas Salk who developed and introduced it in 1955. It was the first type of polio vaccine to become available. It was made by cultivating three strains of the virus separately in monkey tissue. The virus was separated from the tissue, stored for a week, and killed with formaldehyde. This killed-virus vaccine was given by injection and required 4 "shots." The oral form of the vaccine, subsequently developed by Dr. Albert Sabin, is in standard use today since it is easier to administer and is more effective than the Salk vaccine. The Salk vaccine is now exclusively of historic interest. " from www.accessexcellence.com "In 1957, in an effort to improve upon the killed Salk vaccine, Albert Bruce Sabin began testing a live, oral form of vaccine in which the infectious part of the virus was inactivated (attenuated). This vaccine became available for use in 1963." There's lots more, of course.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydivexxl 0 #106 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuote I don't think that you have to take the fish. Bwaaaahahahahahhahahahahah LMAO - that was so obvious it was funny. Does cut the numbers down though. The bible said ALL species. And not to sound too strange, all the water would combine, so it would be very diluted salt water... which fish would survive? Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #107 January 30, 2004 Not where you are going - I don't have any problem with assisted suicide - oh sorry that was assisted murder, my bad. I think life is special, not to be bought and sold, and not to be snuffed out just because it is inconvienient. I wasn't going to go there, but oh well, you made me. Ok, where I was going was that somewhere in the primordial ooze some type of chemical reaction had to take place to "jumpstart" life - according to you. Am I correct? I'll stop here so I'm not mis directed again.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #108 January 30, 2004 Creationism is definitely based on FAITH, but I hate to say it so is Evolution. We cannot explain things, we have limited capacity to understand most things, like how did a giraffe evolve the shut off valve to its brain? Without it the giraffe would die when drinking water because the blood flow would be to great. And if it did survive what happens when a lion comes to attack it? The giraffe jumps up and then as all the blood drains from its brain it passes out. The lion eats, yum yum. Either way the dead giraffe cannot devlope or pass on a ginetic code that creates a need. Without the valve it could not have the long neck, without the long neck it would have no need for the valve. What about the bombadier beetle? Two gases that when combined explodes to ward of attackers. The two gases are in seperate chambers. Without the gas it would not need the chambers and therefore would not have developed them, without the chambers it could not store the gas or it would explode and an exploded beetle cannot pass on ginetic code. One had to develope with the other. That is more than "minute quantitative changes". There are many species that have similar dual systems. Hell we as humans are a prime example. Female and male organs had to develope simultaneously or reproduction could not occur. And why would it. What possible reaso could this kind of procreation develope? Why not just split in two like our cells do? Why not have both reproductive organs in one body like some creatures? Evolution is not even a theory in scientific terms. It cannot be tested or replicated. It can only be observed through bones. It is a hypothesis, based on observations. Even Darwin was not totally convinced by his claims. For something to become a bonafide theory it has to be tested. Documented and reproduceable. To become law it has to stand the test fo time through continuous recreation of the original work. The day you can take a monkey and turn it into a human you will have convinced me that Evolution is possible. Until you can prove it through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, without redefining the method to suit evolution, then fine I might say okay there is something there. But so many people just go spouting off about how evolution is fact without any ability to proove it that I am amused. Your faith that it is real makes it real to you. Even if you'll never admit it. Faith, evolution and creation. Like it or not, evolutionists are religious fanatics that hide behind the scientific method. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #109 January 30, 2004 QuoteI think life is special, not to be bought and sold, and not to be snuffed out just because it is inconvienient. Then I guess you support the right to life and the abolishment of the death penalty too Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #110 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think life is special, not to be bought and sold, and not to be snuffed out just because it is inconvienient. Then I guess you support the right to life and the abolishment of the death penalty too Right to life is yes, definately! Death penalty is used for soeone that has proven themselves useless to society, and a danger as well. As with just about every rule there is an exception. The exception, however should not be the rule.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #111 January 30, 2004 Have you read Zell Miller's latest? A National Party No More? If not, see Chapter 18 for comfort/shared views on education reform. ...wish he'd stick around a little longer... -Gardner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,683 #112 January 30, 2004 What is a scientific fact and what is faith? Is quantum electrodynamics a fact? It is known to be accurate to 13 places. What if it is in error at the 15th sig. fig. and we just don't yet have sensitive enough experiments to show that? Evolution has been demonstrated in simple organisms. Fact. Just as factual as the quantum electrodynamics experiments. You want to turn a monkey into a human? I can't imagine why, no paleontologist suggests this ever happened. That is a typical emotional ploy by the anti-science folks going back to the Huxley-Wilberforce debate. Didn't work then, either. Why do humans have an appendix? No useful function in humans. Evolution gives an answer, does "creationism"? God just decided to add an appendix? Tough on those who died from appendicitis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #113 January 30, 2004 Hmm if we did not need the appendix why have we not evolved it out? Strange. Maybe it serves no purpose but then according to evolution we would have gotten rid of it. Again, certain things can be experimented with, like quantum electrodynamics. Those kinds of theories have been tested over and over again by many scientists. They get reproduceable results, I have no problem with that. To that 13th sig fig we get REPRODUCABLE results. Evolution on the other hand cannot. Show me scientific data where scientists can produce reproducable results where they EVOLVED something. Evolve an eye froma a freckle. Or evolve a single celled organism from an amino acid, then reproduce it, over and over again. Show me this. You say this is how life originated. PROVE IT. Theory can be documented by EXPERIMENTATION. Is that too much to ask for? Or do I just have to take your word that evolution is proven because you say so? Can't believe you cannot see the flaw in that thinking. Evolution is Faith based non-science. And as far as I can say about what God does or does not do, He has yet to consult me on anything. And I am not arrogant enough to make Him conform to MY will. Oh and since I have to pay taxes intot he school system and I have kids, what I want should matter too. Otherwise give my damn money back and let me use it to send my kids where I want them to go. You can have your Evolution in your schools and I can have my Creationism in mine and my money supports my school and your money supports yours. But no, you don't want that because then you can 't meddle in my kids minds. You want your kids to learn your beliefs and you want mine to learn yours. But the second I try to put the shoe on the other foot well now we claim I can't possibly understand science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #114 January 30, 2004 Quote Ok, where I was going was that somewhere in the primordial ooze some type of chemical reaction had to take place to "jumpstart" life - according to you. Am I correct? Not my any means a "jumpstart". Yes, just chemistry. Some atoms, carbon in particular, have a natural attraction to one another. Randomly mix them together enough times and in different ways over the course of millions and millions of years and interesting things start to happen chemically. Eventually, you'll find one or several that have the ability to split apart, find other chemical pairs due to their unique structure and join into another bunch of molecules exactly like the original set of molecules. Again, a fairly simple chemical reaction and is how you can make enough DNA for testing purposes based on extremely small samples such as the amount left by a single fingerprint. Nothing magic about it, no need for a "jumpstart" by any one or any thing. It's just chemistry.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,683 #115 January 30, 2004 QuoteHmm if we did not need the appendix why have we not evolved it out? Strange. Maybe it serves no purpose but then according to evolution we would have gotten rid of it. . It is evolving out in humans, that is the entire point. What we have is just a vestige of what is found in animals that need one on account of their diet. And we KNOW early hominids had a different diet on account of their teeth and coprolites. You seem to expect these things to happen overnight, which indicates that you don't really know what evolution actually teaches. Or do you believe fossils were just put in the ground by "God" in order to confuse us (I have heard that suggestion made in all seriousness by a member of the religious right)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JDBoston 0 #116 January 30, 2004 The fact that something seems confusing when you look at it in an incredibly simplistic way should not be taken as evidence that it is not true. Evolution doesn't suggest that one generation you had a giraffe with a short neck and then all of a sudden it had a baby that looked like today's giraffe, and it doesn't suggest that monkeys turned into humans overnight either. These things happened over intervals of time that the human mind cannot even really imagine. Evolutionary "theory" and Creation "theory" are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same kind of thing and likening faith in Creation to faith in science is disingenuous in the extreme. There's really no logical reason to prefer Creation "theory" to, say, the "theory" Scientologists have that we all came from space aliens or some shit. There's nothing to "teach" about Creation "theory," besides whatever dogma its adherents decide on a whim to propose. It's not science and never will be. You can't base experiments on it. On the other hand, people at little places like MIT and Stanford and Harvard and everywhere else in the industrialized world have been running experiments based on evolutionary theory for decades. And when you're talking about what to teach kids, scientific principles that have true predictive value, like evolution, and, as a previous post noted, can be proven FALSE, are the ONLY things that are worth talking about. Proposing teaching it side by side with evolution is just a way for people to feel good about their own willful ignorance. It has nothing at all to do with being "open-minded." It's a ridiculous idea from start to finish, it's harmful to kids and to the country as a whole, and it frankly does not deserve to be treated with any courtesy or seriousness. It's 100% exactly the same as saying that if no one can PROVE to me that the moon doesn't have a core made of green cheese, then I think we should be presenting that theory to kids side by side with the "scientific" ones and let them choose which one to believe. The only difference is that more people believe in the Creationist stuff than in the moon being made of cheese. And that's the ONLY difference. By the way, to head off any splinter threads, the Earth isn't flat, and the Sun doesn't revolve around us either. And gravity, thankfully, really does work. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #117 January 30, 2004 Quote There are many species that have similar dual systems. Hell we as humans are a prime example. Female and male organs had to develope simultaneously or reproduction could not occur. And why would it. What possible reaso could this kind of procreation develope? Why not just split in two like our cells do? Why not have both reproductive organs in one body like some creatures? There are theories to explain that and they all pretty much make sense. For example: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/chromos1.htm http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1134/5_110/75247894/p6/article.jhtml?term= http://www.anthropogeny.com/Evolution%20of%20Eukaryotes,%20Crossing%20Over%20and%20Sex.htm It makes evolutionary sense. It ensures a wider diversity of the genes and more rapid adaptations.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #118 January 30, 2004 QuoteYou seem to expect these things to happen overnight, which indicates that you don't really know what evolution actually teaches. You mean minute quantitativce changes over a billion years? Or the fact that things evolve out of necessity? You say that the appendix is EVOLVING out of us. Really? How do you know? DO you have an appendix from an early human that you can compare it to? ANd yes I am just dumb enough to think that God want to confuse us by putting fossils in the ground. In fact I do not believe Dinosaurs actually existed. It think they really are just hardened sand art by early man in the time of the Pharoahs. ANd if a religious right told you that they were just Religious, not followers of God. He says He is NOT the author of confusion, so that person was seriously guilty of not knowing their own faith. And just because what is found in animals is different than our does not mean that ours was as big as theirs. By your logic, my teeth are a vestige of what sharks have so I must be evolving out of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,683 #119 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou seem to expect these things to happen overnight, which indicates that you don't really know what evolution actually teaches. You mean minute quantitativce changes over a billion years? Or the fact that things evolve out of necessity? You say that the appendix is EVOLVING out of us. Really? How do you know? DO you have an appendix from an early human that you can compare it to? ANd yes I am just dumb enough to think that God want to confuse us by putting fossils in the ground. In fact I do not believe Dinosaurs actually existed. It think they really are just hardened sand art by early man in the time of the Pharoahs. ANd if a religious right told you that they were just Religious, not followers of God. He says He is NOT the author of confusion, so that person was seriously guilty of not knowing their own faith. And just because what is found in animals is different than our does not mean that ours was as big as theirs. By your logic, my teeth are a vestige of what sharks have so I must be evolving out of them. Sensible debate is clearly at an end here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #120 January 30, 2004 You know I know that the giraffe did not wake up one day and say ooh I need a long neck and a vlalve to prevent it from exploding. But the neck and the valve and the stronger heart and a whole mess of things had to develope SIMULTANEOUSLY for this giraffe to get where it is today. And this had to ahppen across the entire living kingdoms. Plants and animals at the same time. And everything had to communicate their evelotionary changes in some way with all other species so that they could continue their symbiotic relationships. Do I think creatures can adapt to surroundings? Yes, do I think it happens by chance? Absolutely not. There is a design at work and that requires a designer which means a creator. And FYI up until 5 years agfo I was a staunch non-christian who believed completely in evolution. And it wasn't until I started seeing how much you have to accept at faith that I began to question my beliefs. I will never be convinced again that evolution is fact. ANd you will apparently be happy to believe in it. We are going to go in cirlces and someone will post that stupid cat and mouse bashing each other. SO I am going to just agree to disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #121 January 30, 2004 QuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. I couldn't agree more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #122 January 30, 2004 Quote Or do you believe fossils were just put in the ground by "God" in order to confuse us (I have heard that suggestion made in all seriousness by a member of the religious right)? I heard it was the Devil . . . which actually makes a bit more sense from a mythological and storytelling stand point, but even that is a lame idea if you really think about it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vonSanta 0 #123 January 30, 2004 Alright, gonna write a long reply here. Gregory, I don't do it to piss you off or anything - I'd just like to offer some words. So all this in good spirits, yes? QuoteCreationism is definitely based on FAITH, but I hate to say it so is Evolution. Are you talking about evolution or the theory of evolution, i.e the explanatory mechanism for the origin of species? In either case, I think you're incorrect. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There's overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution - it is not absolute however, and there are things yet to be understood by human kind. But infallability is not a requirement for necessary for something to be considered a scientific theory QuoteWe cannot explain things, we have limited capacity to understand most things, like how did a giraffe evolve the shut off valve to its brain? Without it the giraffe would die when drinking water because the blood flow would be to great. And if it did survive what happens when a lion comes to attack it? The giraffe jumps up and then as all the blood drains from its brain it passes out. The lion eats, yum yum. Either way the dead giraffe cannot devlope or pass on a ginetic code that creates a need. Without the valve it could not have the long neck, without the long neck it would have no need for the valve. Dawkins adresses this rather eloquently in The Blind watchmaker. It basically boils down to "even a partial or slight increase in survivability is beneficial to the species. And, of course, evolution takes time. It is very likely the valve and neck evovled in conjunction with each other - out of necessity. QuoteWhat about the bombadier beetle? Two gases that when combined explodes to ward of attackers. The two gases are in seperate chambers. Without the gas it would not need the chambers and therefore would not have developed them, without the chambers it could not store the gas or it would explode and an exploded beetle cannot pass on ginetic code. One had to develope with the other. That is more than "minute quantitative changes". This is a an argument of the type "but look at the human eye! Something so complex cannot just have evolved with minute changes!". Which, of course, is false. Again, seeing a shadow of a predator is better than seeing nothing. Evolution is just *part* of the equation. Natural selection is the mechanism that makes it seem "guided" (even though it is not). For a debunk of the "bombardier beetle is impossible to explain by evolution!", see this link. I'll not bother to retype it here and will thereby save everyone some time :). Quote Evolution is not even a theory in scientific terms. It cannot be tested or replicated. It can only be observed through bones. It is a hypothesis, based on observations. Even Darwin was not totally convinced by his claims. For something to become a bonafide theory it has to be tested. Documented and reproduceable. Microevolution can certainly be tested. The evolution of bacteria and viruses is one example. if you're referring to speciation, that is obbviously harder. yet there are confirmed cases of that - this link is a good starter or primer on the subject. QuoteTo become law it has to stand the test fo time through continuous recreation of the original work. Darwin's basic theories have held remarkably well against the test of time. A lot of details he got wrong, as modern biology has shown - but the basic tenets are the strongest explanation based on evidence and scientfic methods we have - nothing comes even close. "God did it" is a claim that's been made for eons - he made thunder, and rain. As our understanding of the world increases, we see the real explanation. There might be a god, or gods out there - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they meddle in what is essentially a self regulating system. One could argue that God or gods created this system . but that would be way outside the theory of evolution. QuoteThe day you can take a monkey and turn it into a human you will have convinced me that Evolution is possible. The day you can take a planet and turn it into a portable field of gravity, you will have convinced me of the theory of gravity QuoteUntil you can prove it through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, without redefining the method to suit evolution, then fine I might say okay there is something there. Research biologists all over the world, including those in evolutionary biology, certainly consider themselves scientists - and as such, they use the scientific methodology I can dig up some examples, should it be necessary. QuoteBut so many people just go spouting off about how evolution is fact without any ability to proove it that I am amused. Your faith that it is real makes it real to you. Even if you'll never admit it. A great many more have little understanding of evolution and what understanding they have is based more on opinion/hearsay than on fact. I am not saying this is the case with you - but there is a great ignorance in the general population when it comes to evolution. That is usually the case when something clashes with something as important as personal faith. Fortunately, we do not kill scientists anymore when they come across something interesting. We ask 'em to support their assertions. it is fortunate for those with personal interests in organized religion that the latter isn't held up to the same exacting standards. QuoteFaith, evolution and creation. Like it or not, evolutionists are religious fanatics that hide behind the scientific method. Hm, science is not a religion - it's a methodology. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites YellowDog 0 #124 January 30, 2004 Quote Sensible debate is clearly at an end here. There's just one more thing: Has anyone noticed how GWB pronounces nuclear? ---> One Half of Almost Nearly Normal <--- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Swoopyswoop 0 #125 January 30, 2004 I hope your proud of yourself andy, See the shit you got stirred up in here. Cant understand why someone would want to stir up a little dust in the forums. Well other than its fun "when I die, I want to go like my grandfather while im sleeping, not like the passengers riding in the car with me Swoopster A.S.S. #6 Future T.S.S holder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
skydivexxl 0 #106 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuote I don't think that you have to take the fish. Bwaaaahahahahahhahahahahah LMAO - that was so obvious it was funny. Does cut the numbers down though. The bible said ALL species. And not to sound too strange, all the water would combine, so it would be very diluted salt water... which fish would survive? Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #107 January 30, 2004 Not where you are going - I don't have any problem with assisted suicide - oh sorry that was assisted murder, my bad. I think life is special, not to be bought and sold, and not to be snuffed out just because it is inconvienient. I wasn't going to go there, but oh well, you made me. Ok, where I was going was that somewhere in the primordial ooze some type of chemical reaction had to take place to "jumpstart" life - according to you. Am I correct? I'll stop here so I'm not mis directed again.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #108 January 30, 2004 Creationism is definitely based on FAITH, but I hate to say it so is Evolution. We cannot explain things, we have limited capacity to understand most things, like how did a giraffe evolve the shut off valve to its brain? Without it the giraffe would die when drinking water because the blood flow would be to great. And if it did survive what happens when a lion comes to attack it? The giraffe jumps up and then as all the blood drains from its brain it passes out. The lion eats, yum yum. Either way the dead giraffe cannot devlope or pass on a ginetic code that creates a need. Without the valve it could not have the long neck, without the long neck it would have no need for the valve. What about the bombadier beetle? Two gases that when combined explodes to ward of attackers. The two gases are in seperate chambers. Without the gas it would not need the chambers and therefore would not have developed them, without the chambers it could not store the gas or it would explode and an exploded beetle cannot pass on ginetic code. One had to develope with the other. That is more than "minute quantitative changes". There are many species that have similar dual systems. Hell we as humans are a prime example. Female and male organs had to develope simultaneously or reproduction could not occur. And why would it. What possible reaso could this kind of procreation develope? Why not just split in two like our cells do? Why not have both reproductive organs in one body like some creatures? Evolution is not even a theory in scientific terms. It cannot be tested or replicated. It can only be observed through bones. It is a hypothesis, based on observations. Even Darwin was not totally convinced by his claims. For something to become a bonafide theory it has to be tested. Documented and reproduceable. To become law it has to stand the test fo time through continuous recreation of the original work. The day you can take a monkey and turn it into a human you will have convinced me that Evolution is possible. Until you can prove it through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, without redefining the method to suit evolution, then fine I might say okay there is something there. But so many people just go spouting off about how evolution is fact without any ability to proove it that I am amused. Your faith that it is real makes it real to you. Even if you'll never admit it. Faith, evolution and creation. Like it or not, evolutionists are religious fanatics that hide behind the scientific method. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #109 January 30, 2004 QuoteI think life is special, not to be bought and sold, and not to be snuffed out just because it is inconvienient. Then I guess you support the right to life and the abolishment of the death penalty too Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #110 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think life is special, not to be bought and sold, and not to be snuffed out just because it is inconvienient. Then I guess you support the right to life and the abolishment of the death penalty too Right to life is yes, definately! Death penalty is used for soeone that has proven themselves useless to society, and a danger as well. As with just about every rule there is an exception. The exception, however should not be the rule.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #111 January 30, 2004 Have you read Zell Miller's latest? A National Party No More? If not, see Chapter 18 for comfort/shared views on education reform. ...wish he'd stick around a little longer... -Gardner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #112 January 30, 2004 What is a scientific fact and what is faith? Is quantum electrodynamics a fact? It is known to be accurate to 13 places. What if it is in error at the 15th sig. fig. and we just don't yet have sensitive enough experiments to show that? Evolution has been demonstrated in simple organisms. Fact. Just as factual as the quantum electrodynamics experiments. You want to turn a monkey into a human? I can't imagine why, no paleontologist suggests this ever happened. That is a typical emotional ploy by the anti-science folks going back to the Huxley-Wilberforce debate. Didn't work then, either. Why do humans have an appendix? No useful function in humans. Evolution gives an answer, does "creationism"? God just decided to add an appendix? Tough on those who died from appendicitis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #113 January 30, 2004 Hmm if we did not need the appendix why have we not evolved it out? Strange. Maybe it serves no purpose but then according to evolution we would have gotten rid of it. Again, certain things can be experimented with, like quantum electrodynamics. Those kinds of theories have been tested over and over again by many scientists. They get reproduceable results, I have no problem with that. To that 13th sig fig we get REPRODUCABLE results. Evolution on the other hand cannot. Show me scientific data where scientists can produce reproducable results where they EVOLVED something. Evolve an eye froma a freckle. Or evolve a single celled organism from an amino acid, then reproduce it, over and over again. Show me this. You say this is how life originated. PROVE IT. Theory can be documented by EXPERIMENTATION. Is that too much to ask for? Or do I just have to take your word that evolution is proven because you say so? Can't believe you cannot see the flaw in that thinking. Evolution is Faith based non-science. And as far as I can say about what God does or does not do, He has yet to consult me on anything. And I am not arrogant enough to make Him conform to MY will. Oh and since I have to pay taxes intot he school system and I have kids, what I want should matter too. Otherwise give my damn money back and let me use it to send my kids where I want them to go. You can have your Evolution in your schools and I can have my Creationism in mine and my money supports my school and your money supports yours. But no, you don't want that because then you can 't meddle in my kids minds. You want your kids to learn your beliefs and you want mine to learn yours. But the second I try to put the shoe on the other foot well now we claim I can't possibly understand science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #114 January 30, 2004 Quote Ok, where I was going was that somewhere in the primordial ooze some type of chemical reaction had to take place to "jumpstart" life - according to you. Am I correct? Not my any means a "jumpstart". Yes, just chemistry. Some atoms, carbon in particular, have a natural attraction to one another. Randomly mix them together enough times and in different ways over the course of millions and millions of years and interesting things start to happen chemically. Eventually, you'll find one or several that have the ability to split apart, find other chemical pairs due to their unique structure and join into another bunch of molecules exactly like the original set of molecules. Again, a fairly simple chemical reaction and is how you can make enough DNA for testing purposes based on extremely small samples such as the amount left by a single fingerprint. Nothing magic about it, no need for a "jumpstart" by any one or any thing. It's just chemistry.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #115 January 30, 2004 QuoteHmm if we did not need the appendix why have we not evolved it out? Strange. Maybe it serves no purpose but then according to evolution we would have gotten rid of it. . It is evolving out in humans, that is the entire point. What we have is just a vestige of what is found in animals that need one on account of their diet. And we KNOW early hominids had a different diet on account of their teeth and coprolites. You seem to expect these things to happen overnight, which indicates that you don't really know what evolution actually teaches. Or do you believe fossils were just put in the ground by "God" in order to confuse us (I have heard that suggestion made in all seriousness by a member of the religious right)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #116 January 30, 2004 The fact that something seems confusing when you look at it in an incredibly simplistic way should not be taken as evidence that it is not true. Evolution doesn't suggest that one generation you had a giraffe with a short neck and then all of a sudden it had a baby that looked like today's giraffe, and it doesn't suggest that monkeys turned into humans overnight either. These things happened over intervals of time that the human mind cannot even really imagine. Evolutionary "theory" and Creation "theory" are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same kind of thing and likening faith in Creation to faith in science is disingenuous in the extreme. There's really no logical reason to prefer Creation "theory" to, say, the "theory" Scientologists have that we all came from space aliens or some shit. There's nothing to "teach" about Creation "theory," besides whatever dogma its adherents decide on a whim to propose. It's not science and never will be. You can't base experiments on it. On the other hand, people at little places like MIT and Stanford and Harvard and everywhere else in the industrialized world have been running experiments based on evolutionary theory for decades. And when you're talking about what to teach kids, scientific principles that have true predictive value, like evolution, and, as a previous post noted, can be proven FALSE, are the ONLY things that are worth talking about. Proposing teaching it side by side with evolution is just a way for people to feel good about their own willful ignorance. It has nothing at all to do with being "open-minded." It's a ridiculous idea from start to finish, it's harmful to kids and to the country as a whole, and it frankly does not deserve to be treated with any courtesy or seriousness. It's 100% exactly the same as saying that if no one can PROVE to me that the moon doesn't have a core made of green cheese, then I think we should be presenting that theory to kids side by side with the "scientific" ones and let them choose which one to believe. The only difference is that more people believe in the Creationist stuff than in the moon being made of cheese. And that's the ONLY difference. By the way, to head off any splinter threads, the Earth isn't flat, and the Sun doesn't revolve around us either. And gravity, thankfully, really does work. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #117 January 30, 2004 Quote There are many species that have similar dual systems. Hell we as humans are a prime example. Female and male organs had to develope simultaneously or reproduction could not occur. And why would it. What possible reaso could this kind of procreation develope? Why not just split in two like our cells do? Why not have both reproductive organs in one body like some creatures? There are theories to explain that and they all pretty much make sense. For example: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/chromos1.htm http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1134/5_110/75247894/p6/article.jhtml?term= http://www.anthropogeny.com/Evolution%20of%20Eukaryotes,%20Crossing%20Over%20and%20Sex.htm It makes evolutionary sense. It ensures a wider diversity of the genes and more rapid adaptations.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #118 January 30, 2004 QuoteYou seem to expect these things to happen overnight, which indicates that you don't really know what evolution actually teaches. You mean minute quantitativce changes over a billion years? Or the fact that things evolve out of necessity? You say that the appendix is EVOLVING out of us. Really? How do you know? DO you have an appendix from an early human that you can compare it to? ANd yes I am just dumb enough to think that God want to confuse us by putting fossils in the ground. In fact I do not believe Dinosaurs actually existed. It think they really are just hardened sand art by early man in the time of the Pharoahs. ANd if a religious right told you that they were just Religious, not followers of God. He says He is NOT the author of confusion, so that person was seriously guilty of not knowing their own faith. And just because what is found in animals is different than our does not mean that ours was as big as theirs. By your logic, my teeth are a vestige of what sharks have so I must be evolving out of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #119 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou seem to expect these things to happen overnight, which indicates that you don't really know what evolution actually teaches. You mean minute quantitativce changes over a billion years? Or the fact that things evolve out of necessity? You say that the appendix is EVOLVING out of us. Really? How do you know? DO you have an appendix from an early human that you can compare it to? ANd yes I am just dumb enough to think that God want to confuse us by putting fossils in the ground. In fact I do not believe Dinosaurs actually existed. It think they really are just hardened sand art by early man in the time of the Pharoahs. ANd if a religious right told you that they were just Religious, not followers of God. He says He is NOT the author of confusion, so that person was seriously guilty of not knowing their own faith. And just because what is found in animals is different than our does not mean that ours was as big as theirs. By your logic, my teeth are a vestige of what sharks have so I must be evolving out of them. Sensible debate is clearly at an end here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #120 January 30, 2004 You know I know that the giraffe did not wake up one day and say ooh I need a long neck and a vlalve to prevent it from exploding. But the neck and the valve and the stronger heart and a whole mess of things had to develope SIMULTANEOUSLY for this giraffe to get where it is today. And this had to ahppen across the entire living kingdoms. Plants and animals at the same time. And everything had to communicate their evelotionary changes in some way with all other species so that they could continue their symbiotic relationships. Do I think creatures can adapt to surroundings? Yes, do I think it happens by chance? Absolutely not. There is a design at work and that requires a designer which means a creator. And FYI up until 5 years agfo I was a staunch non-christian who believed completely in evolution. And it wasn't until I started seeing how much you have to accept at faith that I began to question my beliefs. I will never be convinced again that evolution is fact. ANd you will apparently be happy to believe in it. We are going to go in cirlces and someone will post that stupid cat and mouse bashing each other. SO I am going to just agree to disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #121 January 30, 2004 QuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. I couldn't agree more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #122 January 30, 2004 Quote Or do you believe fossils were just put in the ground by "God" in order to confuse us (I have heard that suggestion made in all seriousness by a member of the religious right)? I heard it was the Devil . . . which actually makes a bit more sense from a mythological and storytelling stand point, but even that is a lame idea if you really think about it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #123 January 30, 2004 Alright, gonna write a long reply here. Gregory, I don't do it to piss you off or anything - I'd just like to offer some words. So all this in good spirits, yes? QuoteCreationism is definitely based on FAITH, but I hate to say it so is Evolution. Are you talking about evolution or the theory of evolution, i.e the explanatory mechanism for the origin of species? In either case, I think you're incorrect. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There's overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution - it is not absolute however, and there are things yet to be understood by human kind. But infallability is not a requirement for necessary for something to be considered a scientific theory QuoteWe cannot explain things, we have limited capacity to understand most things, like how did a giraffe evolve the shut off valve to its brain? Without it the giraffe would die when drinking water because the blood flow would be to great. And if it did survive what happens when a lion comes to attack it? The giraffe jumps up and then as all the blood drains from its brain it passes out. The lion eats, yum yum. Either way the dead giraffe cannot devlope or pass on a ginetic code that creates a need. Without the valve it could not have the long neck, without the long neck it would have no need for the valve. Dawkins adresses this rather eloquently in The Blind watchmaker. It basically boils down to "even a partial or slight increase in survivability is beneficial to the species. And, of course, evolution takes time. It is very likely the valve and neck evovled in conjunction with each other - out of necessity. QuoteWhat about the bombadier beetle? Two gases that when combined explodes to ward of attackers. The two gases are in seperate chambers. Without the gas it would not need the chambers and therefore would not have developed them, without the chambers it could not store the gas or it would explode and an exploded beetle cannot pass on ginetic code. One had to develope with the other. That is more than "minute quantitative changes". This is a an argument of the type "but look at the human eye! Something so complex cannot just have evolved with minute changes!". Which, of course, is false. Again, seeing a shadow of a predator is better than seeing nothing. Evolution is just *part* of the equation. Natural selection is the mechanism that makes it seem "guided" (even though it is not). For a debunk of the "bombardier beetle is impossible to explain by evolution!", see this link. I'll not bother to retype it here and will thereby save everyone some time :). Quote Evolution is not even a theory in scientific terms. It cannot be tested or replicated. It can only be observed through bones. It is a hypothesis, based on observations. Even Darwin was not totally convinced by his claims. For something to become a bonafide theory it has to be tested. Documented and reproduceable. Microevolution can certainly be tested. The evolution of bacteria and viruses is one example. if you're referring to speciation, that is obbviously harder. yet there are confirmed cases of that - this link is a good starter or primer on the subject. QuoteTo become law it has to stand the test fo time through continuous recreation of the original work. Darwin's basic theories have held remarkably well against the test of time. A lot of details he got wrong, as modern biology has shown - but the basic tenets are the strongest explanation based on evidence and scientfic methods we have - nothing comes even close. "God did it" is a claim that's been made for eons - he made thunder, and rain. As our understanding of the world increases, we see the real explanation. There might be a god, or gods out there - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they meddle in what is essentially a self regulating system. One could argue that God or gods created this system . but that would be way outside the theory of evolution. QuoteThe day you can take a monkey and turn it into a human you will have convinced me that Evolution is possible. The day you can take a planet and turn it into a portable field of gravity, you will have convinced me of the theory of gravity QuoteUntil you can prove it through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, without redefining the method to suit evolution, then fine I might say okay there is something there. Research biologists all over the world, including those in evolutionary biology, certainly consider themselves scientists - and as such, they use the scientific methodology I can dig up some examples, should it be necessary. QuoteBut so many people just go spouting off about how evolution is fact without any ability to proove it that I am amused. Your faith that it is real makes it real to you. Even if you'll never admit it. A great many more have little understanding of evolution and what understanding they have is based more on opinion/hearsay than on fact. I am not saying this is the case with you - but there is a great ignorance in the general population when it comes to evolution. That is usually the case when something clashes with something as important as personal faith. Fortunately, we do not kill scientists anymore when they come across something interesting. We ask 'em to support their assertions. it is fortunate for those with personal interests in organized religion that the latter isn't held up to the same exacting standards. QuoteFaith, evolution and creation. Like it or not, evolutionists are religious fanatics that hide behind the scientific method. Hm, science is not a religion - it's a methodology. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YellowDog 0 #124 January 30, 2004 Quote Sensible debate is clearly at an end here. There's just one more thing: Has anyone noticed how GWB pronounces nuclear? ---> One Half of Almost Nearly Normal <--- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Swoopyswoop 0 #125 January 30, 2004 I hope your proud of yourself andy, See the shit you got stirred up in here. Cant understand why someone would want to stir up a little dust in the forums. Well other than its fun "when I die, I want to go like my grandfather while im sleeping, not like the passengers riding in the car with me Swoopster A.S.S. #6 Future T.S.S holder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
