Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
You, sir, are full of fail.
But yeah, that`s all my horn player side talking. He totally got schooled. She really backed him into a corner at the end there. I kind of also wished that I could hear what he was saying...
If we as humans are at the top of an impossibly tall cliff and the answer to the universe and everything is at the bottom, blind belief in creationism would have you jump from the cliff. But what if science offered you a step by step path to the bottom of the cliff? At no point does it tell you are wrong it merely offers you a comprehensive and safe method of making your way to the answer? So I ask you why would u jump?
Anyone who says: "Take a blow torch to a cows face and see if he evolves a defense for that. Then I`ll put more weight into it" isnt being serious!
I`ve kept out of this for the most part but it is pretty clear now he is trolling.
Cheese and ham pizza is an abomination.[/quote]
OK, let`s go!
You`ve been led into a common mistranslation of the ancient Jewish religious concept labelled [quote]toevah[/quote]. `Abomination` isn`t a good English translation of that concept, which is more varied and subtle, usually less serious. "Religiously inappropriate" might be a better translation, or maybe "religiously unclean", possibly "spiritually unclean" or maybe "religiously impure".
I think the degree of [quote]toevah[/quote] posed by ham and cheese pizza is relatively low and ceremonial purification should be sufficient, but I suggest consulting your rabbi.
Alternatively, you might just be referring to the taste. Which is an abomination that could only be exceeded by a ham, cheese and Marmite pizza with V8 dressing. :)
Agreed. This is the main reason why I didn`t join in - anyone who lists their religion on their profile as "agnostic" and then wheels out a farcical caricature like this smells of troll to me...
Cheese and ham pizza is an abomination.
Everything I wrote is true, and provably true. I`m playing with a troll, because I have some time to spare and it`s mildly entertaining.
Yes, I do think you`re trolling. You`re too blatantly and determinedly ignorant to be for real and this subject is fertile trolling ground. You`ve made it more obviously recently by making ever more ridiculous claims, such as giraffes being the result of sex between monkeys and goats and a reasonable test of the theory of evolution being whether a cow can instantaneously evolve extreme resistance to fire.
Lets say we have a cataclysmic event that kills everyone except black people. (Lets say the sun picks up a notch and only people with high levels of Melanin don`t die of skin cancer).
Does the average human now look:A) Darker.B) Whiter. C) No change.
If you answered C, you`re an idiot. The average has changed. In fact humanity is now made of exclusively blacks.
"But this reduces the gene pool, not increases it"
Evolution does not just occur with cataclysms but also with opportunities. Stephen hawking is useless in neolithic times, currently he is one of the most useful men on earth.
His genes are now useful, and can fit in a niche that previously did not exist.
You can pick a scenario, and ask the question "What would happen". The *necessary* answers say evolution occurs.
Then you`re begging the question, in exactly the same way as was being done (and pointed out as being done) right at the start of the video clip you say you watched.
Asking "Who created [life|life on earth|the universe|whatever]?" contains as an inherent assumption that a person did the creating. The question itself leads people into accepting the assumption - it isn`t possible to answer the question as stated without making that assumption and the question makes that assumption unquestionable.
The classic, but much less subtle, example of this sort of thing is "have you stopped beating your children?", a question that includes the assumption that you routinely beat your children.
It is impossible to disprove intelligent design to you because you have faith in it. Faith exists with complete disregard for evidence, so evidence cannot disprove faith.
You said that you`d renounce your faith if humans created life from scratch in a lab. That has almost happened and appears very likely to happen within a couple of years. You will not renounce your faith because of it.
I don`t have any faith in evolution. I`m going on evidence, not faith. Two completely different things.
1) It makes perfect sense that in an environment where all X people survive and all Y people die, more X people genes are passed on. 1a) Where Y is: Taller, Blacker, Stronger, Shorter, Smarter, whatever. 2) We know mutations occur. 3) We know mutations can give these attributes.
If you are suggesting of these are the case, there is no point arguing against evolution. It must occur under those conditions.
If you want a logic throwdown here Maddux, I`m an AI/Compsci graduate. I specialized in large scale Social Simulations as my final year project. One of my pet projects was 3D cellular automata.
If you want we can go over any simulation of evolution in practice, and we can go over the math, the logic, or anything else you`d like.
You are now arguing that it`s a possibility that giraffes are naturally occuring crossbreeds of monkeys and goats.
Do you really wonder why people are saying that you don`t have any understanding of what evolution is?
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not know what "theory" means in a scientific context, that you do not know what the theory of evolution is, that you do not know the difference between basic concepts such as "possible" and "likely", that you don`t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution...etc, etc.
All that has to be sorted out before it would be possible to actually argue intelligently with you.
Not that it matters on IAB, where threads more than a couple of days old are effectively obsolete.
A cow cannot evolve. Cows can evolve as a plural.
If you took a blowtorch to 1 billion cows, and 10 survived, those 10 cows that for some reason are more blowtorch resistant cows would go on to breed. Thus making cows that are on average more blowtorch resistant than your average cow. (Slightly thicker skin, slightly less sensitive skin, etc).
Frogs have already been shown to react to a new environment in such a fashion.
You are arguing against a process we are watching, and my question remains unanswered, why when evolution *does* happen, are you suggesting it doesn`t happen for a few select cases 6500 years ago, with a God who simply does not function in the way you are describing.
Who`s saying that humans evolved from apes? I think you`re showing your ignorance of biology and evolution again.
It`s reasonable to say humans *are* apes. A species of ape with significant differences to other apes, but still apes.
Conclusive proof isn`t the issue. Overwhelming evidence isn`t conclusive proof. Conclusive proof only exists in maths. Science always allows for the possibility, however small, of error. Which, incidentally, is just one of the many ways in which creationism isn`t science.
It`s impossible to prove evolution and common ancestry to a creationist - you can simply believe that any evidence for it is just evidence of a common creator. So why would anyone waste their time trying?
By the same logic I might as well say that because no cow spontaneously appeared next to me, ID must be false.
Evolution applies over a long period of time to a species, not individuals. None of the bacteria will suddenly change to have a new trait- they will suffer errors during reproduction. Most are bad. Some are good. This process requires a long period of time for most organisms, but for a great example of short-term evolution, look at evolved resistance to antibiotics.
"Reading comprehension will be very valuable to you as you advance in your studies. "
Surely you don`t mean to say that faith wouldn`t bias any attempt to reach a conclusion.
And you don`t know the difference between sound logic, and gibberish...good arguments, and absurd arguments. You don`t know what the eff you`re talking about otherwise you`d stop making these ridiculous posts that have no merit other than to start a flame war with somebody. And you`re over 40. Sad.
Reading comprehension will be very valuable to you as you advance in your studies.
And you have? I know what you are talking about. I`ve heard the arguments, I know this happens. Take a blow torch to a cows face and see if he evolves a defense for that. Then I`ll put more weight into it.
Faith is a very poor thing to base scientific understanding on.
Yes, and dismissing evolution because it might be disproved is as accurate as dismissing nuclear theory because it might be disproved or dismissing GRAVITY because it might be disproved.
Things fall. That`s a fact. Organisms change. That`s a fact. The theory of gravity explains why and how matter has mutual attraction, and the theory of evolution explains why and how organisms change over time.
Intelligent design is not a scientific claim, and can not be. It violates basic principles of science in that it is not testable and invokes the supernatural.
Don`t bother - you can`t invent something that`s been around for billions of years. Artificial fusion power by humans was invented decades ago.
What you should be looking for is controllable economic fusion power, a very different kettle of fish.
Most intelligent people who have faith have considered the implications of that faith. Many who grew up with faith discarded it upon their own conclusions regarding the origins of the universe. Likewise, those who are intelligent and have held to their faith have done so out of their own conclusions regarding the origins of the universe.
You have not done the research. I am talking about single-celled organisms, simple ones, where transcription errors in mRNA can yield entirely new traits upon cellular division. Organisms of different species are genetically incompatible, but sexual reproduction combined with random mutation allows for a wide range of traits to be expressed, even those differing from the parents.
If you have a batch of bacteria, evolution will happen the instant you apply a chemical or heat or anything that will kill most of them. The ones that survive will be the ones with traits that let them survive. They will reproduce and the whole population will get the trait. Evolution.
Then why aren`t you seeking it? You don`t know what evolution is. You don`t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. You don`t know the difference between possible and likely. You don`t know the difference between creating life, modifying life and moving existing life somewhere else.
You could read and learn those things.
I do have faith that a God exist, and my faith stems from my belief in intelligent design. And I have no more faith in that, than you do about evolution. So what`s your point? Disprove intelligent design, I`ll renounce my faith.
It`s not pointless. It`s a demonstration that even the most ardent of atheists has not closed the door to other possibilities. I don`t see the harm in that, and I don`t see why you would be offended by that.
"And, apparently, didn`t watch it yourself. You`re begging the question. Or are you doing it deliberately to try to lead people into making the assumption of creationism implicit in your question?"
I watched the whole movie, and I`m not sure what your getting at here. I`m not deliberately trying to lead people into my way of thinking anymore than you are trying to do the same.
"Most of the job has already been done in making life from some bags of chemicals. It`s very close - ribosomes have already been made."
Yeah, that happened back in May. Call me when we get there.
What do you think evidence is?
[quote]The fundamental point is that evolution is a theory as is God. Neither can be proved![/quote]
You clearly have absolutely no idea what "theory" means in a scientific context, which makes your opinion on it meaningless.
Agreed. So then we get back to the point. If this is true. Why eliminate the possibility of intelligent design and assume that we know everything there is to know about everything, and everything we know precludes a god that intelligently designed the universe. There is clearly not enough to end this discussion. Clearly! Not when none of us are clear as to what went down, and why we are here. The problem I have with athiests, and evolutionists is that they irrationally rule out God, but accept that it`s possible that purple unicorns from Mars impregnated the earth with life. And they do this mostly because they hate religion, not God...although there are exceptions to that.
Then you admit that the clip you posted is useless, because Dawkins explicitly stated that no-one knew the answer. So why did you post it?
[quote]If we are here by ID, and aliens did it, then who made the aliens?[/quote]
And, apparently, didn`t watch it yourself. You`re begging the question. Or are you doing it deliberately to try to lead people into making the assumption of creationism implicit in your question?
[quote]We`ve had all the stuff, all the essential materials, the perfect environment, but we have never come close to bringing a single cell to life. It hasn`t happened, we haven`t come close.[/quote]
Most of the job has already been done in making life from some bags of chemicals. It`s very close - ribosomes have already been made.
[quote]The day that we do I`ll change my position.[/quote]
I doubt it. Your position is faith - evidence is irrelevant.
*Parade around as if you have a PhD in the current topic of issue*
come on guys,I think we have all played pokemon here evolution is clearly possible.
(Implying that pokemon has as much relevance here as much as heated god vs science debates)
What makes it inevitable? I`m just throwing this out there, but what if a monkey effed a goat and made a Giraffe, and this was the source of the genetic change? The fact that this is a possibility means that your statement is an assumption, which makes your statement by definition, not inevitable.
"Wrong again, you do NOT demonstrate an understanding of the scientific nomenclature. A theory is an idea supported with mountains of evidence that has never been refuted or shown to be wrong."
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.Therefore, theories can be disproven. Most evolutionists don`t accept the fact that there is evidence to
You`re answering for yourself. Your answer is wrong. Some advocates of creationism are very intelligent, some aren`t. The reason it isn`t discarded is faith. Religion and intelligence aren`t the same thing.
A point which, as usual, you are making up.
That`s not what he said even in that video clip from a wholly biased film that people were deliberately misled into appearing on and asked leading questions (with unwanted answers ignored).
It`s a possibility that The Matrix is a true accounting of events and what we think is the universe is actually a very convincing virtual reality.
It`s a possibility that we and everything we know of is actually a game running on a computer and we`re just NPCs.
Many things are a possibility. That doesn`t mean that they are likely ones or that we should forget about trying to discover who the universe works.
Evolution can be observed locally through examples of low-scale adaptation. One example is the evolution of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Scientists can introduce a selection pressure to a group and only the few with a mutation that enables them to survive will do so. Evolution in action. Or, another example, the Peppered Moth. Originally white to blend in with trees, it evolved to become black in order to blend in with the trees of a soot-blanketed industrial England.
For examples of long-term evolution, we turn to the fossil record. We can trace the evolution of many organisms back hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Interesting, but evolution that you can watch is not the same thing as evolution that occurs over billions of years, is it? Here`s a question. Is micro-evolution a necessary or a sufficient aspect of evolution in general. There are massive implications for proving one or the other.
"What you have to argue Mad, is that at some point in the past, evolution did not occur. That is what it takes for you to be correct."
I don`t think this is the central issue. My argument began with the universe being created through intelligent design. What that design entails, I don`t know. Nobody can deny the fact that viruses evolve or other things of that nature evolve. But there are serious implications inherent in claiming certain aspects of evolution, and science does not support the majority of
Bzzt. Wrong. Evolution is inevitable. When conditions exist for life, all that is needed to make evolution happen is a single mutation in a single organism giving it the capacity for change.
"The majority of you are arguing irrelevant (and incorrect points) regarding the definitions of laws and theories"
Wrong again, you do NOT demonstrate an understanding of the scientific nomenclature. A theory is an idea supported with mountains of evidence that has never been refuted or shown to be wrong. Gravity is a theory, nuclear theory is a theory, evolution is a theory.
Evolution is as much a fact as nuclear theory. Denying evolution is as valid as denying nuclear theory.
Yes, you are. I`ve just watched the video you linked to, which was not what you claimed it was.
Firstly, Dawkins stated repeatedly that he didn`t know the answer to the question of the origin of life, which is a position dismetrically opposed to creationism (and yes, I.D. is creationism).
Secondly, Dawkins did not speak against evolution or in favour of creationism, because he was just discussing possibilities for the origin of self-replicating molecules on Earth.
Thirdly, Dawkins was not talking about the origins of life at all, just the origins of life on Earth. So again, nothing to do with creationism.
Fourthly, Dawkins was not advocating Christian creationism, which is what I.D. is.
It`s theoretically possible for humans to terraform Venus or Mars. Bacteria, possibly genetically engineered or made, would be part of that. Would that make humanity The Creator?
What is the your best argument in favor of evolution. For example, my best argument against evolution (or the one that convinces me the most, maybe not others), is the fact that evolution is mathematically impossible. Yep, you`ve heard that over and over...yet can`t do anything about it because you have no relevant way to counter it.
So what is your best argument for evolution? And I don`t want to hear answers such as...Everything, everything points to it, sciences A, B, and C, have proved it, we need vaccines because viruses evolve, because I`m sure you know the stock responses, which can only be stock responses because they respond to stock (generic, most common) answers.
The majority of you are arguing irrelevant (and incorrect points) regarding the definitions of laws and theories, and the other half base their arguments on things they assume to be true. There is no way to intelligently argue against that kind of reasoning, and IAB doesn`t offer the best venue to do so.
It`s like arguing against a Christian who says they everything they say is true because the Bible says so. At that point your not even playing the same game, so it`s pointless to argue.
Most of you say I have no idea what I`m talking about, and base that on offering absolutely nothing. The one person who makes an attempt is so far off the mark, (Yaezakura) is there even a point?
Buddy, I think your name just refuted your professorial claims. The only science at works in your "field" is human body kinetics, at high impact.
Watch the video, or don`t then shut up.
I didn`t watch this video because whoever recorded it, couldn`t afford a good phone to record it with...
IMO all cell phone videos are absolute garbage.
DEATH TO CELL PHONE CAMERAS!
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROVES HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APES!!! Why? Becauce NO ONE said there was!...Oh I am sure someone said it...but that is because they did not understand the Science as you have so clearly demonstrated....Darwin, whom I assume you are referring to said that apes and humans traveled along the same evolutionary pathline and at some point split off...we share a common ancestor that is NOT the same thing as evolving from apes. If you are going to argue science, at least get the science right. I am a Science professor and this concept is basic 7th grade science.
There is evolution we can watch occur. We can watch it in various ways. Microbiology is the easiest, but there are several cases of larger species demonstrating evolution.
What you have to argue Mad, is that at some point in the past, evolution did not occur. That is what it takes for you to be correct.
Now you have to give a reason why.
Furthermore, God, by any definition, by simple reasoning, must be a God of processes. Yet you are suggesting that God created, in completeness, the world, and then allowed it to evolve from that point on.
You are then also arguing he would not have started the world at an earlier point.
Why? Does God have a schedule he`s trying to keep?
Logically, even in Religion, evolution is the only conclusion that makes sense.
I said: You redefined evolution.
You said: Who redefined evolution? I think everybody here has a clear understanding of what it is and what it implies.
You then posited Darwinian theory.
Let me point this out. Newtonian Physics is wrong. That is why there have been hundreds of iterations since Newton posited his theory.
I do not claim atoms don`t exist because newton was wrong. Or Gravity is a lie. It`s all a theory.
You differentiating it into "The Theory of Evolution" tagging it with pure Darwinian theory, and claiming Darwin (and only Darwin, with no deviation) was wrong.
You are claiming Evolution (in total) does not happen because Darwin made mistakes.
You are not claiming Gravity does not happen because Newton made mistakes.
Evolution occurs, and as I said, you can watch it. The theory is a theory because it is not finished explaining the process.
Seriously, just give up. You`re clearly demonstrated you haven`t the foggiest idea what you`re talking about. You`re just spouting the same old bullpoo creationists like Kirk Cameron and Ken Ham have been spouting for decades, with no better chance of it working now than it did then.
All theories are revised over time as we find new information. This is nothing new. It`s the way science WORKS. Only religion assumes it`s right from the start and then blocks all inquiry that may prove it wrong. Science EVOLVES.
That said, the fossil record supports evolution fabulously. You simply don`t want it to, but your wants are meaningless. We have a clear progression of fossils that show whales evolving from land animals to ocean creatures. We have more human ancestor fossils than we ever could have dreamed. We have clear fossil evidence of dinosaurs evolving into modern birds. (Continued next)
The way these students argued was sloppy. The repeated "oh, * insert changed tone of voice to sound disgruntled*", repeated `like` and `um`, and silly comments that just hold no purpose in the debate.
The fact of the matter is that the evidence is pathetic. Examine the fossil record. In 2009, it is a well documented fact that there is no steady progression that links apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found where they were not supposed to be found, in the wrong time periods...it`s all one big amalgamated mess, that in honesty, requires the theory of evolution to be revised to retain it`s credibility heading into the next 50-100 years of debate. The fossil record is in my opinion, THE MOST damming evidence against evolution.
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. Nothing. Nothing. And no matter what you believe about God, according to our scientific laws, in order for us to be here, something had to have been here before us. UNLESS, that thing is not bound to our scientific laws, in which case it would be exempt.
The response to this is always going to be, given enough time, anything can happen, even if it`s not mathematically possible.
There is nothing in scientific law that allows for non-living objects coming to life out of non-living materials. All of the science behind evolution is based on things that are already living. There is no science to back non-living material forming into life with a genetic instructions on how to exist.
OOOOHHHHHH Look at the silly little Christian promoting his ignorance. Hand him a banana...look how it fits in his hand...wwhooooooooo!!!!!
After you get over that initial part, then it`s moves onto categorizing the basic arguments against evolution onto a bingo card in another humorous attempt to belittle those argument by attacking the character of the person making the argument. Whenever a point is made it`s always, "oh he`s just a sheep being led by the masses, he don`t know what the eff he`s talking about". So predictable. So infantile. Pathetic.
[quote]You misinterpreted what I said. I didn`t say that we couldn`t do cool tricks in labs with bacteria. I said we couldn`t recreate life out of raw materials. Reading comprehension is a valued commodity.[/quote]
I understood you perfectly. You are the one who seems not to know what you`re talking about. I addressed that you said we couldn`t produce results that validated DARWIN`S THEORY in a lab. We have, as Darwin`s theory concerns evolution, and we have seen evolution both in the lab and in the field.
However, you then move the line by saying "making life". Evolution HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO SAY ON THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It concerns itself only with what happened to life AFTER it formed. The Abiogenesis Theory is entirely separate and distinct from the Theory of Evolution.
Props to all who have enough time to argue with him.
I can`t though, I`m too busy inventing fusion power. I think I`ll be done before he admits the Earth is round.
... Least of all for 7 minutes.
So you`ll have to forgive me skipping this.
Kirks` Super Jesus A-Team were on the University of Minnesota campus, too. Luckily, I was late for class and didn`t have the time of day for them. They would`ve regretted giving me one of their books.
If something can be observed, it can be recorded, and is therefore evidence.
Ah sod it. I can`t. It`s like taking candy from a baby.
So instead, since you laughed at Night1ords post I`ll give you this to read.
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
There you go. We HAVE created the first building blocks of life in a lab!
After that I`m simply not prepared to waste anymore time on this subject. I can`t educate you, nor will I try. However..one thing is for certain. You ideas of what the theory of evolution is...are very VERY out of date or just outright wrong!
Now I`m off to bed. Keep the insults off IAB. You know we dont like flamewars.
The fundamental point is that evolution is a theory as is God. Neither can be proved!
I don`t get why people continuously have to try to disprove one another!
Science and religon do not need to be enemies, science explains how things work and religon can explain why. So how life has come from Big bang science explains without any reasonable doubt. Yet religon can say why it all started etc, but by diging in like you are your doing your religon more harm then good by re-enforcing a stereotype that your all crazy nutjobs who ignore facts out of misguided faith in something they have no proof of.
In simple terms, you can buy cell pieces (nucleic acids, proteins, solutions, etc.) put them together and give them life, routine in a microbiology laboratory.
Well, apparently it is. Fortunately the people who tranfect (commercially available)plasmids into (commercially available) biological systems with (commercially available) transduction proteins to create new live bacteria from the precursors passed on that bliss and preferred to do something useful.
In simple terms, you can buy cell pieces (nucleic acids, proteins, solutions, etc.) put them together and give them life, routine in a microbiology laboratory.
Thank you! it`s been a while since I laughed that hard.
Anyway..interwebs debates..keep the lols coming!"
You should look at your pee pee more, you`d laugh harder. LOLLERSKATES!
If you can`t even derive Maxwell`s Equations, don`t bother attempting to belittle a belief in a higher-dimensional being by "lack of scientific proof." Go get a Ph.D. in physics. Seriously. If you don`t find your answers along the way, then I`ll listen to your griping.
Anyway..interwebs debates..keep the lols coming!
and WTF tatripp!?!!??!?
Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. It is the explanation of what happened afterwards.
For example, if you wake up tomorrow morning in China (assuming you don`t live there). Of course you`ll wonder how you got there, but it won`t change the fact that you`re in China.
So while we don`t know how life came to be, we know there is life, and we know that it changes over time.
So... yeah. You lose. ^_^ Nice try, though.
You misinterpreted what I said. I didn`t say that we couldn`t do cool tricks in labs with bacteria. I said we couldn`t recreate life out of raw materials. Reading comprehension is a valued commodity.
ID has been rejected as a valid field of study by every reputable scientist. Emphasis on reputable.
[quote]If you claim that Darwins theory is iron clad, then why haven`t we been able to produce it in a lab.[/quote]
We have. Just because you`re behind on the times doesn`t mean the rest of us aren`t. We have witnessed e.coli bacteria evolve the ability to digest citrate. Note that not being able to digest citrate used to be one of the defining characteristics of e.coli.
So... yeah. You lose. ^_^ Nice try, though.
Ignorance is bliss....isn`t it.
What are you talking about? one of the fundamental requisites are billions of years. And bringing a cell to life is not exactly worth a Nobel price, people do that routinely all over the world with bacteria and cell culture lines, its something called "genetic engineering". Done even in developing countries.
Again false, there is not a single paper recently published in peer-reviewed journals based on ID premises. Science is ignoring completely ID as a faulty theory. Evolution on the other hand will give you millions of results in pubmed.
ID is the only argument that I`m positing. However that may have come about. It`s alwasy going to go back to how it started. If we are here by ID, and aliens did it, then who made the aliens? If you claim that Darwins theory is iron clad, then why haven`t we been able to produce it in a lab. We`ve had all the stuff, all the essential materials, the perfect environment, but we have never come close to bringing a single cell to life. It hasn`t happened, we haven`t come close. The day that we do I`ll change my position. Scientifically speaking, if you can`t replicate it in a lab....
Because the people promoting it have money.
On the contrary, only a crummy debater base its participation on something entirely subjective controlled by its opponent. A much better one would discuss to have fun for example, and to express solid and rational arguments, even if the opponent is not rational enough to accept them.
He does not, at ANY point, say it was likely. He says it is a possibility. He does not say there is any evidence for it. He merely entertained the idea. And as far as Dawkins is concerned, life on earth evolved naturally [quote]until some evidense is found that suggests otherwise.[/quote]
If this is true...than why hasn`t it been ignored. I`ll answer that for you. It`s because people who are way smarter than you and me....can`t.
False again, he admits its possible, but since the evidence points away from it, he says its unlikely.
And by sticking with this argument you are admitting that god (or the aliens) was created by evolution and Darwinian laws, as he said in his answer.
Ummm...you`re a pretty crummy debater if that`s not your purpose.
Sure, he`s a man of science and reason...and he concluded that it was a likely possibility that we are here by intelligent design, even if that intelligence came from Aliens. Thats my point.
However, if it encourages one person to actually look for evidences themselves, then it`s all worth it.
Do you seriously think the only purpose of a discussion is to sway the other side?
Those are the limits aren`t they. No getting around it. It doesn`t change the fact that even Richard Dawkins admits that the evidence points to intelligent design in some capacity, and that if it wasn`t God, it was aliens. He admits that intelligent design is likely.
I`m not arguing this to advance a theory that God created the universe...we can`t ge to that point until we get passed the whole intelligent design thing. What I am arguing is that we are here through intelligent design in some way, shape, or form.
oh, and some statistics(?) that can prove evolution:1)Humans have steadily grown taller throughout time (and more so within that last century)2)It`s more natural for us to wear shoes than to go barefoot (that damn padding is doing us in)
now go out and tare down my ideologies!
Evolution and ID ar both possible. but ID is extremely easy to discard because does not correspond to the evidence. Evolution on the other hand corresponds perfectly with the evidence. So, realistically speaking ID can be ignored as useless as a explanation compared with evolution.
But then again, if you ask a scientist if it is possible then he will answer yes, as well as if you ask if we were created by a magical firefly, time-traveling robots from another universe or as a joke between gods. The answer is always "yes, it is possible"
Why do we KEEP arguing about this?! It`s like watching lemmings fall off a cliff. Do any of you SERIOUSLY think you`re going to sway the other side?!
Or is it "Bullpoo, they tricked him into saying those words, they lied to him about what the question was about, and it was all an illusion".
Fitting. This is usually how these arguemnts go by the way...it never goes back to the facts, it always involves some form of...Bullpoo, you`re an idiot. [/quote]
Looking to Expelled for facts is like looking to the Bible for them. You`re bound to be disappointed.
Yes, Dawkins positing a theory of ID by aliens. As a satire to illustrate how entirely bonkers thinking a God did it is. He was not being serious at all. To suggest he was is to totally misunderstand him and his views. 5 minutes of research on Dawkins will show he a firm supporter of evolutionary theory, and constantly mocks people who try to get Creationism or ID taught in schools as science.
That`s what you came back with? Seriously? An appeal to emotional insults because you are uncomfortable with what was said?
Fitting. This is usually how these arguemnts go by the way...it never goes back to the facts, it always involves some form of...Bullpoo, you`re an idiot.
Seriously, cited Expelled for information is an instant failure. You just lost at life. Please stop breathing now, you`re wasting valuable air.
Intelligent design is a possibility.magic is a possibility.we are characters in somebody`s videogame also.Evolution is a possibility.
But from the endless possibilities only one is likely and by a huge margin, and that is evolution.
I have quotes of (likely your hero) Ken Ham saying that there is no God. Taken out of their original context, that`s all you hear. Of course, we both know the idiot believes in a God. But I still have quotes of him saying there isn`t one.
Supply context or GTFO."
I believe I did...I supplied a link and everything. He basically said that it is likely that we are here by intelligent design, and it`s either Aliens or God...and it`s not God.
-Facts are objective and verifiable observations (it is 42 degrees fahrenheit, the ball`s velocity was 87mph)
-Laws are simple, verifiable statements relating facts (if object A has mass a, object B has mass b, and they are d feet apart, we can find the gravitational force acting on both).
-Hypotheses are testable (falsifiable) statements which explain a collection of facts and laws.
-Evidence is information (e.g. fact, law or observation) which, together with inference, makes it relevant to an hypothesis.
-A theory is a hypothesis which explains a broad class of facts and laws, which holds up against all available evidences.
Quite simple. He was likely being satirical at the time, or positing such a theory for the sole purpose of mocking it. Taking such an example out of context does nothing to support you claims at all.
Supply context or GTFO.
Explain to me Richard Dawkins, probably one of the most intelligent, smartest, accomplished, and ardent opposers of creationsim and intelligent design, actually posited a theory of intelligent design? Seriously....RICHARD FREAKING DAWKINS.
You can`t go too deep scientifically without leading back to this conclusion.
I have some knowledge of science. You have none. I have no wish to understand your entirely fictional idea of science. You must disregard me, because I threaten your fantasy "science".
I`d have more respect for you if you were honest about your faith and didn`t try to dress it up as science while trying to discredit science by subterfuge. You`ve mentioned microbiology, so here`s an analogy - creation "science" is a virus attempting to infect and destroy science.
False, a century ago that would have been a solid argument, now it has been found that evolution is mathematically sound and even statistically likely.
That includes the fossil record, if you calculate the amounts and type of fossil that you may find according to the conditions needed for the fossil creation and the technology available for investigation it is even surprising to find as much evidence as we have now. Even 10 times less fossils would be coherent to the evolution theory from an statistical point of view.
I`m not surprised you really don`t want to get into it, because you`re wrong.
[quote]Anyone interested can google it and see why Evolution is still a "Theory", with an ever increasing population of respected scientists labeling it a "bad theory". [/quote]
Something else to add to the list of things you have no understanding of: What `theory` means in a scientific context.
Respected scientists labelling the theory of evolution as a bad theory...LOL. Just LOL. I can`t take you seriously. No doubt some disagree about some parts of it, but that`s not the same thing at all. Maybe the "population" might have increased from 1 to 2, maybe. There are often some mavericks who think everyone else is completely wrong but can still be respected scientists.
Organisms do not "know" to evolve. They simply do, via the process of procreation with variation. You are a mutant. I am a mutant. Every human alive is a mutant, as we`re not a perfect blending of 50% Mom and 50% dad. Our genetic code contains random mutations of the contributing DNA. Harmful mutations lower your chances of living to create offspring. Beneficial ones increase those chances. Eventually, beneficial mutations work their way through the entire gene pool, though it happens fastest in small, localized species. In species with large numbers, the sheer numbers slow down evolution on a species-wide scale.
Also, again, Learn2Science. Scientific laws have to involve math. And there IS a Law of Evolution. So suck it.
LOL! You have proven your worth with this last paragraph. The fact that you don`t understand this allows me to disregard you.
You are sorely mistaken, and are distorting the facts. Most scientists subscribe to the fact that things evolve. The question is do they evolve to the extent suggested by Darwin? Probably not....according to the fossil record...absolutely not.
The fundamental question that bothers the scientific community is "Why do things evolve, why are things alive, why do organisms have a purpose, how does something so infinitely complex as DNA happen by chance". It`s not mathmatically possible, it`s not even scientifically possible, it all points to intelligent design...and this is the problem.
Microbiology is based on evolution, the whole phylogenetic field would be useless if the theory of evolution were not true, and nowadays you have to justify all your finding in the phylogenetic context if they are to be held as true. Precisely because I work on microbiology is why I know how much of it depends on the veracity of evolution, from the main principles of work to the everyday chores (bacteria evolving and adapting to a phage infection making the phage useless and forcing you to buy a new batch of unadapted bacteria for example)
You have just demonstrated that you know nothing about the theory of evolution, or microbiology, or mathematics, or physics or science in general.
So why should I consider your posts on those subjects any more meaningful than the noise of the raindrops pattering on my window at the momemnt?
One this does slightly interest me - what on earth makes you think that physics or maths is evolution? A physicist or mathematician may have little or no knowledge of the theory of evolution - it`s a completely different field.
also, skip to like half way through the video and they start to talk louder and the music goes away
It is the accepted explanation of a collection of facts by people who subscribe to that theory. It does not preclude opposing theories based on the same collection of facts.
"Evolution Happens = Fact"
Why does evolution happen? How do organisms know to evolve? Why have we been unable to produce the same affects scientifically? What is the foundation for this?
Gravity has a Theory, but is also a Fact.
It`s also based on good science, the fundamental aspects of such that are beyond question. There are also laws that have been derived from this theory, all of which are diametrically opposed to the original theories of relativity. So whats your point?
Bullpoo. Theory, in a scientific context, is the accepted explanation for a collection of related facts. Gravity has a Theory, but is also a Fact. The Theory explains the Fact. The same is true of cells, atoms, germs, and countless other things. All have related theories.
Evolution Happens = Fact.
How and Why Does Evolution Happen? = Theory.
Learn 2 Science before you try to discredit the work of people far smarter than you. There are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than there are scientists of any name who reject it.
Riddle me this Batman. How can you be an intelligent person, and actually believe this. The only way you could possibly make this statement is if A) you know nothing about microbiology and the implications of it`s findings. Or B) You just want to be right, and are willing to say anything regardless of it`s truth to accomplish it.
Right....a law is fact, a theory is something that might be true. So what`s your point?
Evolution is not the same as the theory of Evolution. Evolution in microbiology is better known as a genetic mutation, an anomaly, a physical necessity in order to cope with outside influences. They are completely different. I`d love for you to humor me and try to prove otherwise.
Microbiology does more to prove intelligent design than evolution. Microbiology is the chief reason the scientific community has not made the logical leap of concluding Evolution a scientific fact. Those brave scientists who have done this have been destroyed by their own peers in pointing out obvious flaws.
Many evolutionists who are honest with themselves have publically converted to intelligent design. Most evolutionists always leave open the possibility of intelligent design because all the scientific data points to it. The best arguments against intelligent design go something like this..."I know that it looks like intelligent design, I know that everything points to it, and know everything feels like it...but it`s not."
Who redefined evolution? I think everybody here has a clear understanding of what it is and what it implies. And no, evolution and microbiology are not synonomous. Evolution, not the theory, is a trait or aspect of microbiology that is well understood and documented. The "Theory" of evolution as outlined by Charles Darwin is not the same thing. It`s worse than most intelligent design theories because it bases it`s truth on several faulty assumptions. Darwin posited a theory based on observations documented on a remote island, and the scientific community ran with it. Creationist followed the same observations and came up with a different theory. The only difference between the two is one group mistakenly believes their theories to be based on fact. If this were true, the scientific community would no longer be calling it a theory.
Evolution and microbiology are virtually synonymous. you can have demonstrable natural selection. You can mass produce billions of microbes, change their entire world, and watch as the ones capable of surviving that environment (through mutation) thrive, whilst the majority die.
Does microbiology prove planetary evolution? No. It also doesn`t prove fermat`s Theorem, but it doesn`t need to.
It all points to intelligent design, and at the end of the day, even Darwin didn`t fully believe his own theories.
Evolutionary theory is how vaccines are produced- by predicting evolutionary trends of viruses and bacteria, and making people immune to those before the actual selection pressures create the strain of virus or bacteria.
Evolution is the foundation of microbiology. It is instrumental in understanding how biology works and has been used to research and cure hundreds if not thousands of diseases.
Creationism, on the other hand...Not.A.Damn.Thing.
Anyone who doesn`t believe in his religion also doesn`t believe in his rules about heaven and hell, so he`s not going to convince anyone."
I was referring to the typo in the title, but they fixed it lol.
I would be glad to. Somebody should. He`s a jerk. I don`t care if he is a Christian but why does he care whether everybody else is or not? Why does he go around saying all Jews are going to hell because they don`t believe in Jesus (or at least don`t believe he has super powers)?
Anyone who doesn`t believe in his religion also doesn`t believe in his rules about heaven and hell, so he`s not going to convince anyone.