Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 2 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

DOUGP59

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:26 PM

Nice response. Though I disagree with your answers. Your post was the first that did not contain an insult of some kind.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:43 PM

Not at all.

Intelligent Design is a reworking of creationism pre-supposing the existence of a deity or creator for which there is no proof, for which there CAN be no proof. Intelligent Design is based on something that can not be proved, scientific theories are based on something that may be proved or disproved.

To say Intelligent Design is a science is indicative of someone who doesn't really understand 'science', nor really understands the underlying theories of evolution.

Oh, and I've never actually seen anyone with real scientific credentials advocate ID.

ID has no supporting evidence, and for all your attacks on evolution it is far better supported by demonstrate able evidence. I've certainly seen nothing in the way of a workable real world theory for ID.

Unless modern scientific theory is along the lines of "yeah, we can't explain that bit, so god did it.".

I basically answered your question about how genetic material can be added, how a DNA strand can grow as you put it and you ignore it. Maybe that passage didn't register because it ran contrary to the doctrine you've had ingrained on you since birth.

You pick one tiny part of my post and rubbish the rest on the flimsy proposition that scientist are involved in ID, ergo it is science, ergo my entire post is wrong.

Nice reasoning there, would you like me to explain the meaning of Post Hoc analysis?

Quote:
A variable speed of light (VSL) is the concept that the speed of light may not be constant over time.

Thank you I know what the VSL theory is, and if I didn't I can read, quite well actually, and I did read the link you provided.

Quote:
This has several implications for physics. [1] This concept is used by VSL cosmologies to explain observations usually explained by the inflationary models, but they can also explain other cosmological problems.

So? What does that have to do with evolution or ID? How does this prove that VSL is correct?

Quote:
[2] A changing speed of light and our current view of relativity are not compatible.

No, really? I probably know that better than you, since I actually understand Relativity. The difference is that Relativity is supported by experimental and observable evidence. VSL isn't. Oh but we aren't supposed to go with evidence, right? We want to go with the theory that most closely fits our preconceived notions. That's what’s being 'open minded' is all about, huh.

Quote:
Talk about a closed mind!

Yikes!!!

Let me get this straight. I'm close minded because I think a theory with a fair degree of evidence is more reasonable than one with none? So you are open minded because you ignore the facts and jump on the bandwagon of an unsupported baseless theory because it fits the bible better?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 9, 2006 10:48 PM

Quote:
Nice response. Though I disagree with your answers. Your post was the first that did not contain an insult of some kind.

I can only assume your refering to SPIKEANDJEZEBEL here.

Just remember you've not been polite to anyone here who dares to have a different point of view to you're ideas. Take a look at your responce to Signym after his reasonable post.

If you're getting insults maybe you want to look to your own responces.

But you carry on playing the victim card, there's a good brave little Christian soldier.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:07 AM

Well, I'll take some of the blame for degenerating this conversation. I'e been through this more than once, and it gets old fast. The purpose of science is to be able to explain observed phenomena. But 'intelligent explains' nothing. Not only that, it requires that a great deal of obervation be chucked out the window. I haven't heard Doug's explanation for how fossils came to exist, or how light travels through the universe. All I hear is a lot of whinging about gaps. And you know what? Science will ALWAYS be incomplete. Until we know everything about everything (doubtful) science will always have gaps, unexplained facets, inconsistancies. It merely tells us our knowledge is incomplete and that we need to look further or imagine more brilliantly. That is its strength not its weakness.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

SPINLAND

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:16 AM

And for more enlightenment:

http://www.venganza.org/

'Nuff said.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

JAYTEE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:25 AM

Arguing with a Fundamentalist is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You can never pin down the slippery little feller. All you get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Jaytee

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:22 AM

I will never understand Intelligent Design because when I try to think of what an intelligent designer would do, if making a world with life on it, I come up with the following:

The designer would make a world in such a way that life would arise on it (why make a world and life when you can just make the world and have it make life?) and have that life exist in such a way that it adapted to changes in its surroundings and bettered itself with each passing generation. What's more this process, let's call it "evolution," would be seamless in that it would never show the hand of the designer because doing so would mean shoddy workmanship and the need for last minute repairs.

The problem is that this goes contrary to everything the Intelligent Design advocates say, they think that their Intelligent Designer made the world, and made life, but did such a bad job that he, she or it had to go back and fix things thus leaving empirically detectible evidence. Why not just make a good world on the first try? Why not make it so that the life you want will be created on its own within the rules you already set up? Why make things twenty steps more complex than they need to be?

I have no problem with people believing in god, I have no problem with people not believing in god, and I have no problem with people being undecided. But why believe in a god who can't work within his own rules? If god made the laws of physics why break them? And if the type of god these people believe in does not break the laws of physics there can be no evidence for god's existence because everything would be in accordance with nature. No evidence means no place in science be it real or not.

I get that there is a place for faith, the truth is you need faith for everything, even science requires faith. But after you take that leap of faith, in this case, "There is a god," I think you should use logic to evaluate what to believe about it.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
Arguing with a Fundamentalist is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You can never pin down the slippery little feller. All you get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Jaytee

Yeah, but if you keep your sense of humor arguing with a fundamentalist can be a reminder of what a hoopy frood you are.

[Edited to add:] I should point that this is purely hypothetical for me, I am neither hoopy nor a frood.

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:30 AM

""The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Blasphemy! We all KNOW it was the flying spaghetti monster!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
www.vengaza.org

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:10 AM

I am of course assuming this is a joke, and Doug is intentionally cruising for a bruising. So I won't bother, but this I thought was interesting.

Quote:
What biological evolutionary process has been shown to be able to INCREASE the information in the DNA molecule?

I know the answer to this one, and I'll get back to it in a second.

This, on the otherhand, is patently false:

Quote:
If the speed of light has NOT been a constant since DAY ONE (irregardles of when that was), then the whole of evolutionary cosmology collapses!

The speed of light is only marginally variable, the larger flucuation is in the energy of light, but neither one impact the idea of scalar evolution at all. They cause big bang theory to collapse, but so what, big bang theory is flawed. The degree to which scientists want to see big bang as impacting our universe is at least quasi-religious if not totally deist. In reality, bangs can occur, but the all of existance does not owe itself to a big bang.

But back to the question, to which I know the answer. Random amino acids bond to form random strings, which started the first self-repicating strands. Lifeforms evolve, strands grow, and get clipped, and in time have become stored in large databanks, microorganisms which themselves contain absurd quantities of DNA.

The specific mechanism by which new genes are added to an extant strand of DNA is reverse transcription, which is carried out by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Signym and Citizen already alluded to this. Half of the rest of you out there already knew this, and are kicking yourselves for not having said it first :)

But here's something you may not know: Micro-organisms and some simple parasites and insects can inject vectors for reverse transcription of gene sequences, and in so doing, alter the genetic code of other organisms. This is more than likely a far more powerful influence on the development of species than random mutation.

It DOES NOT, however, in any way alter the fact of natural selection. Those coded sequences, whether pre-written, stolen from other organisms or randomly assembled from spare parts - must compete through natural selection for dominance.

An interesting side note. This closely resembles the way a true free-market capitalist system would work, therefore it is an immitation of nature. By contrast, socialism is the top down introduction of a set of utopian solutions dreamt up by groups of intellectuals latey called 'think tanks.' Ergo, socialism is Intelligent Design economics.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE