A debate about debates

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:34 PM

Quote:
That claimed bio major

Kaneman is as much a bio major as he as a tunisian black woman

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:17 PM

CTTS

I think you missed the rest of the posts.

No ones saying you can't spout that religious belief. We're saying it's fraudulent to create a scientific debate which has lots of wishful thinking and not a signal shred of evidence and call it science. Call it religion.

Free speech does *not* extend to malicious slander.

If you want to teach a class in a public school on history and in it you say that the French ran Auschwitz and not the Germans, you're not covered under your right of free speech to do so. If this level of speech were permissable, I'm certain that society would utterly collapse, not that it hasn't already.

Furthermore, I can't say that I'm a PhD in nanotechnology, because I'm not. If I were allowed to say that in the byline of stuff I wrote, then people would take my position more seriously, hey, why doesn't everyone do that? Screw this educational thing! Let's all do that!

I'm president of the united states. Can I issue orders now? A US soldier wants to tell his girlfriend in Pyongyang our nuclear missile launch codes, there's free speech, he can do that right?
His sister is on the phone to Osama bin Laden telling him how to make a virus that will wipe out humanity.

I hope this illustrates the point. Kaneman is entitled to his opnion that the Earth grew out of his nosehair, but he is not allowed to teach it as science. If he is allowed to, then society will surely collapse.

This debate is not what this debate is about, and until it is, it cannot continue in the way in which is continuing, because that is accepting that facts can be compromised with non-facts to create half-truths which will then replace truths, and we will all accept it because it is a compromise, and any time someone wants to challenge accepted fact, they can do so without evidence or proof.

What essentially you are creating is democracy of thought, which has always been sort of widely viewed as a disasterous idea. If the majority of people think blacks are inferior, then damn the evidence, blacks are inferior. Once that's established, they deserve to be slaves if the majority think so.

We don't have, and never have had, and shouldn't have, the freedom to have all debates put on an equal footing and weighed equally regardless of any extenuating circumstance or evidence. If we did, any cockcamamie idea would challenge any fact all of the time. Go back to my "let's rape some of the women" compromise. This is an unworkable idea.

This is why science is science, because its debates have rules, and one of those rules is that positions are based on groundwork which is somewhere based on evidence. Even in the abstract theory of relativity, ultimately it came back to the observational evidence of star movements. Eisteins thoery explained those movements better than the accepted Newtonian theory, and the debate was one. Quantum mechanics explained the observer movement of molecules better than Eistein, and the debate was, again, on. But Joe Schmoes theory that planetary motion was directed by a hyper-plasmic signal which issued from his own brain was not debated, and never got accepted nationally to be taught in public schools with equal weight along side the heliocentric 'theory' of planetary motion.

So, sure, he can voice his opinions, on this board, but we can't allow debates without evidence to happen in the scientific community or we end up with democracy of thought, or, in other words, mob rule.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:38 PM

AH!! THE SIGN!! It says... no leprechauns? Away with Rumplestiltskin? Don't.... er... I see a roasted turkey... No turkeys and trolls?

OOOOOOH! I GET IT!

Don't feed the trolls!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:15 PM

Quote:
So, sure, he can voice his opinions, on this board, but we can't allow debates without evidence to happen in the scientific community or we end up with democracy of thought, or, in other words, mob rule.

Well put.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:00 PM

Thank you DT.

I was going to post but what you said was much better than anything I might have come up with.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Quote:
there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?

look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator

I should have responded a long time ago, and maybe you'll miss it because I waited so long. Sorry about that.

Your statement about athiests who post here is what you believe I'm sure, but I don't think the facts back you up, any more than if I were to say 'people of religion on this site hate science'.

I am an atheist myself,or when I want to sound more scientific I say I'm an agnostic, because I can't disprove the existence of a God. I believe there's no God, but this belief is not a strong or unbending one. The prospect of a belief system as bleak as atheism is hardly ideal. if there was any evidence I could look to to convince me of the possibility of something supernatural, I think I might just latch onto it.

As to faith's connection to science, there are really two options here. Either faith has no bearing on empirical evidence whatsoever - that is, it deals with a higher plain of thought or knowledge, in which case, faith has no business dictating scientific understanding because the two realms are absolutely distinct. There should be no religeous intervention into science because no matter what science proves, science is some illusion dealing with only the profane and not the sacred, and faith is the real truth that deals with the sacred but not the profane,

or else,

we glimpse the sacred through the profane, in which case our understanding of our faith should be led by our empirical understanding of the world. When our empirical understanding debunks one literal aspect of our faith, our faith should adjust accordingly. You do not throw out the evidence that doesn't support the hypothesis, you throw out the hypothesis, or else, tweak it.

Either Way, science should not be molested or manipulated by religious belief, either because it is not related, or because it is the very method through which we can get closer to seeing God.

Which of the two do you subscribe to? or if there's a third option, I'd be interested.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.

Why start now?

From what I've read, you haven't done any thinking so far in this thread; it'd be a wonder of wonders (and would probably make your brain happy) to get those neurons firing for once.

...well it's true.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

HeeHee

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.

Self-assembling is a far cry from reproduction. And I'm the idiot.

CITIZEN

Friday, October 20, 2006 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.

Self-assembling is a far cry from reproduction. And I'm the idiot.

Prions and Viruses reproduce, despite merely being self-assembling, you just debunked you're own argument.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, October 20, 2006 12:42 AM

I'm surprised he didn't know that viruses and prions reproduce. It's kind of astounding.

KANEMAN

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:07 AM

Wrong again Asswipe, they do not "Reproduce". They "use" a living host to do it for them. Where does that living host come from and how does it reproduce? Instead of talking in circles, answer the question ....How does a nonliving "thing" become living and have the ability to REALLY reproduce? Don't bring up Molecules, Ions, or Crystals..for they have more to do with electromagnetic charges than reproduction. (If you can "rub" two molecules together and get anything other than two molecules or a bigger molecule). I will personally lick your ass.

I do not believe in god, never claimed to. I do not buy into to this evolution shit when there is no truth to it...Well, it's true.......

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:21 AM

Quote:
kaneman wrote:

I do not believe in god, never claimed to. I do not buy into to this evolution shit when there is no truth to it

Then what, exactly, do you believe? Frankly, I'm confused by this post after all you've had to say in this thread.

It appears there are three options on the table.
1. Evolution, or at least some method of speciation by natural means, which is the defining natural scientific principle of the modern age and the one agreed to by PhD's in Biology.
2. Creationism
3. I.D.

You immediately ruled out evolution (1.)as a choice at the beginning of this thread. Then in your latest post ruled out 2. and 3. at the same time. What other choices am I missing? There is either a natural method or a religious one, and you've managed to void both at the same time.

What's left, magic? Are we the ethereal dreams of the forming universe? Or did you just smoke pot before you wrote that post, and didn't mean what you typed?

Give me your fourth option for life on this planet; I'm intrigued (as I suspect might be scientists and philosophers around the globe).

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:50 AM

Kaneman- If I can reproduce a photograph or a document that opens the question of "real" reproduction as opposed to fake(?) reproduction. I think you're conflating two issues: "reproduction" and "life". At one time reproduction was considered to be a necessary but not sufficient attribute of "life". But as intermediate forms were found... organic bits that interact with living things and reproduce but don't do some of the other "lifelike" activities the whole definition of "life" was thrown into question.

To repeat my question so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: What is real reproduction? How does it differ from unreal reproduction?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

KANEMAN

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:03 AM

"To repeat my question so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: What is real reproduction? How does it differ from unreal reproduction?"

I, as is everyone else in this thread, am using "reproduction" synonymously with life/procreation not literally. That being said .......

I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third.....

KANEMAN

Friday, October 20, 2006 3:11 AM

7%,
I have a hard time believing we can get something from nothing. I have as hard of a time believing "god" did it. After all what is god? What is it made of? So, I guess I don't have an answer to your question. Does that mean I have to accept either big bang/evolution or god? Can I hold out for something else?

"There is either a natural method or a religious one, and you've managed to void both at the same time."

I'm good like that.

CITIZEN

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third.....

DNA can split off and create to seperate but Identical strands, it does it all the time.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 20, 2006 12:58 PM

Citizen, Rue, Signy,

Thanks :)

It's so amazingly refreshing to see a thread where we so much agree on just about everything:

Such as,

Quote:
Kaneman: I'm the idiot.

Quote:
7% Then what, exactly, do you believe?

He believes that be an obnoxious troll and posting ignorant inflamatory obscenity will make him the center of attention. Apparently, he is correct, because we all think too negatively, and so opposing something is pretty easy for us.

For the record, robots can reproduce themselves. Are they therefore alive? or intelligent?

I have to disagree with something:

Quote:
7%: there appear to be three options on the table

The point of this thread is that there may be an unlimited number to "believe" but only one presently supported by the facts, and a couple of more religion-friendly ones which aren't denied by the facts that involve some designer.

It's entirely possible that evolution happens because our dna is being constantly tweaked by the flying spaghetti monster to create the perfect servant race. It's also possible that FSM is up there right now saying "they voted for george w bush? twice? bring my those restriction enzymes"

RUE

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:25 PM

"I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third....."

Uhhmm ... now I know you're not a bio major. Bacteria, fungi - binary fission or budding (same basics, different relative sizes) is their main reproductive mode. 1 + 0 = 2

-------

DT - regarding robots - you don't have to be intelligent to reproduce, so if reproduction is the criteria for life then intelligence isn't relevant. (Even tho I know you're wondering if 'intelligence' means consciousness means alive.) As to robots reproducing, they don't reproduce as much as assemble.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:58 PM

CAUTION: Purely gratuitous grenade-lobbing follows! >>> If Kaneman is a bio major then I'm Bill Gates <<< END CAUTION

DT, I think there are debates.... and then there are debates. Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate. So, does religion belong in ANY debate? On what grounds can one "debate" a religion? How do you "prove" a religious tennet anyway? You cna't even look for logical inconsistancies within a religion because it's all a matter of faith: Believe, even if it doesn't match what you see with your eyes or make sense.

But there are other kinds of debates besides scientific, for example debates about ethics or philosophy which one can tackle using logic.

And then there are political debates where mud is slung and facts don't count. Unfortunately, mud-wrestling is a lot more entertaining than scientific debate. A candidate who sticks to the high road and cites facts is a candidate who'll probably lose.

I guess my point is that there are different categories of "debate". Some people are trying to have a scientific debate while others are having a no-holds-barred mud wrestling match.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, October 21, 2006 1:53 AM

i agree, the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration of evidence for the proof of God; i dont think that was its purpose, and in that way doesnt belong in a side-by-side comparison with the latest scientific theories

but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair. you may not be a theist, but take it from me.. i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist. now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate? or is it that because every religion is believed to be a fairy tell, it doesnt matter what the specifics of the message are? as a theist, the bible has a clear message, which is why Jesus' himself says to be aware of false doctrines and their destruction. well, such debates have no place in the scientific secular world, because to you all, mans earliest origins have just been discarded as elaborate fantasy. well, i hope youll concede that in this way, only theists can debate theists, as it takes a comprehensive knowledge of the scriptures to form a thorough understanding of its message.

so lets be fair.. i acknowlege that we can(and often should) stay out of scienctific debates, and resist interjecting our sole belief in a creator lifeforce into your evolutionary models; but likewise, maybe science can stop marginilizing what equates to an entire field ancient theology, when it clearly lacks the forms of measurement to detect the spiritual world(ie the religious worlds claim to fame).

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, October 21, 2006 4:20 AM

Sigh. I almost feel bad for what's about to happen here.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i agree, the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration of evidence for the proof of God;

Show me where the scientific proof of God rests within the Bible. Using the Bible as its own argument is a tautology, a fallacy of the most basic order. You're in effect saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." Show me where you can verify within the Bible that God created the world in 6 days, or that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, or how Jonas survived in the belly of the whale. Show me that - but know this - the minute you use the word "metaphor," you've already proven yourself wrong.

Quote:
i dont think that was its purpose,

Its purpose was to give a particular people a shared history and a moral compass for living, not to serve as a scientific manual in the 21st century.

Quote:
and in that way doesnt belong in a side-by-side comparison with the latest scientific theories

Probably the only thing I agree on in your post.

Quote:
but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair.

No it isn't. Let's do what this thread is about, and debate debating. If I say 2+2=4, you saying "but God said 2+2=5" does not change the fact that 2+2=4. Period. It may in your mind, but not in reality. That's the problem with Creation Science. You want to toss your hat into a debate where it doesn't belong. And, let's face it, the vast majority of evolutionary science does not seek to tell the origins of life, it just seeks to explain how it got to where it is now. You want to inject religion into a debate that is about science. Theology is philosophy, which is a TITANIC difference.

Quote:
you may not be a theist, but take it from me.. i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist.

I'd like chapter and verse on that one, thank you. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have read the Bible (several times; you have to know your Bible to teach literature) and attend church regularly. I'd like chapter and verse on where it says Zeus or Odin are fallen angels.

Quote:
now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate? or is it that because every religion is believed to be a fairy tell, it doesnt matter what the specifics of the message are?

Then have those debates as a matter of philosophy or theology, but keep it away from what it isn't, which is science. Morality, whose God is better, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are all nice arguments - where they belong, in a debate about religion. Why Abraham nearly knifed Isaac doesn't belong in a Chemistry class.

Quote:
as a theist, the bible has a clear message, which is why Jesus' himself says to be aware of false doctrines and their destruction. well, such debates have no place in the scientific secular world, because to you all, mans earliest origins have just been discarded as elaborate fantasy.

Bzzt, sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?
First, the Bible is a walking contradiction, and no one has been able to agree on a clear message in, oh, what, 4000+ years, counting the OT?
Next, you're trying to tell me what the evolution debate clearly is not - a debate about the origins of life. Scientists say, "we know what the processes are, we know the time frame, let's do some research and see how it all started, because we don't know yet. But we're curious, and want to advance the knowledge of mankind." Creationists, and IDers turn it around and say, "it was all God, you don't need to be curious (because God did it), and anyone who says otherwise hates Jesus and is a blasphe

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:19 AM

Quote:
i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist. now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate?

Well, you can debate it all you want but how do you prove your point? In your mind, the Bible is "the truth" but what about the gospel of Judas? In that version Jesus wasn't above a bit of street theater and Judas was his partner, while the rest of the disciples were well-meaning simpletons. Or the Gospel of Thomas? My (admittedly quick) scan seems to reveal an illegitimate first-born son cheated of his place in society with quite a mom complex.

Or to go further afield, what about the Bhagavad Gita? Compared to the Bible, we have two weighty religious documents, both with historical authenticity, and both with multitudes of adherents. Which one is correct? Prove to me that the Bible that you refer to is the one I should believe.

I'll bet you can't.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, October 21, 2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Show me where the scientific proof of God rests within the Bible. Using the Bible as its own argument is a tautology, a fallacy of the most basic order.

wow..thanks mr. scientist. if youll notice, i never made such a claim to begin with.. which was my purpose of responding. what i do is i take the commonality between the bible and other ancient beliefs, and use them as the basis for my arguement, i never tried to substitute evolution with creation.. as much as that would please that insatiable ego of yours

Quote:
You're in effect saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." Show me where you can verify within the Bible that God created the world in 6 days, or that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, or how Jonas survived in the belly of the whale. Show me that - but know this - the minute you use the word "metaphor," you've already proven yourself wrong.

was Moses present when God created the world? because he wasnt, i dont expect him to know what took place during its creation.. nor does he attempt to explain it in terms that a modern day scientist could put into a computer model. i take the bible for what it is, as a collection of ancient writings, and work with what it says.. im not interjecting creationism into evolution, i am only considering the totality of the bibles message

Quote:

Its purpose was to give a particular people a shared history and a moral compass for living, not to serve as a scientific manual in the 21st century.

which is the same thing i said..

Quote:

No it isn't. Let's do what this thread is about, and debate debating. If I say 2+2=4, you saying "but God said 2+2=5" does not change the fact that 2+2=4. Period. It may in your mind, but not in reality. That's the problem with Creation Science. You want to toss your hat into a debate where it doesn't belong. And, let's face it, the vast majority of evolutionary science does not seek to tell the origins of life, it just seeks to explain how it got to where it is now. You want to inject religion into a debate that is about science. Theology is philosophy, which is a TITANIC difference.

hello friend... did you not understand me when i said I DO NOT WISH TO DEBATE CREATIONISM ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION?? i guess because im a theist im too stupid to understand your 2+2=4 analogy... your making the same point i was

Quote:

I'd like chapter and verse on that one, thank you. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I have read the Bible (several times; you have to know your Bible to teach literature) and attend church regularly. I'd like chapter and verse on where it says Zeus or Odin are fallen angels.

i refer you to Genesis 6, and the book of Enoch for further details; also, look up Nephilim and Elohim, and compare that with the stories of the Sumerians, and Mayans, and other polytheistic beliefs.. youll notice some profound archetypical similarities

Quote:

Then have those debates as a matter of philosophy or theology, but keep it away from what it isn't, which is science. Morality, whose God is better, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are all nice arguments - where they belong, in a debate about religion. Why Abraham nearly knifed Isaac doesn't belong in a Chemistry class.

which IS EXACTLY WHAT IM TELLING YOU! please read my post again where i said the bible was meant to be a spiritual message for common people, not as a scientific expose'

Quote:

Bzzt, sorry Hans, wrong guess. Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?
First, the Bible is a walking contradiction, and no one has been able to agree on a clear message in, oh, what, 4000+ years, counting the OT?
Next, you're trying to tell me what the evolution debate clearly is not - a debate about the origins of life. Scientists say, "we know what the processes are, we know the time frame, let's do some research and see how it all started, because we don't know yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, October 21, 2006 4:38 PM

You keep saying you never made the claims you made, but look at my post - I was quoting you directly. I didn't edit, nor did I twist. You say flat out the things I'm calling you on; that's the glory of the "reply with quotes" button. It's not that I don't understand you, it's apparently that you don't know how to write (or know the definitions of the words you use).

Your exact words were, "the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration," which in English means that yes, the Bible is scientific. "Makes no bones about," in the popular vernacular, means that it does so certifiably. If I say I make no bones about being something, it means I am that something through and through. You need to reread your argument, because I do not think it means what you think you thought it meant.

I'm not going to dissect your whole post again (how's that for a Mr. Scientific word, you nutjob?), but here (again) is where you put the God into the evolution debate:

Quote:
but likewise, maybe science can stop marginilizing what equates to an entire field ancient theology, when it clearly lacks the forms of measurement to detect the spiritual world(ie the religious worlds claim to fame

You flat out say right there that religion is marginalized in the scientific debate, where it does not belong. Then you waste a whole post telling me how you don't think it belongs there. Which is it? Does it belong or not?

Next, there's this little gem:

Quote:
i refer you to Genesis 6, and the book of Enoch for further details; also, look up Nephilim and Elohim, and compare that with the stories of the Sumerians, and Mayans, and other polytheistic beliefs.. youll notice some profound archetypical similarities

No, don't refer me anywhere, or cite "archtypal similarites" - you said that the Bible states that other religions were fallen angels. You cite me chapter and verse in the Bible itself. I took a quick look at Gen 6 and it states no such thing; it makes reference to the Nephilim not as "gods" but as natural monsters, "the giants of Palestine." You're interpreting what you think the Bible means and what some authors have told you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything like what you claimed. In fact, a critical reading of the Ten Commandments would show that the Hebrew people believed that there were other Gods; historians and religious scholars will also tell you that God as we know him was probably an amalgamation of many local sky dieties. You made the claim. Chapter and verse- if you can.

Quote:
Jesus' warned about occult perversions and the synogogue of Satan; but 10 years from now you will be eating your words about this occult conspiracy when the world just so happens to be facing a fascist global government

No, ten years from now you'll be telling me to just wait ten more years, and then I'll really see what's happening. I have two words for you -well, two and a half words, since I'm not sure how the hyphen works in a word count - TIN-FOIL HAT.

Make your statements more clear next time.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 21, 2006 5:23 PM

Anti- 7% has got you there. Religions shouldn't be "marginalized" from scientific debates, they should be eliminated.

And I'm going to try and make my point clearer because I'm hoping for a response: Religion is not debatable. Period Because religion is ultimately a matter of faith and belief. If you could debate and "prove" it, it wound't BE a religion, it would be science.

I'll give you an example: You believe the universe was created by God. I believe the universe was created by Lakshmi.You point to the Bible with its origins to 1500-900 BC. I point to the Vedas, which go back to 1500-4000 BC. Both religions have a large number of adherents.

Now what?

There is no common point of reference, and worse, there is no way to "prove" whether your religion or mine is "true". We could start poking around in the historical authenticity of the books in question, and I would bring up some recently discovered gospels and show how they contradict at least parts of what you currently believe, and some parts of the Bible that contradict others and then you'll have to start picking and choosing... do I believe this part but not that? It all becomes a matter of what you chose to believe and what you chose to reject/ re-interpret. And then you attach divinity to your opinion and claim that you speak for Jesus. Isn't that just a wee bit self-important?

TO be utterly ridiculous about it, I could claim by divine inspiration that the Universe was made by the of-cited Flying Spaghetti Monster and the only real difference between your beliefs and mine is social acceptability.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:41 PM

ok. im sorry i misunderstood the meaning of "makes no bones", i was under the impression(wrongly) that it meant that/that we never made the claim that the bible was comparable to evolutionary science; some christians can make that claim, but i dont believe its mandated by the bible. but my ignorance shows obviously, because i didnt know the correct definition of that phrase. i also apologize if i come off as contradicting, i should probably reread my statements better

scientifically, we have no way to determine which religion is correct, if any; whether a God exists, whether somehting percieved as a God, or 'gods' could exist, or if all of that was in actuality, baseless superstition. id like to incorporate it all somehow into my worldview, including evolutionary processes.. im just not ready to exlude the two from eachother

as for the fallen angels, the common understanding among the more advanced christian scholars have accepted that the Sons of God could only be the fallen angels; that their offspring with the "daughters of man" (human), and their nephilim suprerhuman offspring, happens to fit in with other myths around the world. is it at all possible that these events actually happened? all we have are stories handed down; but there are many things that we cant prove, like UFOs, but thats open for debate

because i believe the story of Jesus', i willingly take into consideration the 'mythology' that comes with all the middle eastern polytheistic pantheons, and coincidentally, people on other continents share similarities such as the Mayans. i think there something underlying these human archetypes, because they all spawned incredibly civilized and advanced cultures out of now-where it seems. that does make me biased to hold my faith preeminent, but im sure you all have your biases also.. it doesnt mean i flat out reject all evolutionary discovery though.

cant we share knowledge, without being excluded from the discussion as in "religion is not debateable-period"? i dont recall myself getting in your faces about evolution, i often just propose the ancient theories

its obviously a seperate field of study, but does that mean we cant exchange knowledge in any way, as in religion and science are exclusive? i just want to know if that is what your saying

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CAUTION: Purely gratuitous grenade-lobbing follows! >>> If Kaneman is a bio major then I'm Bill Gates <<< END CAUTION

DT, I think there are debates.... and then there are debates. Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate. So, does religion belong in ANY debate? On what grounds can one "debate" a religion? How do you "prove" a religious tennet anyway? You cna't even look for logical inconsistancies within a religion because it's all a matter of faith: Believe, even if it doesn't match what you see with your eyes or make sense.

But there are other kinds of debates besides scientific, for example debates about ethics or philosophy which one can tackle using logic.

And then there are political debates where mud is slung and facts don't count. Unfortunately, mud-wrestling is a lot more entertaining than scientific debate. A candidate who sticks to the high road and cites facts is a candidate who'll probably lose.

I guess my point is that there are different categories of "debate". Some people are trying to have a scientific debate while others are having a no-holds-barred mud wrestling match.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

I don't think you can effectively debate something that is faith and not fact based.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

There is no common point of reference, and worse, there is no way to "prove" whether your religion or mine is "true". We could start poking around in the historical authenticity of the books in question, and I would bring up some recently discovered gospels and show how they contradict at least parts of what you currently believe, and some parts of the Bible that contradict others and then you'll have to start picking and choosing... do I believe this part but not that? It all becomes a matter of what you chose to believe and what you chose to reject/ re-interpret. And then you attach divinity to your opinion and claim that you speak for Jesus. Isn't that just a wee bit self-important?

TO be utterly ridiculous about it, I could claim by divine inspiration that the Universe was made by the of-cited Flying Spaghetti Monster and the only real difference between your beliefs and mine is social acceptability.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.

I am just sayin is all.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SEVENPERCENT

Sunday, October 22, 2006 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im sorry i misunderstood the meaning of "makes no bones", ... i also apologize if i come off as contradicting, i should probably reread my statements better

Apology accepted. As I tell my students, you cannot debate effectively if you cannot communicate well.

Quote:
scientifically, we have no way to determine which religion is correct, if any; whether a God exists, whether somehting percieved as a God, or 'gods' could exist, or if all of that was in actuality, baseless superstition.

Theologically, we don't need to. As Signy said, religion is about faith and belief, not hard evidence and scientific discovery. IMO, what makes a faith important is its message, not its logic. Belief is always going to find itself outmatched in any debate that requires evidence; it shouldn't be in those debates anyway.

Quote:
id like to incorporate it all somehow into my worldview, including evolutionary processes.. im just not ready to exlude the two from eachother

And that's fine. No one, especially me, is going to tell you that you can't or shouldn't do that. However, if you want to run with the ID crowd (and that's what track you are taking), you have to realize that the 'designer' part has no place in a purely scientific argument.

Quote:
as for the fallen angels, the common understanding among the more advanced christian scholars have accepted that the Sons of God could only be the fallen angels; that their offspring with the "daughters of man" (human), and their nephilim suprerhuman offspring, happens to fit in with other myths around the world.

Careful throwing around the term 'more advanced Christian scholars.' What you may consider advanced, others may consider nuts. Just because they're PhD's doesn't mean they're advanced - hell, I think James Dobson has a doctorate in theology, and he's crazier than a shithouse rat.

Also, in any debate (and DT and others -including me on occasion- have been taken to task on this), when you make a point, the weight is on you to back it up. You claimed something was specifically in the Bible. I checked one of those, and it wasn't. Then you come back and say, well, it's 'archtypal' and 'some scholars.' When that happens, you lose all credibility. While the RWED boards may not be the hot spot for scholars, you're still dealing with sharp cookies and some smarter-than-average folks (or solidly average, like myself). Just because your evidence can win debates with the yokels at work, it might not be good enough to win here.

Quote:
is it at all possible that these events actually happened? all we have are stories handed down; but there are many things that we cant prove, like UFOs, but thats open for debate

Sure, it's possible. Probable, maybe not so much. Could the Aztec gods be 'nephilim?' Sure. But I wouldn't jump to a rash conclusion like that just to make something fit into my belief system - you're pounding square pegs into round holes that way.

Quote:
i think there something underlying these human archetypes, because they all spawned incredibly civilized and advanced cultures out of now-where it seems.

Not out of nowhere. Belief systems take hundreds, if not thousands of years to develop. I think they do share common themes, but is that because of a common God or because of shared human experience? Seeing as how most cultures sprung up around water sources (The Nile, the Tigris, the Yucatan, the Tiber, the Med) is a shared flood mythology really that surprising? A pyramid is a basic shape - is it archtypal, or just an easy design to imagine?

Quote:
it doesnt mean i flat out reject all evolutionary discovery though.

Which is good, because you'd fall into the realm of the totally nuts. To deny evolution, to put yourself in the 'world is 6000 years old' crowd at this point in the 21st century is the sign of a mental disorder.

Quote:
cant we share knowledge, without being excluded from the discussion as in "religion is not debateable-period"?

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:50 AM

Quote:
We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.

Is the truth of religion to be decided on how far back it goes? Then the Vedas go back even farther, and animism even farther back than that. Or do we decide on religion based on popularity?

Anti: Let me give you another example of why religion is not debatable, one not involving the Xtian religion. Fred believes in Thor while Jane believes in Zeus. Who is right and how do they decide? If EITHER ONE could point to non-ambiguous evidence that their god of choice existed it would be science and not religion. Religion does not rest on evidence, science does.

Also, to reiterate the point about common archetypes: I'll bet that in every civilizations history there is a flood. A really big one. But in SOME civilization's history there are volcanoes. Naturally, they have that archetype in their religion while we don't. In others, thunder and lightening are common- but notably missing from areas which seldom experience thunderstorms. Where experiences are similar, archtypes are similar. Where they differ, archtypes differ. That seems the simplest explanation.

To further the point, cultures without a strong central ruler tend to have a pantheon of gods. Cultures with a strong central ruler tend to have monotheistic religions. And these rulers usually claim a relationship to the gods to cement their control. It's happened in Central and South America, the Middle East, Europe (the Catholic Church, not the Romans) and the Far East... any time there was an religiously-based empire. I think it's useful to STUDY religions, and soem day I'll gt around to it in detail.

But that's not the same as debating them. A debate is where you take a sides. And once again, how do you "prove" your point? You may think you're "debating" your religion with other people but you're prolly just badgering them.

------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

KANEMAN

Sunday, October 22, 2006 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third....."

Uhhmm ... now I know you're not a bio major. Bacteria, fungi - binary fission or budding (same basics, different relative sizes) is their main reproductive mode. 1 + 0 = 2

Ruse,
Come on now. You know exactly what I'm saying. Why be a monkey(I can only guess you will eventually use it as proof we are descendants of orangutans)? In the great debate about evolution, does anyone talk about Asexual reproduction? No. There is close to zero chance of mutation. Therefore, it can't be a mechanism of evolution. Especially if the earth is 46 million years old. For an organism to go from 47 chromosomes to 48, or 48 to 47 chromosomes is statistically impossible considering the age of the earth and the rate of positive (organism friendly) mutations. Never mind going from a handful of chemicals to the biodiversity present today. And for what it is worth, I am a black female from Tunisia with a Bio degree that currently works as an animal behaviorist....Well, it's true.....

ANTIMASON

Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:54 PM

alright, i get your point(s). i apologize about the emotion; frankly i never wanted to argue about evolution anyways..

i really dont care if religion is excluded from scientific debates, because generally i dont dispute new findings anyways; ive just come to believe there is a creator lifeforce or brain (God) behind it. i guess lately ive been getting offended by some comments, kind of implying that i am illogical because im a 'theist' or because i believe some of those stories might true

my point has always been that there COULD be some collaboration globally for the fallen angel hypothesis. and actually Sevenpercent i could confidently debate you on the the biblical support for this, only i want to be thorough and give it some time, plus i dont have my bible in front of me right now.... but the sons of God can, in that context could only be referring to angels. i searched around, and i feel like im copping out by giving this link, but its pretty comprehensive, and im just not ready to compile my thoughts into some kind of term paper for you(and further diverting the discussion)
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

give it a read and tell me what you think

RUE

Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:15 PM

"In the great debate about evolution, does anyone talk about Asexual reproduction? No. There is close to zero chance of mutation."

Well, ahem, .... actually lack of DNA proofreading is THE major mechanism of genetic change in viruses and bacteria. When you double your numbers every few hours allowing random mutation and throwing away 0.1% of your population is worth the odd genetic benefit.

In fact, short generation time and lots of random mutations is the evolutionary mode.

As a hint to you, I would change sources of information since you don't seem to be doing too well with your 'facts'.

KANEMAN

Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:29 PM

Authors: Mingfeng He, Hongbo Ruan, Changliang Yu, Lei Yao
Comments: 11 pages including figs., for Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 15, issue 2 (2004)
Subj-class: Statistical Mechanics; Populations and Evolution

Using a lattice model based on Monte Carlo simulations, we study the role of the reproduction pattern on the fate of an evolving population. Each individual is under the selection pressure from the environment and random mutations. The habitat ("climate") is changing periodically. Evolutions of populations following two reproduction patterns are compared, asexual and sexual. We show, via Monte Carlo simulations, that sexual reproduction by keeping more diversified populations gives them better chances to adapt themselves to the changing environment.

Argue with these clowns not me.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
We should all try and remember that spaghetti monster not withstanding, the bible is a collection of writings spanning 1500 years, 40 writers and 3 continents.
Is the truth of religion to be decided on how far back it goes? Then the Vedas go back even farther, and animism even farther back than that. Or do we decide on religion based on popularity?

But that's not the same as debating them. A debate is where you take a sides. And once again, how do you "prove" your point? You may think you're "debating" your religion with other people but you're prolly just badgering them.

------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

no no no, I did not make myself clear. I was stating that you can not take the bible as fact because of the fact that there are multiple writers, etc......

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

RUE

Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:52 PM

This is from that paper you cited but failed to read. "As seen from the Table 1, populations with higher mutation probability and birth rate become extinct less frequently."

Lets say bacteria fission in an hour. That's a little more than 17 MILLION generations in a day. Or 211 THOUSAND MULLION in 17 years, which is the time for ONE human reproductive cycle. I would say that when it comes to 'mutation probability' and 'birth rate' bacteria have it all over 'higher' sexually reproducing life forms, like say, humans. Which is born out by the facts. Whether you look at numbers of individuals or total biomass, bacteria are the most successful life form on earth.

KANEMAN

Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:21 PM

Ruse,
"That's a little more than 17 MILLION generations in a day. Or 211 THOUSAND MULLION in 17 years"

Do you find it "odd" after all those billions of generations over the last 200 years of study that bacteria haven't evolved into "other" organisms yet? Using that logic, evolution over 200 generations of man is surely impossible. Shouldn't it be a lot easier for a simple life form(a bacterium)to change compared to one as complex as man? or whale? Or am I missing the reason it is so easy to go from not having any chromosome to a species with 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7.. etc...Yet, so hard for a bacterium to do the same. What gives? Are you arguing for evolution or against it with your posts. I think you are proving my point. Either there is something other than evolution at work here, or the earth is at least 2688 trillion years old. What say you?

RUE

Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:26 PM

"Do you find it "odd" after all those billions of generations over the last 200 years of study that bacteria haven't evolved into "other" organisms yet?"

They have, only it took a few billion years, and here we are.

RUE

Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:46 PM

To further address your post - the paper looked at several different evolutionary schemes; with various combinations of birth rate (high low), mutation rate (high, low), and asexual v sexual reproduction. One serious limitation is that it limited its comparison to organisms with the same size genome. But clearly humans have many more genes than bacteria. At a certain point their mathematical models break down. (And BTW, they are the crudest of models.)

So you can't overdraw their conclusions beyond the analytical parameters - something you are trying to do.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 23, 2006 12:45 AM

Quote:
my point has always been that there COULD be some collaboration globally for the fallen angel hypothesis. and actually Sevenpercent i could confidently debate you on the the biblical support for this, only i want to be thorough and give it some time, plus i dont have my bible in front of me right now....

Anti, look I'm sorry to be such a pig about this, but you don't get MY point. A "debate" can only occur when both sides use the same set of assumptions. You can "debate" about fallen angels all you like, but to me it's like looking for similar archetypes between Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm. You scan the Bible from one chapter and verse to the next, drawing finely-wrought conclusions from (IMHO) a fairy tale. And all you can point to as "proof" that the Bible is the Word of God is... the Bible! If you're talking to someone who doesn't "believe" what you "believe", that's not proof at all. And that is the drawback off all religions, and why they cannot be debated with someone who doesn't share your belief.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 2:07 AM

Ruse, (Math on Mutations) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.

Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism.

The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.

More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.

But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.

(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)

"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Markin.

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that's ..Well, true.

This does not even take into account that mutations are random. What say you? Do you have your own statistics you could share?

ANTIMASON

Monday, October 23, 2006 2:15 AM

Signmy- i get your point, i just want to be sure when you say

Quote:
"A "debate" can only occur when both sides use the same set of assumptions "

that your not telling me that i cant debate another christian about what the bible says.. the bible does fit those parameters doesnt it?

i am not trying to debate ID verses evolution.. i just never was, i believe a little of both are envolved. obviously im speculating when i propose that some of these further removed cultures provide extra-biblical collaboration.. but i dont believe im out of line, given the commonality of the supra-human intervention "fairy tells" that happen to permeate many different cultures spanning continents

im not trying to use the bible itself as my 'proof' that confirms the existence of God, im simply trying to make use of a collective archetype shared by many cultures of that period and attempting to draw some connections; as if there is some factual bases which gave way to the prominance of these myths; and suprisingly the NWO conspiracy supports a similar premise, since secret societies like the freemasons and illuminati, who allegedly have in the past influenced the world behind the scenes, admittedly employ 'occult' concepts into their doctrines; and the all seeing eye on the dollar bill and Washington obelisk are two perfect examples.

IMO there is something to all of this, if only anecdotel and on the surface ; but either way evolutionary science does not have to dissuade my research, nor do i feel i am interfering in your scientific debates

RUE

Monday, October 23, 2006 2:40 AM

"Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule."

Not actually true.
Baseline mutation rates for viruses, bacteria and eukaryotes.
http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/May.ppt
"Comparison of microbial genome base mutation rate to genome size: exhibits power law behavior; inverse relation between genome size and base mutation rate
RNA viruses: 1 - 0.1
DNA microbes: 1/300
Higher eukaryotes: 1/300 EfGn"

Just google: prokaryotic "mutation rate"

-------------------

"it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism."

Again not true. One small beneficial change can be the basis for another modification later. For example, human color vision was genetically recently extended in lambda range by adding an extra copy of opsin on the X xhroomosome, then changing it by 15 amino acids, to create both red and green color receptors.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:3OWzArxDXPsJ:www.molecularevolution
.org/resources/references/files/yokoyama_2000.pdf+%22red+opsin%22+%22blue+opsin%22+%22green+opsin%22+%22molecular+structure%22+%22color+vision%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Anyway, I hope you get the idea. You don't need all the mutations all at once to create an advanced functional structure. What you need is one small change - like the duplication of the opsin gene and more intense color sensitivity - to be followed by another small change in one of the opsin genes to create better color discrimination.

And now I'm going to get on with my real life. I suggest you do the same. Surely you have better things to do than waste your time trolling.

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 2:59 AM

I am talking about complex organisms and evolution. You keep bringing up bacteria, viruses, or one small segment of DNA on one gene. I don't believe we came from bacteria. So your posts are irrelevant. You have not addressed any of my posts directly. I am beginning to feel the reason is simple..You can't. If it is easier to chalk up your frustration to my being a troll, you have my blessing. To change a species into another takes thousands of positive mutations(all at once) in a pair of mate-able organisms. For the last time, that is impossible. And you... well, know it's true.........

SIGNYM

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:00 AM

Anti- Whether or not you can successfully debate another Xtian depends on how closely your beliefs match each other. Because if you run into a fundamental disagreement in belief systems you STILL have no way of resolving it.

As far as shared archetypes- I think I discussed that already. What I find is that religions most commonly reflect the power structure of the society. Matriarchies have goddesses, patriarchies have gods and OF COURSE leaders claim lineage to "the gods".. all the way to before the Pharaohs.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote:
I don't believe we came from bacteria

Kaneman- If you're willing to shit-can evidence and this is all a matter of "belief" then you're just faith-based troll. If you can't understand that even plants and humans share DNA and that the processes are similar, you might want to go to school and get that bio degree instead of trying to jerk Bio 101 out of the folks on the board.

Rue, folks- I suggest we stop replying the Kaneman for the forseeable future.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:31 AM

Well, I'm waiting for something so here I still am. Tell me, what haven't I addressed? You've made claims that
1) "you can't add new data into a genome", which was exhaustiverly addressed that, yes inded, you can
2) "Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all" which was also exhaustively addressed by many
3) "It has been easily proven by statistics", which was addressed at length by Signy, DT and others
4) asking if molecules reproduce "sexually or asexually" answered by SignyM
5) confusing self-assembly with reproduction, answered by Citizen,
6) claiming that reproduction only occurs sexually, answered by me
7) to saying 'no one' talks about asexual reproduction and evolution, when in fact it's a major topic (as attested by a paper you yourself cited)

To I don't know WHAT you think you're saying.

Molecules self-assemble. They can then act as templates for more molecules - molecular reproduction. They are started by random chance - in all the combinations of all the atoms, there are those rare molecules that will have those properties. But though it starts by random chance, molecules that CAN use environmental energy to make more of themselves have a survival advantage over molecules that are made without.

You may not want to talk about molecules like prions, viruses, or opsins; or simple forms of life like bacteria. But they show how change occurs - in bacterial DNA, or in human opsins - how that small event is maintained and selected for, and how that small change is the basis for secondary changes that add up to radical differences, over time.

You must have skipped over the 'whale' discussion. How intermediate fossils have been found where the legs diminished as the species went from land to shallow water to benthic. And how scientists have located the actual SINGLE genetic change that finally suppressed any leg development at all.

Now dude, I have a word of advice. Get a life. I mean, really. You should treat yourself better.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:35 AM

The irony here is that I've probably learned more about biology from this thread than I ever did in school...

Thanx for the bio lesson guys, while wasted on the trolls, at least the rest of us learned something.

-Frem

CAUSAL

Monday, October 23, 2006 12:22 PM

Thought I'd post this quote just for the fun of it, as it seems germane to the issue at hand:

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
--Bertrand Russell

I think this goes for science, religion, and any other kind of thinking.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 1:08 PM

What? I can't use the word "believe" without being a religious nut. Wow, some ass you are. I will use the word "know" from now on instead. Won't it be great when the whole board sounds like your pompous ass? Understanding Bio 101 has nothing to do with accepting the "theory" of evolution as scientific law. Nothing. I'm peachy about genetics, natural selection, and accept species adaption. However, I "know" they are not mechanisms that support evolution(Hey, that does feel good...thanks) and have posted my opinions on the subject. If you can't debate the statistical improbabilities inherent in a BELIEF of evolution, sorry. I do not confuse natural selection and adaption with evolution, it is an error many a man makes. But you, genius, are smarter than that. Thank god

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 1:48 PM

"You may not want to talk about molecules like prions, viruses, or opsins; or simple forms of life like bacteria. But they show how change occurs"

Now you are being evasive. I am posting about species evolution, a species becoming another, with an entirely different chromosomal count. You have not given any scientific proof that this is possible(never mind plausible). Focusing on segmental changes and tiny genetic variations while glossing over how rare, non-positive, and non-reproductive they are in complex organisms, all while using that as proof of evolution(not adaption or natural selection) is facetious at best. So, what I think you are really saying is: I can't give any actual scientific proof for evolution, I can't debate the statistical probabilities involved, therefore I must call kaneman a troll. Only problem is most on this board would agree that I am a troll. What does that have to do with your inability to pad your opinion with scientific proof and statistical probabilities? Or your ability to stay on topic and not be purposefully evasive?

CITIZEN

Monday, October 23, 2006 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I do not confuse natural selection and adaption with evolution, it is an error many a man makes. But you, genius, are smarter than that. Thank god

That's right, we are, which is how we know that Natural Selection was the mechanism put forward by Darwin to explain how Micro Evolution (note the Evolution word there) worked, which is the simple facet you seem to miss even when it's pointed out to you too the point of beating it around your head numerous times

.

Quote:
Only problem is most on this board would agree that I am a troll. What does that have to do with your inability to pad your opinion with scientific proof and statistical probabilities? Or your ability to stay on topic and not be purposefully evasive?

You are talking to yourself again, better see to that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:27 PM

Citz,
Sushhhhh! Just when I was thinking better of you. What do I get? A Shitizen sighting. Complete with a well thought out post full of hostility, ridicule, and belittling hatred. God I have missed you. Where have you been, you degenerate? Still frequent the local gay bar? I can see you haven't forgotten how to talk out of your a*s. I find it to be an amazing talent you posses. How do the four fingers you keep in your as*hole not get in the way? Truly amazing...Truly......

CITIZEN

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:31 PM

Good to hear you missed me sweetheart, but as I keep telling you, all the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna make me gay, I'm sorry, but I just don't think of you that way.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:36 PM

Please don't feed the trolls.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Good to hear you missed me sweetheart, but as I keep telling you, all the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna make me gay, I'm sorry, but I just don't think of you that way.

Sure

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KANEMAN

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Please don't feed the trolls.

I try not to but Citz keeps responding to me. I find it hard to ignore him.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:09 PM

Hey Citizen,

glad to see you around and humorous as always !

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You are talking to yourself again, better see to that.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:49 AM

Quote:
Signym: Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate.

Absolutely. And the same is true vice versa. People out there have used the science of archaeology to proof that the ten commandments we have are not the ones which came down from the mountain, because various hebrew kings appended things to the commandments. And you could say to someone "I don't follow these commandments, and here's why" but you can't say "You can't follow these commandments because they aren't exactly moses', because science says so, so the religion *must* change." Because religion doesn't work like that. Science does, sure. And if it were a science, it would have to chance, and now the historical sciences will record that moses' tablets were later appended, but religion works as a mass psychology thing, the people collectively believe those rules are the will of god, so those are the rules, and science's position that they change is less important.

Quote:
Antimason: but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair.

No one is saying this. This is the sixth time I've said this. I just can't help but feel that the religious are not listening intentionally, to fulfill some fantasy to perpetuate the situation.

Religion is free to say we have a religious belief that the creator created this. They are not free to say "our faith is not a religion but it is a science which competely openly on a level field with evolution" which is what ID creationism says.

And no, it is not. It's not a science, and it does not compete with evolution, science does not work like that. One is scientific undisputed fact, with a zero point zero percent chance of being overturned (please face this fact). The other is a cockamamie fantasy constructed by people who really have nothing to do with jesus, and is in no way necessary for your religion to be correct. There shouldn't even be a conflict between the two.

I notice the concession you're looking for, but the anti-evolution position is not a bargaining chip. It has no value at all, in any way.

If you want to build an argument for your theologic position, do so on its merits.

As a religious person, I do enter into that debate, and also as a historian.

Antimason, if you say "all gods are fallen angels according to my religion" then I don't argue. But when you say "all religions are a warped form of my religion," which you have said before, then I argue because that is factually incorrect, because religions spread across the earth as a historical fact. the egyption faith, the mayan faith and hinduism all predate your faith. Moses came down from the mountain in 1440BC and before that, there was no judaism. The borrowing by moses of the sumerian creation myth, and re-attributing that creation to yhwh proves no union or continuity. You're belief that yhwh is the creator is descended from that belief, first believed by moses in 1440bc, and no earlier.

Furthermore: There is no historical link the shows an out-of-israel sort of dispersion of religions. Hinduism appears to be descended from euro-paganism, and it's possible that babylon is descended from it, egyptian religions evolved locally, as did the mayans, and those evolutions can be traced locally.

Faiths change. It's a historical fact everyone has accepted. You're not medieval because faiths change, they evolve. self-flogging based christianity did not spread as rapidly as charity-based christianity, and an evolution occured. Chances are you're not catholic at all. Your religion evolves. You're religion believes in the evolution of itself. It believes that no chrisitanity is correct, superior to its antecedent, because it has the words of jesus, which are superior, turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye.

My religion evolves too. Once taoism was just the search for the way. There was much mysticism, before Lao Tse, no one had found the way. Now we have a guide. There is some disagreement of course, but generally speaking.

Just throwing some TNT on the fire.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:15 AM

7%

Well said

Just some nitpicky points.

1. Not 4000+ years. Moses: 1440BC, OT completed 300BC. Genesis maybe in it's original sumerian form 4000+ years.

Quote:
you're one dog away from the Son of Sam.

I had to quote this because I thought it was quoteable. I think no one else has ever said it. I don't know if it's true, but antimason, normally a sane individual, is gearing up for a battle with a force more powerful than he can defeat, or should. I wonder sometimes if Yhwh isn't actually satan, and El really god. But his inferred claim that, essentially, religion gets to be the science of god doesn't hold.

Genesis

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Nothing here about Odin, or even pantheons. Try again.

No one but Signy read the sign.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:19 PM

well.. thats not completely true DT; it illudes to it in so many ways.

besides the scattered references in the bible, i think this is where the book of Enoch, which was found among the dead sea scrolls, helps to shed some light on what the Israelites believed to have happened during the pre-flood period. Enoch was written during what is called the intertestamental period, which is about 400bc-ad, so it is fairly removed from the flood, but there is little doubt that these were the general beliefs passed down through jewish customs, and was also central to the early christians(since it speaks heavily about the "day of the Lord" or the coming judgement(Jesus' return)

Enoch was the 7th generation of Seth prior to the flood, when the fallen angles were busy corrupting man; Gen 5:21 says

Quote:
"altogether Enoch lived 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, becase God took him away"

( now they are making a distinction by 'took him away' rather then died, since Enoch was considered a prophet). other references to Enoch say

Quote:
"by faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. for before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God" Heb. 11:5

which kind of implies that Enoch was considered a credible source

now this is relevant because the book of Enoch deals almost specifically with Gen. 6(fallen angles) and the coming of the messiah. the bible doesnt really devote itself to what happened prior to the flood, but clearly its an underlying theme, and there is no denying it

2 Peter

Quote:
"for if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment"

Jude 1:6 says

Quote:
"and the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abondonded their own home, these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chaings for judgment on the Great Day"

both these quotes are referring to Gen. 6, when the 'Sons of God', or the angels, left their domain(the heavens) and came unto the daughters of man and had offspring by them, called the nephilim, or "fallen ones".

Numbers 13:28-33, when the Israelites were reporting about their exploration of Canaan (the tribe which inhabited their promised land) says this

Quote:
"the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. we even saw the descendants of Anak there. (31)but the men who had gone up with him said "we cant attack those people; they are stronger then we are." and they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. they said "the land we explored devours those living in it. all the people we saw there are of great size. we saw the Nephilim there(the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them"

this is a direct reference to the descendants of the fallen angels, and notice how they are affiliated with the Canaanites(which is where the bohemian grove moch sacrifice to Molech is derived from). these people worshipped these beings as gods... now this was also after the flood, as Gen 6 says

Quote:
"their were nephilim on the earth in those days; and also afterward, when the Sons of God came into the daughters of men and had offspring by them".

now Enoch goes into greater detail 1 Enoch 7

Quote:
"It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. 2And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children."

Quote:
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and mad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Antimason, if you say "all gods are fallen angels according to my religion" then I don't argue. But when you say "all religions are a warped form of my religion," which you have said before, then I argue because that is factually incorrect, because religions spread across the earth as a historical fact.

DT- i never said that specifically, although i may have implied that

look i fully understand these multi-deity beliefs pre-date my own.. but think about this for a second: we all share the fallen angelic thesis, although it is described through the lens of each individual culture. but judeo-christians maintain that their is a most high creator God, which created even these beings, who sent the flood to established a covenant with Noah and Abraham to displace this angelic influence, and to bring the belief in Yahweh back into focus; this was among civilizations which were heavily envolved in occult god worship. while the Sumerians cuniform tablets may pre-date the bible, Genesis and the book of Enoch are describing the same events.. only from the perspective of the creator, whos influence had been weakened by the intervention of these beings.

the bibles distinction is that it makes an attempt to provide the backdrop for the angelic intervention, claiming that God created even the angels(or Annunaki to the Sumerians). now the sumerians claim that it was these gods who created man; both share many of the same stories, but the polytheists have no explanation for Jesus, his claims to be the son of the Creator,(or manifest)and his ressurection and plan for redemption of mankind from our fallen state. if you take the accounts of Jesus into consideration, he supports the creator God thesis along with the angelic intervention. IMO, at this point* i believe this to be the more complete picture.. color me biased

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:36 AM

Antimason,

I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is a possibility to deliberately misinterpret the text, but this is more than that, it's also taking the textual perspective and using it as the basis for a historical account to say that religions essentially spread from israel and mutated, which we know historically to not be the case.

Quote:
we all share the fallen angelic thesis, although it is described through the lens of each individual culture.

Not so. My faith has no fallen angel, no angel, and no God.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the original hebrew creation myth was El-centric, and that Jesus was an outlander who worshipped El, who he addresses in the text by name. As not a servant of Yhwh, he has a very different picture of divinity, with peace and forgiveness, instead of vengeance, jealousy and war.

The original god of the heavens is not Yhwh, but rather that would be El, the high one, god of the heavens, who married the god of the sea, and became god of rain.

Yhwh was born in his earliest myths in a cave of fire inside of or under Mt. Sinai, also known as he who shall not be named, the nameless one, and Yahoveha the God of War.

It's possible, from a christian perspective that their is a fundemental inconsistancy here, and that historically, I think this is caused by Paul, and his crowd, who forced the merger of Yhwh+Jesus and of OT+NT to try to bring conversion to the jews, but instead infected his new religion with Yhwh, God of War.

The religion is split into warring factions because such is the will of God. As God of war he would thrive on conflict, and would deliberately split his followers and pit them against one another. Nothing seems more natural for a God of war.

But the adoption of the creator title could be seen as totally malicious, and deceptive. Yhwh is the creator according to the cult of Yhwh, because Yhwh says that it is so. But an objective read of his book shows Yhwh to be basically evil, maybe evil without restriction or reservation. When taken that the original genesis creation myth, from a historical perspective was most certainly not written about Yhwh, that assigning the proper perspective, Yhwh becomes the deity who claims to be God but isn't. Thus Yhwh worship becomes its own worst nightmare, the worship of its own Satan.

It would be a paralyzing thought if it were my faith, and I can see why you would balk at the concept. But you also should seriously consider the possibility that what I say is true, just as an objective outside perspective on the development of things in the christian faith. I think that such a development would go a long way to explain the schitzophrenic nature of the christian character, loving of peace and thirsting for war. If it were my faith, I'd want to be very sure that the God that I was worshipping was the God of Jesus Christ, and not a horned creature which lived in a fiery pit. Just a thought.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:09 AM

Quote:
posted by DreamTrove-

I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is a possibility to deliberately misinterpret the text,

regarding the fallen angels and their hybrid offspring, we have to understand what happened in Eden to caus our fall from the heavens into a sinful mortal state. the book of Enoch and its contents just further emphasizes the post-eden invasion of these angels and the aftermath(which was the flood-recorded also by the epic of gilgamesh)

Quote:
but this is more than that, it's also taking the textual perspective and using it as the basis for a historical account to say that religions essentially spread from israel and mutated, which we know historically to not be the case.

well hold on..im not saying that at all. what is believed is Abraham is influenced to leave Haran (or Ur), in what is roughly accepted as 2000bc(neo-sumerian period). at this time he is living in the region of the babylonians and canaanites, cultures centered on 'pagan' fallen angelic worship. Abraham is selected by YHWY because he believes in a creator, perfect and unseen, not these ego-central deities with human-esque frailties which had presented themselves to man since the Seth and Cain bloodlines.

Quote:
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the original hebrew creation myth was El-centric, and that Jesus was an outlander who worshipped El, who he addresses in the text by name. As not a servant of Yhwh, he has a very different picture of divinity, with peace and forgiveness, instead of vengeance, jealousy and war.

im not sure.. i dont see why Jesus woudlnt tell his disciples this, rather then quote OT verses and honor prophets like Elijah and Moses, or identify with himself as sitting at the right hand side of the Creator. now Lucifer is considered the angel of light, the prince of this world and god of this age, and was a present physical being.. it could be possible that it was these kinds of angelic influences coupled with our sinful nature and free will that allowed for a deception of the israelites, but i dont know. quote me the verses you find questionable and lets go through it

Quote:
The original god of the heavens is not Yhwh, but rather that would be El, the high one, god of the heavens, who married the god of the sea, and became god of rain. Yhwh was born in his earliest myths in a cave of fire inside of or under Mt. Sinai, also known as he who shall not be named, the nameless one, and Yahoveha the God of War.

so you dont believe YHWY to be the Creator God, but a lesser god(Or rather an 'angel')? quote me the scriptures and we'll scrutinize them

Quote:
It's possible, from a christian perspective that their is a fundemental inconsistancy here, and that historically, I think this is caused by Paul, and his crowd, who forced the merger of Yhwh+Jesus and of OT+NT to try to bring conversion to the jews, but instead infected his new religion with Yhwh, God of War.

well heres the thing.. the jews of the pharisee sect who killed Jesus, by his own words were of the synogogue of Satan.. much of israels history in the OT was a result of the heretical babylonian influence of the kabbala. id like to hear your references though and go through them

Quote:
The religion is split into warring factions because such is the will of God. As God of war he would thrive on conflict, and would deliberately split his followers and pit them against one another. Nothing seems more natural for a God of war.

i cant see how the Creator could be anything less than perfect, as Jesus implies..but maybe one of the deficient personalities of the various mesopotamian pantheon gods

Quote:
But the adoption of the creator title could be seen as totally malicious, and deceptive. Yhwh is the creator according to the cult of Yhwh, because Yhwh says that it is so. But an objective read of his book shows Yhwh to be basically evil, maybe evil without restriction or reservation.

i guess i need you to give me some specifics so i can see the contex

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:18 AM

Antimason,

You surprised me with the openminded response. Okay, I agree, we'll dig through this stuff and see what we find. Sure, of course I'm open to all sorts of possibilities, just trying to find what *is*.

I have some links to some stuff, I was doing this research a year ago or so, I need to dig this stuff up. I get that you're open to the speculation of the pre-judean world view since you keep bringing in the sumerians.

But give me a few days. I have a ton to do, and I need to find the time to find the links and the articles I read, dig through all the agenda-driven stuff for the pure research.

Thanks for taking me seriously.

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 7:08 AM

DT- *thanks.. we're both just trying to find what is the truth. you know im not a know-it-all, i do make mistakes and am not perfect etc; but i genuinely study biblical related history, which to me includes everything of the ancient world.. since i find it all very relevant. im studying the OT some more, and the 'controversial' texts.. so im willing to put it to the test, but maybe in a religious thread, since this one was supposed to be about the in-debatable stature of 'Darwinian Evolution'..

with that in mind i think you should check this site out- KANEMAN i think you would appreciate this

Quote:
http://www.biped.info/index.html

BIPED MANIFESTO

This website has no religious leanings. It has been created as a resource to collect various writings of Darwinian Dissent and to link to similar sites to share information. The projected aims of this website - to be collectively fulfilled by any who want to be involved - are the following:

1. To teach what evolution is and what it isn't. To assist those interested in gaining an understanding of Darwinian evolution and, more specifically, to teach them to distinguish between what Darwin proposed as the science behind the evolution of forms, and what his followers, so-called neo-Darwinists, have misinterpreted in popular writings as Darwin's thesis. Read the articles and you will learn.

2. And you thought there was only Darwin vs. God? To show that there are valid scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution other than "creation," although we are not particularly opposed to that term ("if it walks like a duck"). Among other alternatives, variations and meldings of "creationism" and "evolution" that will be introduced, along with the proponents of these theories, are the following: Intelligent Design Theory, Gaia Hypothesis, Theory of Formative Causation, Vitalism, Astrogenesis, Panspermia, Ballistic Panspermia, Information Theory, Systems Theory, Extraterrestrial Seeding, Genetic Manipulation and some crossing, blending or borrowing between these theories.

3. The Catastrophic pre-history of Earth To look at the facts of Catastrophism (which Darwinists avoid because it messes up their peaceful little world as it is evolving) as a system of cyclic destruction and creation of life forms on Earth. We will discuss the bearing this has on Darwinian evolution, as many scientists come forth to admit the universe, the cellular world and the fossil record all implicate intelligent design.

These statements about Darwinian theory may surprise you:

Evolution is a Rag Hypothesis.
I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. - Charles Darwin to Asa Gray

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of species.
Darwin did not really explain the origin of new species in The Origin of Species, because he didn't know how to define species. The Origin was in fact concerned mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one species might proliferate into many. - Douglas Futuyma

Evolution is Defective.
The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. - Dr A. Fleishmann, Zoologist

Evolution is Pure Fantasy.
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet, the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. - David M. Raup, Geologist

Evolution is based on Ideology.
There is no evidence for a primeval soup… The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology. - Hubert Yockey, Information Theory

Evolution is Vague.
The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds. - Ludw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 10:13 PM

Not at all. It was a thread about debates. I used evolution as an example., but there's a whole bunch of deceptive debate tactics. Send me an email at dreamtrove -at- gmail.com, and we'll talk god. i'm not really interested in the flame wars which would ensue here on the board on such a topic. I'm not really guessing, I dimly recall a holy war in the not to distant past.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2