Now why would they do that and confuse the leftist parents? There is a consensus of the theory after all.

KrustyButtMuncher = proof that our schools are failing.

Most ridiculous paragraph in this article:

"Bill 1457 turns skepticism into bewilderment," said Zen Faulkes, a biology professor at the University of Texas, Pan America. "It would ask teachers to say to students, 'Don't commit to the hypothesis that uranium has more protons than carbon,' or 'Remember, kids, tomorrow we might find out that DNA is not the main molecule that carries genetic information.' Evolution is as much a fact as either of those things, so it should be taught with the same confidence."

Uranium protons can be proven. DNA being genetic information vessels can be proven. Evolution can not. There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution but scientists preach it as fact and then obviously want to defend it by trying to equate it to actual facts. It's laughable and anyone with a 7th grade education should be able to see through this nonesense.

Evolution is a theory and a religion so to speak, in and of itself. If one is taught, so should creation.

.
.....creationism is pure ignorance.......
.
....there are socially lagging elements in America that are just as backwards as the Taliban ......
.
....if your 'science' is based on a thousand year old 'holy book'... know then that you are championing ignorance as a social value.......

Evolution is a theory and a religion so to speak, in and of itself. If one is taught, so should creation.
#3 | POSTED BY LISA

Some people still live in the Middle Ages.

Lisa, I understand and respect your faith, but I think you're conflating evolution and abiogenesis. They are connected but not the same.

One cannot teach creationism in science class, for it is not science. For all I know, the universe could have started this way, but it is simply not science. If parents and churches want to teach children that God created the universe, there is nothing stopping that.

Lisa is a religious fruitcake now. After her life fell apart she latched on to god. How pathetic.

Jackass, you're an asshole, as you prove again and again on this site.

I hope, for your sake, that you're just given to trolling and not like this in real life.

Let's see how much progress you make with Lisa, Pragmatist.

Religion is primarily defined as a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power like a god or gods.

Evolution is primarily defined as a process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Evolution is not a religion.

9--Even if I make none, calling her pathetic is just pissiness. I hope you're not defending Jackass. Bad behavior is bad behavior.

And Bella, well put, but I think people are "shorthanding" when they speak of science being "a religion." There do indeed seem to be aspects of faith to science sometimes--or to people's reactions to it. Sometimes, something close to a leap of faith seems required when looking at scientific arguments.

Pragmatist,
Leap of faith. Perhaps.
As long as there are scientists
who believe in god there is god
in science.

Why can't creationists see the
possibility of their god having
created the process of evolution?
Teaching that the physical
world evolves doesn't aim to
discredit any religion.

I just don't get the resistance
to it all.

#4 Skizzik: if your 'science' is based on a thousand year old 'holy book'

Your dating system is way off...

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

--Charles Darwin

....if your 'science' is based on a 150-year-old 'holy book'... know then that you are championing ignorance as a social value.......

#4 | Posted by skizziks at 2012-01-02 06:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

FTFY

Evolution is primarily defined as a process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Evolution is not a religion.

#10 | Posted by Bellatrix at 2012-01-02 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmmmmmmm ......

are thought to have developed and diversified

So, you concede that there is no proof. Only an idea, a thought. Hope. A wish.

And then you claim that this is not faith based?

How cute you are!

12--Almost perfect. : ) I don't get it either.
+++++

14--Sorta funny, but his being aware of that doesn't mean that science (as a practice) hasn't worked on the concepts, refined, adapted, etc. Darwin codified the concepts back then; but science didn't just adopt them and leave it there. Science continually pushes and asks questions, refines and rejects earlier systems of thought. Science grows and deepens (and yes, sometimes throws away) understandings over time. I don't see religion doing that.

Again, don't confuse evolution/natural selection with abiogenesis. There are scientists who believe in God. There are Christians (and other religionists) who understand that science doesn't have to be separate from belief.

"So, you concede that there is no proof. Only an idea, a thought. Hope. A wish."

Oh, Jesus Christ.

"thought to have..." is a common locution. Don't be an ass.

"There are Christians (and other religionists) who understand that science doesn't have to be separate from belief."

Zealots of ALL stripes are a big pain in the ass. I believe that evolution exists but didn't begin by some magical event such as sun shining on some pond scum, both of which also magically "appeared." On the other hand, even though the Good Book says so, I don't believe Eve was created from Adam's rib and I don't believe that a snake talked to Eve which started all this fuckin' trouble in the world today. I guess that makes me a heretic with both groups.

"thought to have..." is a common locution. Don't be an ass.

#17 | Posted by pragmatist at 2012-01-02 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

An argument without a counter point is simply bullshit.

You surrender the point

On the other hand, even though the Good Book says so, I don't believe Eve was created from Adam's rib and I don't believe that a snake talked to Eve which started all this fuckin' trouble in the world today. I guess that makes me a heretic with both groups.

#18 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2012-01-02 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Scripture is full of literary devices, including metaphors, analogies, similies, etc.

It is not a science book, any more than it is a cookbook. It is a book about two men, and about how they lead to a specific point.

And it uses every literary device that exists.

"You surrender the point"

Not at all. You were overly literalizing, leaping on a single word to destroy an argument. That's fallacious. You failed to make a point, so a counterpoint was unnecessary. But it was implied. I suppose that's hard for you. I can make it simple: "thought to have" is a common locution, often meaning "This is what people believe after years of study and experimentation." It's shorthand, and you know it is. You were just trying to be clever. (Unless you actually believe that people just think it, in which case you're stupid, something I have never thought you to be.)

"It is a book about two men, and about how they lead to a specific point."

Two MEN? No one divine? Interesting. And if you don't read it literally, what do you have against evolution? Where is your biblical counterpoint argument, if the Good Book is just about a couple of dudes? (You were shorthanding too, and I understand that, but I don't understand what your point was with that post.)

And yes, the Bible features some great writing and literary techniques. In fact, many of us suggest that it's marvelous fiction, and just like any fiction, one can get lessons from it. Good stuff.

"It is a book about two men,..."

Really?...Which two?

"And yes, the Bible features some great writing and literary techniques."

...and has been rewritten and reinterpreted many times over the centuries. The Catholic Church kept to the Latin for eons because it was a dead language and doesn't change but has now changed from Latin itself. Great opportunity for misunderstanding...for instance, I wonder how the ancients would interpret the word, "gay," in literature now.

"So, you concede that there is no proof."

Looks like vermin didn't do well in 5th grade biology.
Evolution is a theory, like gravity and quantum mechanics.
Vermin is an imbecilic lying shitstain, like toaster.

Vernon refuses to understand what science is. His religion told him to avoid it. The ignorance posted above is a sad reminder of the failures of our school system, but also the failure of religion to better the lives of its ignorant followers. His system of arguments consists of 1) science can not be certain of anything, therefore science is invalid. then 2) religion and religious texts can not provide any facts or even any point whatsoever, because it's a literary tool meant to be interpreted by your local priest/pastor/loudmouth and so you can not question the ultimate truth of religion. 3) everyone is stupid and vernon is a genius.

am i missing something grandpa vernoliar?

#15
Vernon, do you have scientific
proof as to my being "cute"?
Or is that just an opinion?

The evolution of organisms
is known to be fact. How
some have evolved is still
being determined.

Do you think evolution conflicts
with your god?
:)

"Do you think evolution conflicts with your god?"

It's laughable and anyone with a 7th grade education should be able to see through this nonesense.

Evolution is a theory and a religion so to speak, in and of itself. If one is taught, so should creation.

#3 | Posted by Lisa at 2012-01-02 06:32 AM | Reply | Flag

Not sure what is laughable here and what nonsense a 7th grader could see through.

Evolution is a theory and has quite a few factual basis behind such theory. It is like gravity, a theory but we all know at some point it is quite factual.

As far as a religion, don't see it. I see most intellectuals evaluate and come to a cognizant understanding of what evolution is and the future meaning behind the thought and yet, many of those intellectuals still believe in God.

Don't understand how evolution and GOD is such a conflict.

I might even go a step further, if evolution conflicts with religious faith, then either the faith is poorly directed or the individual lacks the understanding of the faith.

#3 | Posted by Lisa

I see the truly stupid ones were here early.

Evolution is a theory.
So is gravity.

Maybe you should read a dictionary you pathetic joke.

In science a theory is ...

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

And by all means avoid any contact with medicine, it's based on evolution.
That way you will be dead sooner, idiot.

Pissy behavior:

Meet the new year! Same as the old year!

"Pissy behavior:"

Intolerance of rank stupidity can sometimes cause that sort of behavior.

.

Indeed. But rational humans can rise above it. I know that's too much to ask here, but I still like to point it out now and then.

"Indeed. But rational humans can rise above it."

Rational?? Here? On the DR?? You really come here for "rational" discussions??

JEST: Rational?? Here? On the DR?? You really come here for "rational" discussions??

PRAG (repeating himself): I know that's too much to ask here, but I still like to point it out now and then.

In other words, read my whole post, silly man.

And yes, I do come here for that reason, and sometimes it even works, occasionally even with you.

I also come here for laughs, interesting links, and raging comments from idiotic trolls (though I much prefer raging comments from smart trolls).

Evolution is a theory and a religion so to speak, in and of itself. If one is taught, so should creation.

#3 | POSTED BY LISA AT 2012-01-02 06:32 AM

You're an idiot.

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

Evolution is a theory and a religion so to speak, in and of itself. If one is taught, so should creation.

#3 | Posted by Lisa

And just whose/what religion's flavor of creation should be taught?

From which branch of Christianity?

Or perhaps the The Mormon version?

How about the Hindu version?

The Muslim version?

The Shinto version?

How about the Hopi version?

Or maybe you just want your specific whitebread Anglo version of Christian creation to be taught because yours is the only true religion?

Somebody somewhere will be slighted no matter which flavor is taught. And then the whining will begin again in earnest.

Public schools are not seminaries and should not be devolved into them. Public schools must be secular and neutral when it comes to religion. Theocratic schools abound for the religiously inclined. Go there for religious indoctrination.

***

So you want have creationism taught, fine. Get me on board. Convince me that the Biblical creation story is valid. Answer me this: Cain bashed his brother Abel's head in and fled to the Land of Nod where he met his wife. Where did Cain's wife come from?

It is like gravity, a theory

#30 | Posted by moneywar

So is gravity.

#32 | Posted by Zatoichi

Gravity is not a theory. Gravity exists. Proof of its existence is everywhere and anywhere, even if we don't fully understand the whys and hows of gravity. Gravity is measurable. Gravity is very useful. Gravity can also be quite dangerous. We could not exist in our current form without gravity. We know that the more dense an object, the higher its gravity.

Try another comparison.

"So you want have creationism taught, fine. Get me on board. Convince me that the Biblical creation story is valid. Answer me this: Cain bashed his brother Abel's head in and fled to the Land of Nod where he met his wife. Where did Cain's wife come from?"

It doesn't speak too well of "God" to have "created" such a dismal start to the human race does it?

Zot is severely stupid.
Classical theory of gravity:

F=Gm1m2/r^2

Group theory is a branch of mathematics that is done, finished, a closed case.
Still a theory.

#41 | Posted by Mista Kurtz

Dismal and most perplexing.

Zot is severely stupid.
Classical theory of gravity:

F=Gm1m2/r^2

#42 | Posted by Zatoich

Gee thank Zat you piece of Shit. Hope your New Year fucks in deeply in the ass you fucking dirt bag.

New Hampshire House Bill 1148 would "require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

It's telling that instead of using science to force their views, they have to debase the science to bring it down to their level.

Not sure how compatible this sort of dishonesty is with the very beliefs they're trying oh so hard to force.

All of this is a laughable joke and a prime example of why our country is so quickly circling the drain.

Try another comparison.

While I'm not a fan of the comparison, it's not because I think it's invalid.

BTW, you could replace "gravity" in that little shpeal of yours with "evolution" and it would be just as true.

It's just that one is obvious and the other one isn't.

Uranium protons can be proven. DNA being genetic information vessels can be proven. Evolution can not. There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution but scientists preach it as fact and then obviously want to defend it by trying to equate it to actual facts. It's laughable and anyone with a 7th grade education should be able to see through this nonesense.

Only if that 7th grade education is from a school enforcing these kinds of "standards".

Sorry Lisa, but what you say is just plain ignorant.

What interests me though is why you seem to trust physicists when it comes to analyzing protons from uranium or biologists when it comes to DNA as genetic material.

But not biologists when it comes to evolution, even though I'm guessing you probably have the same amount of knowledge on all three topics.

Is it because the other two don't conflict with your personal beliefs?

But rational humans can rise above it. I know that's too much to ask here, but I still like to point it out now and then.

Rational humans have tried so many times the graph has to be on a log10 scale.

But yet we're still met by things like "uuhhhhhh...duh......it's only a theory!".

Sorry, people have limits as to how long they can remain rational or polite.

"New Hampshire House Bill 1148 would "require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism.""

Wow. This is CRAZY. So you have to teach evolution as a theory (which of course is how it is taught), but in the process you have to teach all the various thinkers political and ideological viewpoints and their stance on atheism? WTF?! That's insane. That's an entire course right there. I'm very glad I don't teach science in NH. (Well, I don't teach science at all. Maybe I'm just glad I don't teach in NH.)

"Sorry, people have limits as to how long they can remain rational or polite."

I would understand that in the same argument with the same people. But Lisa expressed an opinion (silly though I may find it) and got called all kinds of horrible things right away. (And the first attacker made it very personal. But then he is an asshole in general.) Seemed a bit much, though I understand your frustration with those on her side of the argument.

New Hampshire should change the state motto to "Live Stupid and Die."

"I would understand that in the same argument with the same people. But Lisa expressed an opinion (silly though I may find it) and got called all kinds of horrible things right away."

That's because she's been offering her religious based idiocy here since long before you joined.

.

This one's easy. The theory of evolution should be taught to every student, in required science courses.

Creation should only be taught as an elective, in mythology classes. Or better yet, perhaps public resources shouldn't be spent on creation at all. Leave creation to Sunday school.

55--Whatever, I've made my point. You are free to disagree. I don't know why anyone has to be a dick to someone else, but she's a big girl; she can defend herself.

56--It's fine in mythology or religion, right alongside other such concepts. I loved comparative religions in college, and I'm going to teach some scriptures in a world lit class (serves as a core English course, not an elective as such) next semester (Koran, Bible, Torah, Bhagavid-gita...).

56--It's fine in mythology or religion, right alongside other such concepts. I loved comparative religions in college, and I'm going to teach some scriptures in a world lit class (serves as a core English course, not an elective as such) next semester (Koran, Bible, Torah, Bhagavid-gita...).

There would be zero problems if this were what everyone was doing (in fact I bought a bible with a Barnes and Noble gift card I got for Christmas because I've never actually read it from cover to cover).

But as this article so disturbingly points out, this is the furthest thing from what's happening.

are thought to have developed and diversified

So, you concede that there is no proof. Only an idea, a thought. Hope. A wish.

And then you claim that this is not faith based?

How cute you are!

#15 | Posted by vernon

poor verm, there is an infinitely larger amount of information proving evolution that there is proving there is a christian God. There's as much information proving the egyptian/mayan/navajo/ gods are as real as Jeebus' daddy as there is of him.

But it is better to remain terrified of the dark and the nasty guy upstairs than stick your head out from under your sheets and realize he ain't there. It is so much easier to spout fantasies as truths than to actually think. Verm has proven that time and time again.

And Lisa-which creationism should be taught? christian? Buddhist? native American? Mayan? Or is only one creation true, even if unprovable?

Can any of you Christians out there post one piece of evidence proving there is a God? Any God? Until you can, stfu about science that scares you.

Scripture is full of literary devices, including metaphors, analogies, similies, etc.

It is not a science book, any more than it is a cookbook. It is a book about two men, and about how they lead to a specific point.

And it uses every literary device that exists.

#20 | Posted by vernon at 2012-01-02 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:Admits the Bible has no merit as a source of proof of anything. Might as well be a Harry Potter acolyte.

But rational humans can rise above it.

prag-being religious and being rational are mutually exclusive.

61--Who the fuck are you, Bill Maher? I know lots of religious people who are perfectly rational. While I don't share their faith, I don't assume they're irrational or stupid. Faith is not a mental disorder or a sign of irrationalism. You oughtta go back in time and tell Aquinas that he's irrational.

I know lots of religious people who are perfectly rational.
#62 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST A

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? What about religion is rational?

While I don't share their faith, I don't assume they're irrational or stupid. Faith is not a mental disorder or a sign of irrationalism. You oughtta go back in time and tell Aquinas that he's irrational.

I gotta disagree with you on one this, prag.

And I do so because of one issue I have with those of "faith". It's not faith to them anymore. The sorts of people who write this sort of shit legislation and want Creationism taught along side actual tested, thoroughly researched biology believe they know it's true.

Once you start knowing God exists and that the Bible is true, you stop acting on faith IMO. You start acting on something without proof that will never be proven to a level that demands proof. And that to me is irrational.

And I do so because of one issue I have with those of "faith". It's not faith to them anymore.

That's broader than it should have been but I hope the rest explains it well enough.

"seeking to require teachers to teach the theory more as philosophy than science"

so the the science as a philosophy and the philosophy as a science?

while i understand not wanting to teach it as fact, it is the best guess based on evidence.

whether they teach the theory or not, they should teach the facts that we know, regardless of how they impact other beliefs.
facts do not go away and disappear just because you pray for them to.

"It is not a science book"

No shit?

Here's a clue idiot, it's a fucking forgery.

keep 'em dumb shep, keep 'em dumb...it serves our purpose.

How many times has the Big bang accrued. Once, twice, a thousand times.

How many times has all of our history and everything we will ever be been reduced to the finite point of matter where A or the Big bang happens.

What or who have we been before, if anything ?

We measure time against the rotation of our infinitesimal planet and sun.

We talk about string theory's, the arrow of time, event horizons of a black hole,the speed of light, things faster that the speed of light, we make particles in accelerators that live for a millionth of a second, we can look back in time with our space telescopes a billion years or more, in the life time of people alive today there is a reasonable chance that some humans will leave earth for ever never to return to move to Mars and further.

When do we become God, are all of us together God.
When is intelligent design our design.
When will we move from a creation to the creator.

Evolution or Creation, its to early for us to tell and we can do nothing about either.

I guess when we know for sure it won't matter, as by then we will be products of both.

Darwinists are as intolerant of alternate theories as the Creationists at the Scopes monkey trial.

Evolution is reality. Death is the great equalizer and necessary for all real change.

Religion is a tool the ruling class uses to exploit the working class. If working stiffs don't believe it, order and will break down. This is unacceptable. The high priests of the anti-science Rethuglican Party must take control of education including privatizing it. Their motto: "Profit Trumps Truth".

"Teaching students that scientific explanations that are not controversial are controversial is mis-educating them,"

"what a scientific theory actually is"

Go back and read my post on Group Theory.
It's done, closed, over, finito and we still call it a theory.
The theory of quantum mechanics is far newer than evolution or climatology, yet it ultimately explains both.

Most folks I know don't care enough about religion to call themselves atheists.

I only come here to meet women.
Gal Tuesday rulz!

One cannot teach creationism in science class, for it is not science.
For all I know, the universe could have started this way, but it is simply not science. If parents and churches want to teach children that God created the universe, there is nothing stopping that.

#6 | Posted by pragmatist

can you "prove it false" ?

Gal Tuesday rulz!

Strewth!

Be Well.

"can you "prove it false" ?"

What a riot! Using that barometer, all hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

#76 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-02 10:03 PM

Vernon's god is eerily reminiscent of Dick Cheney.

64--I didn't say those proposing the legislation are rational. : )
+++++

"while i understand not wanting to teach it as fact, it is the best guess based on evidence."

And it is accepted science, so in a science class, it's what should be taught. I'm not sure why anyone finds this hard to understand.
+++++

75--You're being deliberately obtuse. If you don't know what science is, what theories are, you'd best go educate yourself by whatever means necessary. I don't need to prove anything. My comment stands. Ask a hundred randomly selected scientists whether creationism is science. I think you won't even be able to finish the question.
+++++

77--I know. Proof? You might be able to create a logical proof of the existence of God. But scientific proof?

"You might be able to create a logical proof of the existence of God."

You might be able to create a logical proof of the existence of Chthulu.

Idiots like you need to be culled before puberty.

Compared to pathetically stupid shit-brained jokes like Lisa you're actually cogent, in a kinda sorta way.

I hope you die slowly in a fire, imbecile.
And take ratshitforbrains with you.

What about religion is rational?

#63 | Posted by Ray

Yeah, I don't know which is worse, organized religion or that Ayn Rand alter that you worship at.

Viruses will evolve fast enough to snuff the 'tards while global temperatures will increase by more than 10C over the next two decades, snuffing the rest of the 'tards.

If we can just not set off all the nukes.
bon chance

#82 | Posted by Whatsleft

I went to see Tinker Taylor ... with my wife and her 90 YO dad last night. The old spook liked it.

Don't fuck with him, he still carries the .45 Colt he carried in combat and qualified with as Expert Marksman.
Clive taught high school Physics in Austin for decades.
Many are his students.

81: Well, fuck you, too.

Good night. And good luck.

I prefer the Mayan theory of creation found in the Popol-Vu. Much more exciting than that garden of Eden stuff. So long as they teach that I'm good with it Lisa.

Let's take god vs evolution out of elementary to middle schools. We should be more worried about reading, math, P.E., arts and music.

H.S. students are capable of having this discussion, in class, and will voice and form their own opinions. They should be given that chance.

God vs evolution be damned. I say Civics, Home Ec. and Shop.

C'mon, Religions of the world, show some courage. Take on your real enemy: Science per se, not just Evolution. Declare Science to be Evil. Declare that people must choose between Science and Technology, on the one hand, and Religion, on the other. Declare that you can't have both. Declare that if you choose Science over Religion, you're going to Hell. Declare that you must accept Religion only and reject anything based on Science, modern medicine, modern surgery, genetics, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, and the fossil record. Declare that people must simply pray to Odin, or Zeus, or Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or God in order to cure themselves of disease. Declare that Religion is the way in all things and that people must return to pre-Science and pre-Technology life styles in order to be "saved.". Declare that all people need is the Bible, or the Quran, or the Talmud-Torah, or the Ramayana-Bhagavad Gita. Declare that the correct creation story involves stacks of turtles, or an enormous elephant, or a raven, or a coyote, or a conversation in a garden between a woman and a snake. C'mon, Religions of the world, insist that people must now reject all things Science, period. . . . Please.

"We should be more worried about reading, math, P.E., arts and music."

Agreed. The issue I take with teaching "Creationist" theology is how wrong the bible is.

Is the earth flat?

Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, (Matthew 4:8 NAB)

Does the sun revolve around the earth?

You [God] fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved. (Psalm 104:5 NAB)

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? (Genesis 1:3-5)

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while.(Genesis 2:18-22)

Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the (false) Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat. (Genesis 3:17-18)

When Lamech was born, nine generations were alive at once. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech were all alive at the time of Lamech's birth. So, Adam lived to see his great-great-great-great-great-
great-grandson? (Genesis 5:25)

Did you know, there were giants in the earth in those days (Genesis 6:4)

Hard to believe some consider this stuff true and would slander the word science by attaching "creation" to it. These are old ideas and need to be deposited in the dustbin of human history. Not treated as "fact","truth" or even a "possibility". Because its not.

""Is the earth flat?""

I remembered the verse from the Book of Job. This one I found interesting.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they didn't have the concept of "sphere", then they thought the earth was flat and shaped like a pancake.

""After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while.(Genesis 2:18-22)""

Coincidentally, the children of Adam have indeed assigned names to all of the creatures of the world. Not quite so far fetched, if all God and Adam had to do was sit around naming the different creatures of the earth.

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

All the animals have not been named, since all the animals have yet to be discovered. Over 99% of all animals ever alive on this planet have become extinct, with most of the extinction occuring long before biblical times. That means that many species went extinct before they even had names. Does that seem well balanced to you? It seems we are the product of chaos if you look at all of history.

""Did you know, there were giants in the earth in those days (Genesis 6:4)""

There actually were. Paragraph two was pretty interesting.

en.wikipedia.org

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Listed in your article were several ancestors of man. How do you rationalise their existence? Example: Neanderthals were around for about 200,000 years before humanity. Why were they first? Why did they go extinct?

I cant speak for the genealogy of Adam, but the easiest determination is that there was a divine force behind creation.

Agreed---primitive people have had the same thought process for hundreds of thousands of years. Time to move on.

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Things are simply too well balanced and controlled to be a product of chaos.

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then you weren't paying attention in school. Our planet is the product of at least one supernova event. That's pretty chaotic. The entire solar system shows the effects of the chaos of the origins of the planets. Every surface that can be seen shows the scars of millions of impacts. The earth itself will one day be destroyed by the sun. Chaos ruled the past, and chaos rules the future. Chaos rules now, but you have to be paying attention.

Even if there were no conscious, living God, (which I do believe exists) there would be a God-like force, indiscriminate but at the same time absolute. What is the word God but a term to describe the ultimate authority?

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

What makes "ultimate authority"? If aliens came to earth and had the ability to destroy the planet, would they be Gods? If aliens created humans and had the ability to destroy humanity, would they be Gods?

What makes a god a God?

What makes a god a God?

Islamic God.

1. He/she has to be unique. There can be only one.

2. Never sleeps.

3. Never eats.

4. Never shits.

5. Was never born.

6. Will never die.

7. Can not be comprehended by the human mind.

8. Loves evolution.

Christian God

1. Homophobic old guy with beard.

2. Has bipolar disorder.

3. Tendency to "smite".

4. Hates evolution.

Internet god

1. Tosser.

"Things are simply too well balanced and controlled to be a product of chaos."

#91 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-03 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag: imbecile

"Internet god"

1. toaster.

#98 | Posted by toaster at 2012-01-03 04:59 AM | Reply | Flag: as long as the electricity is on in the worthless shithole of Karachi

"Internet god"

1. toaster.

You noticed that Fossil also acknowledged ME as a god!

I thought you were a "scientist".... you didn't believe in gods, you coffin-dodger?

as long as the electricity is on in the worthless shithole of Karachi

Power is on. Power has been on all along.

Will the power be on long enough for me to kick your ass?

You betcha! (trademark Palin)

That's gotta be the first time anyone voluntarily compared themselves to Sarah Palin.

Ick.

Evolution is an interesting subject. The most important aspect is not whether evolution happens, but rather HOW evolution happens.

1. Do species mutate so much as to become other species
2. Do species only vary within their own species
3. Is evolution a purely unguided and unintentional system

Surely things evolve in that they change (mutate, improve, and most times get worse) and adapt. So evolution in itself is not in question, just what kind of evolution is taking place.

I don't like the concept of "creationism" being taught in school (when the word creationism is referring to a specific religious concept of how things were created) but there is a big different between specific accounts of "creationism" and the concept of considering the current situation being the result of design. Design does not have to mean the current "intelligent design" movement and their thoughts, but just an honest, objective (as possible) look into design as being a mechanism.

Why is it important to look at evolution very carefully?

1. Darwin's own reservations
- "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
- "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
- "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - A letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881

"Power has been on all along."

More lies from the worthless goat fucker.

I don't like the concept of "creationism" being taught in school (when the word creationism is referring to a specific religious concept of how things were created) but there is a big different between specific accounts of "creationism" and the concept of considering the current situation being the result of design. Design does not have to mean the current "intelligent design" movement and their thoughts, but just an honest, objective (as possible) look into design as being a mechanism.

Sure. What would be the criteria for identifying such an entity? What if I told you we already found reasons for many complex phenomena?

Why is it important to look at evolution very carefully?

1. Darwin's own reservations
- "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

I wish religious people were this modest. Ol' Grandpa Vernoliar is the most religious man on the site and you would never ever hear him question his thoughts. Without any standards, how are you to achieve excellence? Without the experiments to prove his idea, Darwin was right to ask if it were true. Imagine a priest giving a sermon asking if the holy books were true...

- "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

This is no longer true. Studies have shown how single mutations, or two/three mutations can result in complex changes to a system. The eye fallacy has been addressed. Recently, a group showed how butterfly wing patterns are controlled by genes.

- "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - A letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881

The best argument against religion and creationism. Science is the only way. Anything else is faith and not science. It is possible to have faith in science.

#105 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-03 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - A letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881

"I do say sir, another monkey might."
~5 grade student

"I do say sir, another monkey might."
~5 grade student

#109 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2012-01-03 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, but that is the issue. We wouldn't take our understandings of the world from the output of the mind of a monkey other than "humans". If humans are the result of the same monkey minds we do not trust otherwise... there is no real grounds to trust the minds of humans.

Determinism is another reason why we may not be able to trust our own convictions.

The best argument against religion and creationism. Science is the only way. Anything else is faith and not science. It is possible to have faith in science.

#105 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-03 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

#108 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-01-03 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Alas, science cannot be the only way. Science is based on something called the philosophy of science. If science is the only access to truth, we can never access science.

Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow.
Happens every time I listen to my wife, has to be some truth in the bible.

Christian God

1. Homophobic old guy with beard.
That's correct, as we all know Islamic countries have no homosexers, Ahmadinnerjacket told us so.

Surely things evolve in that they change (mutate, improve, and most times get worse) and adapt.

I see someone's been reading that charlatan Michael Behe.

Please explain how exactly things "get worse".

Design does not have to mean the current "intelligent design" movement and their thoughts, but just an honest, objective (as possible) look into design as being a mechanism.

Care to explain how the design "hypothesis" (I'm loath to even call it that...) has predictive capacity?

Others have tried to do this and failed miserably (see irreducible complexity).

Why is it important to look at evolution very carefully?

Those quotes are irrelevant and it's telling that you have to dig so far to come with an "argument".

(Yes, I know I'm using a lot of quotes here but when dealing with children espousing childish, ignorant ideas with a straight face I'm forced to)

Yes, but that is the issue. We wouldn't take our understandings of the world from the output of the mind of a monkey other than "humans". If humans are the result of the same monkey minds we do not trust otherwise... there is no real grounds to trust the minds of humans.

LOL that's pretty stupid, even for you exps.

More lies from the worthless goat fucker.

Karachi suffers major power cut
news.bbc.co.uk

#107 | Posted by Zatoichi

More proof that Fossil has gone senile.

Bullshitting "scientist".... the date on THAT is 2009!

Some "scientist"... can't even look at the date when he is copy-pasting.... LOL

Isn't this doddering old fool becoming more and more bitter with life?

What happened Fossil? Viagra supply running low? LOL

If science is the only access to truth, we can never access science.

#111 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-03 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is stupid. You need to think before you write.

If I wanted to needle a lib I could say, "global warming is bullshit" or "Bush was smarter than John Kerry or Al Gore" but the best jibe would be to challenge their phoney religion of the "big bang" and evolution. They become enraged and it is funny to watch.

#120 | POSTED BY FWTHOM

What's sad is the fact that you laugh at such notions when they are the best explanations we have as to the origins of everything.

The alternative is draped in divinity, mystery, and superstition. You prefer the latter because of it's "just in case" qualities. That's sad.

There are 1,900 different religions in the U.S. alone. There's also two possibilities of truth: either only one of the 1,900 different religions is correct or none of the 1,900 different religions are correct. In this instance, I do prefer the latter.

The people arguing against evolution are the best evidence they have as they clearly do not evolve.

#114 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-03 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

So you are really trying to say that most mutations are not negative in regard to helping with survival?

Isn't it the claim of evolution that natural selection weeds out all the non-beneficial mutations that impede survival and keeps the beneficial mutations?

Isn't it the case that there are many more animals that die due to lack of beneficial mutation than those that survive with beneficial mutations?

________________________

#119 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-01-03 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do wonder how you ground your theory that science is the only avenue to truth, as you have no way to examine it to find it reliable as the only avenue to truth.

Science 23 December 2005:
Vol. 310 no. 5756 pp. 1878-1879

Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin's works put together. This year's volume might start with a proposed rearrangement of the microbes at the base of the tree of life and end with the discovery of 190-million-year-old dinosaur embryos.

Amid this outpouring of results, 2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds. Concrete genome data allowed researchers to start pinning down the molecular modifications that drive evolutionary change in organisms from viruses to primates. Painstaking field observations shed new light on how populations diverge to form new species -- the mystery of mysteries that baffled Darwin himself. Ironically, also this year some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution. With all this in mind, Science has decided to put Darwin in the spotlight by saluting several dramatic discoveries, each of which reveals the laws of evolution in action.

Too bad so many are so stupid.
The future will not be kind to idiots and their worthless superstitions.

I do prefer the latter.

#121 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unfortunately preference has little influence on what is true.

#124 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-03 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please give a justifiable grounding to science being the only avenue to truth without using science to do so.

Here is a scientific fact: Libs are so uptight that if you jabbed a needle in their ass it couldn't be pulled out with a tractor.

#126 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

You claim to know "the truth"? Please, enlighten us all to Exps' explanation for the origins of the universe.

And please spare the "because god said so" rhetoric. I know you can bullshit better than that - you have set the bar pretty high.

#128 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did I claim to know the truth? No.
I did state that more than a couple evolutionist and naturalists seem to ascribe to the view that true beliefs and understandings are not in view when it comes to evolution and survival.

#128 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

To claim that science is the only reliable avenue to truth, the only way we can know anything, is pretty foolish given the fact that science was a concept that resulted from philosophy, religious understandings of an intentioned and designed (thus predictable, understandable and discernible) existence.

If science is the only avenue to truth and knowledge... and we arrived at science through other avenues... science would not be reliable in and of itself.

#127 | POSTED BY FWTHOM

Which religion is the truth? To which faith do you adhere your claim to truth?

#128 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I encourage you not to be under the false impression that I have a problem with science. I do not have a problem with science, I have a problem with people who say that science (in terms of empirical tests in physical science) is the only avenue to truth and knowledge.

This is often times called "scientism".

science would not be reliable in and of itself.
#130 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

That is a straw man argument. Science was discovered much in the same way mathematics was discovered. This science is an ever closer approximation regarding the way the world really works through the protocol of experimental replication. It's only limitations are realized through the human factor.

I have a problem with people who say that science (in terms of empirical tests in physical science) is the only avenue to truth and knowledge.
This is often times called "scientism".
#132 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Science is the only avenue to verify truth and knowledge. Science isn't some magical book that tells us what is true and what is not. Science is a medium that organisms with consciousness are capable of bouncing ideas and theories off of in order to determine if the theories or ideas conform to the physical laws of nature. If science determines that a theory or idea does not conform to the physical laws of nature, then that a theory or idea must have significant limitations and is most assuredly a false notion comes.

#133 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is not a straw man argument to any effect. If one proposes that science is the only avenue to truth and knowledge, and science has a foundation other than science... it brings about the inability for science to be the only avenue to truth and knowledge.

Again, this is more about scientism than it is about a problem with science. I have no problem with science.

Science is a great tool for tell us what IS. It is not the best tool for telling us why that is, is. It is also not the best tool for telling us what the "is" that it tells us means. It is also not the best tool for telling us what should be in regard to rights, morals, etc.

If science determines that a theory or idea does not conform to the physical laws of nature, then that a theory or idea must have significant limitations and is most assuredly a false notion comes.

#134 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is all well and good. Science is pretty much inept when it comes to discussing human rights, morals, and the like.

Science is not the only avenue to truth and knowledge. It is a very good avenue to tell us what is the case. Outside that it has severe limitations.

"I have a problem"

#132 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

No shit.
The lobotomy failed.

First let me say that I am as "right wing" as anybody I know. I campaigned for AU H2O, voted for Nixon twice, Ford, Dole, both Bushes and McCain.

However, evolution is a basic principle of science and there is no doubt about it. When you try to give credit to this creationism BS you make yourself and by association the rest of us look like fools.

Give it up! There is a ton of evidence suporting evolution and exactly none suporting creationism or the even more inane idea, ID.

Give it up! There is a ton of evidence suporting evolution and exactly none suporting creationism or the even more inane idea, ID.

#138 | Posted by FreddyK at 2012-01-03 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Science is not the only avenue to truth and knowledge. It is a very good avenue to tell us what is the case. Outside that it has severe limitations.
#136 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

I believe we are closer in agreement then you might expect. I really thought the context of what we were talking about was strictly to that of the universe and natural laws. I agree with you that the "why" and meaning to the world and universe is strictly based on human interpretation, to which is significantly tied to philosophy and psychology. Philosophy does not have an ability to tell us what is, it only has the ability to tell us "why" through human interpretation, which is a significant limitation.

My question to you now is this: does science require morality? According to your logic, it would-in the sense that the discovery of science necessitated the development of philosophy. More to the point, would an immoral culture be unable to discover science? If you consider human sacrifice immoral, tribal cultures of ancient America give evidence contrary to this notion.

So you are really trying to say that most mutations are not negative in regard to helping with survival?

It depends on where the mutation occurs and what type it is.

Isn't it the claim of evolution that natural selection weeds out all the non-beneficial mutations that impede survival and keeps the beneficial mutations?

Natural selection selects the most fit individual, which is not an all or nothing thing. Evolution isn't represented by a black or white, yes or no sort of thing. It's more of a plane with peaks and valleys (I'm trying to find an example of it but I don't remember exactly what they're called).

Isn't it the case that there are many more animals that die due to lack of beneficial mutation than those that survive with beneficial mutations?

Depends on the conditions you're looking under.

Currently, the answer is no.

During a selection event, then yes.

#141 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-03 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

It appears then that you don't have as much problem with what I said as you might have first thought.

"Evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive."

#139 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Yes they are because evolution is caussed by "mistakes", some turn out to be beneficial and most not. Since 99.9% of all species that have evolved on earth are extinct, this is absolute proof against "Intelligent" Design. If you believe in god and that life on earth was "designed" than you must believe that this so called god is an idiot.

My question to you now is this: does science require morality? According to your logic, it would-in the sense that the discovery of science necessitated the development of philosophy. More to the point, would an immoral culture be unable to discover science? If you consider human sacrifice immoral, tribal cultures of ancient America give evidence contrary to this notion.

#140 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-03 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is the issue with this situation. There are two different statements that can be made:

1. Does science require morality? (your assertion)
2. Does science require objectively moral behavior?

I would say that science does require "morality" but does not require objectively moral behavior.

I would also clarify this comment you made: "the discovery of science necessitated the development of philosophy."

The construction of science (science was not some "thing" out there to be discovered) was necessitated by the development of philosophy. Philosophy is the foundation of science, not the other way around.

"More to the point, would an immoral culture be unable to discover science? If you consider human sacrifice immoral, tribal cultures of ancient America give evidence contrary to this notion."

Each culture has a concept of what is moral and immoral. To the tribal cultures of ancient America it was moral (to them) to sacrifice humans. They also believed in morality, often times they just had a much narrower distinction of who was a "human" or who they were to be moral towards. They did not act with objectively moral behavior (neither moral behavior in what we not consider moral) but they did have morality.

Also to note, they did not "discover science". Science is not some "thing" to be discovered.

Regardless, their perceived or actual immoral behavior does not detract that they had morality.

Even though this is not an issue, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you would think anyone would believe that just because a culture act immorally that they could not conduct action which we now loosely describe as "science".

Yes they are because evolution is caussed by "mistakes", some turn out to be beneficial and most not. Since 99.9% of all species that have evolved on earth are extinct, this is absolute proof against "Intelligent" Design. If you believe in god and that life on earth was "designed" than you must believe that this so called god is an idiot.

#143 | Posted by FreddyK at 2012-01-03 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution is the action of change within species (and proposed to be the action of change from one species to another.

Natural selection is proposed to be the blind, unintentional, manner in which "mistakes" fuel evolution.

1. Evolution is not the same thing as Natural Selection.
2. You are describing Naturalistic Evolution (see naturalism)
3. Evolution can potentially take place in a non naturalistic manner.
4. Extinction rates are not "absolute" proof against anything in and of themselves.

You seem to be confusing terms and ideas quite readily.

Of course if the "mistakes" are not mistakes and the process is not blind, unintentional, etc. evolution can still take place under a different driving mechanism.

#145 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-03 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag: bullshit

Lie some more idiot.
I'm laughing my ass off.

#146 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-03 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Glad your lobotomy took hold.

#144 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

I put the discovery of science in the same context as the discovery of mathematics. Mathematics was not entirely invented by humans, it was mostly discovered. I have to agree with Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek:

'[M]athematics is both invented and discovered,' but he thinks 'it's mostly discovered.' Mathematics, he says, 'is the process of taking axioms, definite sets of assumptions, and drawing out the consequences. So, devising axioms is invention, and drawing out the consequences is discovery.'
He explains that, 'Occasionally, you have to introduce new sets of axioms like the passage from Euclidean geometry to non-Euclidean geometry. These are epical events in mathematics, which, in a sense, are inventions.'
But isn't the world constructed with non-Euclidean geometry, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, so that it was somehow always there?
'Inventions have to come from somewhere,' Wilczek responds. 'So they could be inspired by natural phenomena. You can invent [all kinds of] axioms, but most of them won't be interesting. And the ones that are interesting are discoveries, so even the inventions have some element of discovery. So as I said, mathematics is more discovered than invented, and this only makes it more so.'

There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution but scientists preach it as fact and then obviously want to defend it by trying to equate it to actual facts. It's laughable and anyone with a 7th grade education should be able to see through this nonesense.

Care to elaborate on any one of these "many flaws"?

I would think that most 7th graders, if allowed to speak freely, would tell you that it is the Bible that is mostly nonsense. Talking snakes and Zombie Jesus anyone? Evolution actually is the theory that makes sense even to 7th graders. Not Genesis.

And the older and wiser you get the more the Bible begins to look like a child's fairy tale.

And the older and wiser you get the more the Bible begins to look like a child's fairy tale.
#149 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Einstein agrees:

" he's a man "hrough the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking..." (1912)

And the older and wiser you get the more the Bible begins to look like a child's fairy tale.
#149 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Einstein agrees:

"Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking..." (1912)

Give it up! There is a ton of evidence suporting evolution and exactly none suporting creationism or the even more inane idea, ID.

#138 | Posted by FreddyK

Isn't DNA a form of intelligent design? The entire blueprint for the design of the organism is right there; I'd say that's pretty intelligent.

Religion is primarily defined as a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power like a god or gods.

Evolution is primarily defined as a process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Evolution is not a religion.

#10 | Posted by Bellatrix

Sort of.

Religion describes a theory of Creator.

Evolution describes a theory of creation.

Both theories describe creating life from non-life. One theory requiring a Creator, the other only Probabilities.

Libs love to crow about science but are strangely silent when confronted with evidence of scientific fraud like in Climategate one and two. Government grants only guarantee that the so-called scientists will get the resukts they are being paid to get. Libs have destroyed all credibility of the soft sciences and are now set to destroy the hard sciences to further their agenda and to cover their tracks they set up the falsew dichotomy of evolution vs. religion.

" they set up the falsew dichotomy of evolution vs. religion"

Actually, FWT, a whole lot of libs here have said that the two need not be mutually exclusive.

And of course, the rest of your post is the usual bunk/trolling.

And Blood, neither creationism nor religion is a theory; one is a belief, the other a belief system.

You seem to be confusing terms and ideas quite readily.

Of course if the "mistakes" are not mistakes and the process is not blind, unintentional, etc. evolution can still take place under a different driving mechanism.

#145 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-03 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

How could you post this when you haven't even looked up the basis for evolution? It's pretty shady.

Yes they are because evolution is caussed by "mistakes", ...

LOL...mistakes...Really, just really!!!

And whom is the individual that says it is a mistake?

I know that big honking snozz of your was a mistake but clearly your ancestors needed the honker for some reason.

Five Questions never answered!

How did the first life form

1. Capable of reproduction?
2. Consume food or energy?
3. Reproduce?
4. Expel waste?
5. Use carbon dioxide or oxygen?

Please use actual science facts when explaining these things to us poor little creationist.

Isn't DNA a form of intelligent design? The entire blueprint for the design of the organism is right there; I'd say that's pretty intelligent.

#152 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

No evidence of a God in there....

Given several billion years of random selection evolution begins to look pretty intelligent. The reason being it is mutating toward one solution, one goal. The perpetuation of the species. By using randomness as a function you achieve something that appears to be a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. But, there are some things within that randomness that are clearly not intelligently designed at all and look more like the results of a cosmic prankster.

But, do keep looking! Maybe if you expand Pi out to 10 trillion places you will find a secret Piem from Him.

How did the first life form?

We don't know...yet. Being as how that was over 3.5 billion years ago the evidence has long since been destroyed by eons of heat, pressure and deformation.

BTW-The Evolution of Life and The Origins of Life are two different studies.

Answering the question of how life began with the answer "God did it" just because you don't know the why or how yet is just plain lazy.

Right now there are about 7 different theories as to how Life began.

"How did the first life form?"

Organic molecules occur naturally.
Next stupid question.

But, here is your first clue...the answer you seek is not in the Bible.

#163 | Posted by donnerboy

Another shameless comparison of God to religion. And that continues to be your logical fallacy.

The possibility for the existence of God falls within the standard distribution for what is possible. Same with Spontaneous life.

If you were a real scientist or even thought honestly, you would admit that.

And of course, the rest of your post is the usual bunk/trolling.

You're too kind.

I would just call it unmitigated shit and not even feign politeness.

Isn't DNA a form of intelligent design? The entire blueprint for the design of the organism is right there; I'd say that's pretty intelligent.

So we can just look at any complex yet elegant phenomena in nature and simply say "poof, it must be designed!"?

No offense but that's only one step below "God did it" in the intellectually lazy category.

Evolution describes a theory of creation.

It does nothing of the sort.

The possibility for the existence of God falls within the standard distribution for what is possible.

Oh? I wouldn't agree with that but that's OK.

The only thing God really has going is that you can't prove a negative.

Same with Spontaneous life.

Indeed. Our existence can be considered proof of that occuring.

If you were a real scientist or even thought honestly, you would admit that.

The two aren't even comparable, sorry.

So this snoody statement is rather unsupported.

"I'd say that's pretty intelligent."

I hate to break this to you, shit-for-brains, 98% of DNA is junk.

Five Questions never answered!

How did the first life form

1. Capable of reproduction?
2. Consume food or energy?
3. Reproduce?
4. Expel waste?
5. Use carbon dioxide or oxygen?

Please use actual science facts when explaining these things to us poor little creationist.

Awwwww how cute. Somone's church group obviously played a movie!

I hate to break this to you, shit-for-brains, 98% of DNA is junk.

You may want to be correct before being an ass.

I hate to break this to you, shit-for-brains, 98% of DNA is junk.

#169 | Posted by Zatoichi

And 99.999% of DNA isn't understood completely. Do you have a point, or are you just pasting other peoples' ideas here again?

The possibility for the existence of God falls within the standard distribution for what is possible.

Oh? I wouldn't agree with that but that's OK.

#168 | Posted by jpw

It really doesn't matter how you feel about it. The statement is a fact. God either exists, or he doesn't.

They call that a probability. And unless you know, either one could be possible.

Like I said, it requires intellectual honesty to understand.

Evolution describes a theory of creation.

It does nothing of the sort.

#168 | Posted by jpw

It does.

Evolution holds that horses evolved from earlier and earlier species, over time. Horses have been created they way they are today through evolutionary selection.

DNA is the blueprint for individual instantiations of evolutionary creation.

Evolution describes a theory of creation.

It does nothing of the sort.

#168 | Posted by jpw

Just knows he's supposed to disagree or something here. Another brand-centered mindset, gets mindraped by me.

And just whose/what religion's flavor of creation should be taught?

From which branch of Christianity?

Or perhaps the The Mormon version?

How about the Hindu version?

The Muslim version?

The Shinto version?

How about the Hopi version?

#39 | Posted by ZOT

No religion at all.

God and religion are wholly separate things.

A force of nature called God, could have no use of human belief systems.

Scientists have never witnessed anything evolving only adapting. Come and look at the bottom of my feet when I stop wearing shoes and I will show you adaptation while I kick the nearest lib in the balls and yoiu MFers can inspect his nuts for evolution.

HaHaHaHaHa!!!

It really doesn't matter how you feel about it. The statement is a fact. God either exists, or he doesn't.

They call that a probability. And unless you know, either one could be possible.

I don't think probability is the right word there, but OK again.

And unless I've missed something, even God himself/herself has stated that his/her existence is no provable (hence why people have faith).

Considering you can't prove he/she doesn't exist, this is all a moot point as far as science goes anyway.

Like I said, it requires intellectual honesty to understand.

Not exactly.

It does take a pompous, overly-inflated self-worth though to behave as you are.

It does.

Evolution holds that horses evolved from earlier and earlier species, over time. Horses have been created they way they are today through evolutionary selection.

DNA is the blueprint for individual instantiations of evolutionary creation.

Trying to disguise that your talking out your ass with big words doesn't change the fact that your breath still smells like shit.

Evolution only modifies that which already exists. It doesn't have the capacity to create.

I think you'd have trouble finding a scientist who would use creation in the context you are right now.

Just knows he's supposed to disagree or something here. Another brand-centered mindset, gets mindraped by me.

Just another pseudo-intellectual tool who, surprise surprise, declares a self-victory.

is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

Damn, the comments after the story are pretty hilarious.

I love the guy claiming he's a chemist familiar with the scientific method showing he's clearly not familiar with the scientific method.

Scientists have never witnessed anything evolving only adapting.
#177 | POSTED BY FWTHOM

Wrong:

Similar darkness-adaptive traits can be seen in other fish families, in separate isolated environments, around the world. This is a manifestation of the phenomenon known as convergent evolution, and has been observed in Characidae, Cyprinidae, Gobiidae, Ostariophysi, Poeciliidae, Synbranchidae and to the freshwater and marine fish group Bythitidae.[1]

So some libs get together and say adaptation is actually evolution. We can never be satisfied with just destroying liberalism.

Fuckwadthom. You are not a conservative.

You are a dumbshit

So some libs get together and say adaptation is actually evolution.

So all scientists are liberals?

We can never be satisfied with just destroying liberalism.

First of all, who's we?

Second, it can't include you because I'm sure you create a liberal with every post out of a desire to avoid guilt by association.

So some libs get together and say adaptation is actually evolution.
#184 | POSTED BY FWTHOM

So you say scientists have never seen evidence of evolution. Who the fuck are you to say anything on the matter as if it were fact?

Yes....we will believe you over established understandings in academia.
*sarcasm buttom ... push

So what would the "faithful" teach?

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

"six hundredth year of Noah's life" OK!!!!!!
All of the animals boarded the ark "in the selfsame day."
Since there were a million species or so at the time, the animals must have boarded at a rate of at least 20 animals/second.

How can any of this make sense to anybody?

Besides...

The story of Noah's Ark in Genesis is considered by modern scholars to be directly dependent upon the Babylonian version. It is a composite text, with some parts belonging to the Jahwist source and some to the Priestly source. The Jahwist version has modified the Babylonian text to make it conform to a monotheistic theology.

Scientists have never witnessed anything evolving only adapting. Come and look at the bottom of my feet when I stop wearing shoes and I will show you adaptation while I kick the nearest lib in the balls and yoiu MFers can inspect his nuts for evolution.

HaHaHaHaHa!!!

#177 | Posted by fwthom at 2012-01-03 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not true. With DNA sequencing we can observe changes over longer periods of time. There are numerous cases of evolution shown this way. Now we can also see evolutionary conservation along vast time periods and across diverse species in other phenomena such as protein complexes. Some scientists are finding genes associated with seemingly unrelated functions being mechanistically identical in function.

FWThom is trolling in a weak weak way.

"established understanding in acedemia" = liberal agenda = man made global warming cannot be challenged = evolution cannot be challenged = the gay agenda cannot be challenged = affirmative action cannot be challenged = etc, etc, etc

No fuckwadthom. You need to present a challenge founded in science. In the case of global warming there have been many cogent challenges within science. I have not seen one for the fossil record within the scientific community

Present to me a single alternative scientific theory challenging the notion of evolution for the presence of all those bones

"established understanding in acedemia" = liberal agenda = man made global warming cannot be challenged = evolution cannot be challenged = the gay agenda cannot be challenged = affirmative action cannot be challenged = etc, etc, etc

Any more completely unlinked shit you'd like to throw in there?

BOOJIBOY: Present to me a single alternative scientific theory challenging the notion of evolution for the presence of all those bones

"established understanding in acedemia" = liberal agenda

Um, yeah no.

Your illiteracy and obvious fear of education aside for a second the truth does not have a political bias.

"established understanding in acedemia" = Broad scientific consensus

Broad scientific consensus = reality based community.

Reality doesn't play politics.

Either does science.

= man made global warming cannot be challenged

97% of the planets scientists in the field agree that AGW is going on.

There exists several competing theories in terms of understanding aspects of the phenomenon as there should be but to even suggest that this global scientific consensus is in any way a scam or not real just shows how thinly connected to reality you are.

= evolution cannot be challenged

Not entirely sure you know how science works but to dumb it down for you out of all the things humanity knows for sure collectively at this point in our history evolution as a basis of all modern biology is the most researched, most documented, most backed by facts single theory that exists. To try and discount or discredit it by this point is like trying to convince people the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth. Basically, if you discount evolution you are a crackpot.

= the gay agenda cannot be challenged

Equal rights under the law is a Constitutional thing.

If you don't believe in equal rights for gays to get married then you fail as a human being and as an American.

= affirmative action cannot be challenged

And you wonder why people suspect Republicans of deeply entrenched racism.

Again that's an equality under the law thing and was put in place for some very good reasons historically.

And it's "academia", btw.

Be Well.

Not entirely sure you know how science works but to dumb it down for you out of all the things humanity knows for sure collectively at this point in our history evolution as a basis of all modern biology is the most researched, most documented, most backed by facts single theory that exists. To try and discount or discredit it by this point is like trying to convince people the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth. Basically, if you discount evolution you are a crackpot.

#196 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-04 03:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Of course the mechanism by which evolution takes place is still quite up for debate.

Democrats waste more of the people's money than Republicans.
Republicans waste more of the people's money than Democrats.

Both parties think their theory is correct.

The truth is - one theory has been proven true.

The waste evolves.

Do you believe something came from nothing?

Again, R's and D's are living proof.

"Evolution is a theory and a religion so to speak, in and of itself."

On the one hand, I don't believe that we know much about how evolution works, I personally think that it doesn't work purely randomly (I'm an atheist so save it, retards, I'm not talking about ID) and that the politicization of evolutionary theory will stop us from reaching a better understanding of it. So in some ways I agree that some people ignorantly cling to a our very incomplete understanding of evolution like a religion and they react as if their religion is attacked if you ask any questions at all. They don't want to understand what is really going on any more than a creationist does.

On the other hand, its pretty indisputable that life evolves over time. The only reason the basic "theory" hasn't been proven is that we don't have a spare Earth and billion years or so to spend testing it.

200th comment MOTHER FLOWER!

Of course the mechanism by which evolution takes place is still quite up for debate.

#197 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-04 06:51 AM | Reply | Flag: ignorance is not a problem with this one.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. There are basic basic premises that we can build on. I won't quote, but just say it in my own words:

The basis for evolution are heritable changes. The heritable material is the genetic material passed on to the progeny. Beneficial changes will confer a competitive advantage to the next generation and non-beneficial changes will give a disadvantage.

Now, how changes occur is another story. One idea is that the changes are completely random, and this is a simplistic view. The body has systems set up to balance genome instability with stability to allow changes to the genome in a semi-controlled fashion which is not entirely lethal, but comes at a price to us. We get old, get cancer, other diseases etc...

I won't go on here.

I personally think that it doesn't work purely randomly ....and that the politicization of evolutionary theory will stop us from reaching a better understanding of it. So in some ways I agree that some people ignorantly cling to a our very incomplete understanding of evolution like a religion and they react as if their religion is attacked if you ask any questions at all. They don't want to understand what is really going on any more than a creationist does......

#199 | Posted by Sully at 2012-01-04 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is not true. We're pursuing this at an incredible pace. Just a few days ago a group (I think an American group)published a paper showing how the entire genome is rearranged in some cells. I am meaning to read it, but I understand it's a DNA-repair-based mechanism which allows the chromosomes to completely break-up and reform in a new pattern.

Scientists aren't waiting for anyone. They're interested and are developing/using new tools to look into this every second of every day. There is no post from a religious nut which will cause a scientist on this board to quit their job. They're missing a basic understanding of what science is. That's why these laws are dangerous: people don't understand the difference between science and religion.

All I can guarantee is that science and humanity will proceed without anyone interfering. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. It's a natural progression. What I don't understand, is why the religious nuts can't see that as a God-given ability of Human kind to understand the world.

I personally think that it doesn't work purely randomly

Hey if you've got evidence for this throw your hat in the ring, good evidence is always welcome.

and that the politicization of evolutionary theory will stop us from reaching a better understanding of it.

Wrong. Evolutionary biology continues to chug along despite these morons trying to insert their personal beliefs where it doesn't belong.

BTW you'd do well to consider what side is the actual antagonist here.

So in some ways I agree that some people ignorantly cling to a our very incomplete understanding of evolution like a religion and they react as if their religion is attacked if you ask any questions at all.

Ummmmmm no. Go to a scientific conference some time and you'll see that scientists very openly admit to our lack of knowledge and don't act as if their "religion" (what a crock) is attacked by any question. The whole f'in conference is about questions.

It's just nice when the questions are educated questions and not just any ol' shit question some kook thinks up and demands answers to. Especially when the question shows a glaring lack of knowledge about evolution and/or science in general.

They don't want to understand what is really going on any more than a creationist does.

This is just crap. Pure, unmitigated crap.

FWTHON aka FuckWittThom, jacks off while viewing a picture of Ann Coulter, his bathroom walls are covered with white stuff (ejaculation)

"I personally think that it doesn't work purely randomly

Hey if you've got evidence for this throw your hat in the ring, good evidence is always welcome."

There have been papers published on this already. There is no evidence that evolution works randomly, BTW.

"They don't want to understand what is really going on any more than a creationist does.

This is just crap. Pure, unmitigated crap."

I've been attacked on this site by such people. Don't tell me they don't exist. There are many people who react just as badly as creationists do if you challenge their 3rd grade science class understanding of evolution. They don't want to know anything.

"This is not true. We're pursuing this at an incredible pace."

I was referring to lay people who freak out if you suggest we don't understand evolution.

As evolution becomes more politicized, it will harm our progress. And there are ignorant fuckers on both sides of the debate who look to politicize it.

"There have been papers published on this"

[citation needed]

LOL!

#201 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-01-04 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

umm... you star your post with "NO NO NO NO NO" and then go on to agree with me.

Are you dumb?

The current mechanism by which evolutionists say that evolution takes place is random, natural selection.

However, that mechanism is not held by all individuals. The mechanism is in debate.

Think punctuated equilibrium.

Think punctuated equilibrium.

#209 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-04 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

As opposed to phyletic gradualism

#206 | Posted by sully at 2012-01-04 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Two men almost ostricized for looking at evolution differently than commonly held:

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge

Possibly now also Pierre Tremaux

ostricized = ostracized

I know I spelled it wrong, I just didn't fix it... mutation of language : evolution of language.

"There have been papers published on this"

[citation needed]

LOL!

#208 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-01-04 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:"

See. This is what I'm talking about. Zat could have spent two seconds on Google if he doubted what I said. Instead he reacted defensively because one of his beliefs were challenged. And he's allegedly a scientist.

You'll not get a link from me, Zat. Do your own research, "Professor".

"You'll not get a link from me, Zat. "

Because you don't have one, liar.

"Because you don't have one, liar."

Are you claiming to know of every scientific paper that has ever been published, you old blowhard? You're clearly the one being dishonest here by claiming to know something that you couldn't possibly know.

Instead of talking out your ass, how about you look it up yourself? You obviously haven't.

Instead of talking out your ass, how about you look it up yourself? You obviously haven't.

#215 | Posted by Sully at 2012-01-04 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Better yet Zat, why don't you try to comment with a cogent comment composed of your independent thoughts rather than repeating the words of someone else, posting random links, or releasing the verbalization of your current indigestion issues.

Sully,
My apologies. I thought you were referring to scientists not lay people.

My apologies. I thought you were referring to scientists not lay people.

#217 | Posted by jpw at 2012-01-04 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the case I mentioned in #21, it was pretty close to being the case with scientists as well.

In the case I mentioned in #21 = 211

OK, here's my 2c worth:

Point 1: There is no "scientific proof" of evolution. All the real evidence that supports the theory could also be used to support creation.

Point 2: Evolution was started as a philosophy couched in scientific terms. Darwin was not a scientist. He was a naturalist. Having went to divinity school and rejecting the idea of God, he set out on his own to look for alternative explanations and "theories" to the Bible.

Point 3: There is a multitude of scientific evidence that nature has an underlying order to it, which could not have arisen by pure chance.

Point 4: If it can be argued that God created the universe, it can also be argued that He would have done so in an ordered, intelligent fashion rather than by random chance.

Point 5: The very idea, as postulated by Lyle and Darwin, of evolution is the idea that it happened APART from intelligent design, or an intelligent designer (God), so the two very definitively are not compatible! It does an injustice to both ideas when people try to merge the two.

It does an injustice to both ideas when people try to merge the two.

#220 | Posted by iLike2argue at 2012-01-04 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sans Darwin and his reasons, evolution is a separate entity than "Darwinian Evolution".

Evolution can take place in a non Darwinian sense.

According to Stephen J Gould (when he was alive) it did:

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

Point 1: There is no "scientific proof" of evolution.

Exps -

So from what i gather in this thread, your only criticism of evolutionary theory is that the evolutionary mechanism has not been precisely identified. Thats part of the process in the science, a portion that has not been reached as of yet. Does that undermine the theory altogether? It shouldnt. Youre much more in line with the acceptance of evolutionary theory than not, correct?

#223 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no problem with the word and concept "evolution". I have a problem with the false concreting of how it takes placed.

We know things are changing, adapting, etc. We don't know exactly by what means they are doing that. Often times scientists will mention that there is "apparent design" but not actual design. That is kind of misplaced. That is a false concrete.

My issue is the false concretes within trying to understand the concept of evolution more fully.

the word and concept of evolution is not necessarily indicative of "Darwinian Evolution" or "Naturalistic Evolution" (similar but different concepts).

I would like there to be less false concreting taking place as we seek to understand the concept of evolution.

"Sully,
My apologies. I thought you were referring to scientists not lay people."

Yeah, I got that. No worries.

The way I worded my original post, it was confusing. It read as if nobody is still looking into how evolution works, which isn't true despite what certain know it alls seem to believe.

I really just meant that as the issue becomes politicized, it will be harder to get funding that doesn't support one extreme view or the other and it will be harder for researchers to be heard.

The religious right been put on notice...

Your invisible man has 10 minutes to show up...or its all bull shit..

come on,its time to growup and end the crap now!
..............................
...... OK times up...

#224 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Thanks for the clarification. For what it's worth, I agree with your opinion regarding any "concreteness" in science at all.

Considering the LHC at CERN is on the verge of blowing up Einsteins theory of special relativity (neutrinos have been recorded moving faster than the speed of light) effectively changing physics practically overnight, nothing should be so concrete in biology either.

Just wait - the missing link will be found on a meteorite that originated deep in space - Superman style. I know, far out there - but more interesting to me than the explanations provided in the Bible.

#226 | Posted by truthteller101

Is gravity invisible?

Truthteller is clowning a force of nature. Are you stupid?

I would like there to be less false concreting taking place as we seek to understand the concept of evolution.

#224 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-04 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't think like a scientist. ie. you don't think logically and can't' handle complex ideas.

Complex ideas are built upon many findings. A logically built thought will have many parts which form a larger idea. Without making the assumption that some things are true we can not move on.

If someone were to show that an assumption within a larger theory is not true, then we reasses the theory based on the new information.

Your proposition is to eliminate all complex thought. And by complex, I mean anything which requires more than one step.

...we should all just agree that Republicans
have never had the chance to evolve and be
done with the subject...

I think we can all agree on that...

p.s. ...and they can teach that in the homeschools
if they want to...

Your proposition is to eliminate all complex thought. And by complex, I mean anything which requires more than one step.

#230 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-01-04 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is incorrect. It is comical that you talk about "complex thought" in your post at the same time you are over simplifying the situation.

Nice one Bruce.

I don't like things like phyletic gradualism being presented as concrete verified fact when things like punctuated equilibrium are viable options.

Gould and Eldredge were almost shut out in the beginning due to their departure and differing from the pack. That is not scientific.

When assumptions have to be placed in to make things make sense... they should be held to very loosely with other options equally at hand.

"...we should all just agree that Republicans
have never had the chance to evolve and be
done with the subject...

I think we can all agree on that..."

#231 | Posted by earthmuse
I, like many republicans I know believe strongly in evolution and think creationism or ID have no place in schools.

So you are wrong painting with your broad brush and may want to consider all of the other things you are wrong about. Probably most.

So you are wrong painting with your broad brush and may want to consider all of the other things you are wrong about. Probably most.
#233 | POSTED BY FREDDYK

I believe that his post was referring to the notion that most support for ID or creationism comes from individuals who are of Republican political mindsets.

Creationism and ID is more associated with fundamental christianity, which is more associated with republican or conservative leanings politically. There are very, very few liberal democrats who are christian fundamentalists - even fewer who believe in ID or creationism.

Within that context, Earthmuse doesn't seem too far off base.

Within that context, Earthmuse doesn't seem too far off base.

#234 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually he is dead wrong. Every creature will have evolved in some way, it just may not be a beneficial way.

It is possible that the Republicans he talks about have evolved to a higher state than he is at and thus understand concepts clearer than he does(that is probably not the case but it could be and we don't really have a means to find that out).

Evolution does not necessitate positive progression. It can also be used to indicate negative change with brings about a worse condition than previously experienced.

Evolution has taken place regardless.

I don't like things like phyletic gradualism being presented as concrete verified fact when things like punctuated equilibrium are viable options.

Gould and Eldredge were almost shut out in the beginning due to their departure and differing from the pack. That is not scientific.

When assumptions have to be placed in to make things make sense... they should be held to very loosely with other options equally at hand.

#232 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-04 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is ALL GARBAGE. It's complete bullshitting.

Considering the LHC at CERN is on the verge of blowing up Einsteins theory of special relativity (neutrinos have been recorded moving faster than the speed of light) effectively changing physics practically overnight, nothing should be so concrete in biology either.

This clap-trap masquerading as intellectualism cannot go unaddressed.

Newton's Laws are wrong, in the cold light of Einstein.
We still teach Newton's Laws, even in college.
Can you comprehend why?
I am guessing... not.

We still teach Newton's Laws, even in college.
Can you comprehend why?
I am guessing... not.
#237 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Newton's laws act as the premise that Einstein built his reformulations off of. You must know the foundations of a building before you can renovate it.

Why do you think Einstein's theories took so long to become accepted in academia? A) The theories went against so much of Newtonian theory, they were ridiculed as pseudo-science; B) The technologies to prove the theories correct were not up to date as of yet. Both of these scenarios are taking place right now. String theory, Higgs Boson, and other ideas are being put to the test at CERN under the parameters set in place by both Einstein and Newton.

Einstein would have never claimed his theories were absolute (although the theory of special relativity might be the one he clung to most considering its most fundamental premise). BUT I must also contend that Einstein's thought process would have been profoundly altered if he had data sets in hand provided by technological innovations such that of the LHC. Just the same that Newton would most likely have considered alternatives to his explanations if he was previewed to technologies and data sets that Einstein had in 1905.

Newton's laws act as the premise that Einstein built his reformulations off of. You must know the foundations of a building before you can renovate it.

Well then surely you'll have no problem identifying those foundation in molecular biology (or elsewhere) which warrant a "reformulation" of evolution.

Barring that, you'll have no problem agreeing there is no basis for rejecting evolution.

Which is it going to be?

Einstein would have never claimed his theories were absolute

Maybe, maybe not. But...

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations â€" then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation â€" well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
â€"Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

you'll have no problem agreeing there is no basis for rejecting evolution.
#239 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I am all for the advancement of science, which would most definitely include biology and therefor evolution. I have never rejected the theory of evolution, only the notion that everything based in evolution shouldn't be continually scrutinized. I do refuse to acknowledge any explanation that involves a supreme or divine being. That enters the whole "what came first, the chicken or the egg" debate, which in my mind is pointless in terms of science.

If science is capable of producing verifiable evidence that their is an intelligent design, that would be equitable to claiming science has found evidence of a god. What that evidence entails could not be subjective - considering the current claims that there is evidence of an intelligent design is completely speculative. Absolute objective evidence for an intelligent design would be incredibly difficult to identify because you would have to define exactly what that would be.

For the sake of argument, how would you define evidence of intelligent design? If you did find evidence of an intelligent design, how would you know you actually have it? In order to verify such a conclusion, you would need a control sample to compare it to, which we don't currently have. Again, that's a huge and difficult step for science to make - which is why religious doctrine of faith is so effective in making it for us.

Thermodynamics applies to closed systems in equilibrium.
This isn't one.
In 1927 they didn't know about DNA or non-equilibrium systems.

#240 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Eddington has a valid point. There are some laws that are conceivably unbreakable, which is why they are used as ultimate tests against newly formulated theories. The most popular, yet unproven, theories in physics involve those that pass the tests of the most fundamental laws, but may challenge others. But the problem Eddington's quote suffers from is under the notion that "laws are meant to be broken."

Freedom and republicans ...two words that don't match...

Religious control freaks and republicans.... words that match!

For the sake of argument, how would you define evidence of intelligent design?

I can't begin to hypothesize what such evidence might be until you clarify what you mean by intelligent design.

While you're defining Intelligent Design, I have a question which might help me understand exactly what it is. Is the organism I created in biology lab an example of intelligent design? The one with the gene from the jellyfish inserted into the bacteria, so it glows under UV light.

That enters the whole "what came first, the chicken or the egg" debate, which in my mind is pointless in terms of science.

Pointless?
Eggs are common to all vertebra, chickens came much later.
Seems rather relevant to the central theme of this thread.

If science is capable of producing verifiable evidence that their is an intelligent design, that would be equitable to claiming science has found evidence of a god.

#241 | Posted by rstybeach11

What would evidence of God, look like?

God exists, or God does not exist. Unless you know, then you don't know.

Either possibility exists, populating the standard distribution for things that are possible.

I'm asking a higher question. What would evidence, for or against the existence of God, look like?

Unless you can answer that question first, you have no basis to conclude anything about God.

#248 - so you're saying there is no God?

No way, I'm saying the existence God is a scientific possibility.

To conclude He does not exist, out of religious ignorance, intolerance, or learned bias, is to ignore a fundamental principle of science.

The fact is, the existence of God is a possibility.

And religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion.

But how do you decide? You need evidence of course. So what would evidence of God, look like?

The Muslims say "There is no G-d, but G-d."

Maybe he's Muslim and just doesn't know it yet.

The fact is, we don't even know what to look for. So how can you conclude that God does not exists?

Disavow religion, fine. I do too. But you can't deny the possibility that God created this all.

The fact is, the existence of God is a possibility.

So what?

It's also possible there's a teapot in orbit around Pluto, but that's got nothing to do with whatever experiment is going on here on Earth.

Do you think G-d put the dinosaur bones there, just to test our faith? Or did the Devil do it, to try and trick us?

I see evidence of forethought in the wondrous expanse of space. You see a thought-not wondrous expanse of space.

Therein lies our problem. We can't even agree on the evidence.

"The fact is, the existence of God is a possibility."

So what?

#254 | Posted by snoofy

Ask Truthteller. He claims to know that God does not exist.

I'm just saying he is full of shit and can't know that. You disagree?

I've told him repeatedly his issue is with religion. But he doesn't hear so well.

#251 - Science tells us that it's statistically more favorable to believe in God.

He claims to know that God does not exist.

I'm just saying he is full of shit and can't know that. You disagree?

Your question doesn't make sense, because people can know things, and that's completely independent of whether or not those things exists.

For example, the money in my bank account. It comes in electronically, and goes out electronically, no paper money ever existed, yet my rent is paid.

who came first Man or God?
..............
if God came first who created God?

Science tells us that it's statistically more favorable to believe in God.
#258 | Posted by BruceBanner

Wait, science is telling us that or are you telling us that? I didn't know BruceBanner speaks for science.

#260 | Posted by VMA224

They will tell you that "god has always been".

The simplest reason is most likely the correct one. Did god make man or did man make god? Making man would be an incredibly intricate and (as the bible tells us) ironically prideful, if you were god, feat to accompish. Coming up with the idea that "something in the sky" is controlling everything here on earth is a very simple and archaic accomplishment. Most civilizations from empires down to small jungle tribes have developed some form of idea - and they did it at a time when the human brain was just coming into consciousness of itself.

So which is simpler? God accomplishing the masterpeace known as man-kind? Or man-kind developing god as an explanation for the unexplainable?

What would evidence, for or against the existence of God, look like?

Unless you can answer that question first, you have no basis to conclude anything about God.

Why are you harping on this? Do you have an actual point?

You can't disprove God and you can't prove God either.

As a non-testable hypothesis, God is outside of the realm of science as a possible explanation.

I see evidence of forethought in the wondrous expanse of space. You see a thought-not wondrous expanse of space.

Therein lies our problem. We can't even agree on the evidence.

The evidence is the same, it's the interpretation that varies.

One goes based only on the evidence, the other goes on the evidence plus personal biases and beliefs because the subject matter is amazing complex and in most cases elegant.

That still doesn't count as evidence for a design or designer.

I didn't know BruceBanner speaks for science.

#261 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

you don't know a lot of stuff

"What would evidence, for or against the existence of God, look like?"

Only God knows that. She's omniscient, remember?

For a God who could, according to the story, cause the BB by speaking space/time into existence, along with all the elements necessary to form matter spread out over most of the universe in fractions of a second.... creating man would be much easier.

Just sayin'.

Evolution is an interesting subject. The most important aspect is not whether evolution happens, but rather HOW evolution happens.

1. Do species mutate so much as to become other species
2. Do species only vary within their own species
3. Is evolution a purely unguided and unintentional system

Surely things evolve in that they change (mutate, improve, and most times get worse) and adapt. So evolution in itself is not in question, just what kind of evolution is taking place.

I don't like the concept of "creationism" being taught in school (when the word creationism is referring to a specific religious concept of how things were created) but there is a big different between specific accounts of "creationism" and the concept of considering the current situation being the result of design. Design does not have to mean the current "intelligent design" movement and their thoughts, but just an honest, objective (as possible) look into design as being a mechanism.

Why is it important to look at evolution very carefully?

1. Darwin's own reservations
- "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
- "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
- "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - A letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881

#105 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

This may help.....

So which is simpler? God accomplishing the masterpeace known as man-kind? Or man-kind developing god as an explanation for the unexplainable?

#262 | Posted by rstybeach11

It'd be simpler and easier for God, to simply poof! into existence, of course.

The route of evolution is far from simple, how many botched pre-humans must there have been?

It is you, that is simple.

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Since Darwin's time, this fear is more or less been demonstrated to be true.
Consider how unreliable yet how persuasive eyewitness testimony is.
Look at the plane crashes where pilots trusted their gut over their instruments.
etc. etc.

It'd be simpler and easier for God, to simply poof! into existence, of course.
#268 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

You fail because of your presumption that god is all powerful. You have no evidence such an assertion to be true beyond the bible. The possibility that there is a god is indeed present. The possibility that there is an all knowing, omnipotent, all powerful god is even less of a possibility. Your "poof" is not backed by anything but speculation. Nothing scientific about that.

If E ~= MC2, then our former convictions are no more.

Just sayin'.
#266 | POSTED BY CORKY

Again, your basing an argument off the assumption that everything in the bible were to be true. Why would you limit your perspective of reality to a 3,000 year old book?

Again, nothing scientific about that.

you don't know a lot of stuff
#264 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Oh yea? I know you enjoy comic books. Or you have some sort of sick perversion with large, green men.

The question was, would it be easier to create Man through God, or through Evolution.

I pick God.

He's God, dude.

He could do it in a snap! Evolution is fairly slow and painful; extremely complex in fact.

No... I was using the same assumptions in my argument as you used in yours.

That still doesn't count as evidence for a design or designer.
#263 | POSTED BY JPW

Elegantly stated and I agree.

That still doesn't count as evidence for a design or designer.

#263 | Posted by jpw

A design so complex we still can't write proper equations for it, but no designer?

You were born stupid.

#274 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Which god are you referring to? Yours? Or the thousands of others that one must consider in the context of "religion"?

Either way, its all speculative, which science diligently works to remove itself away from.

The Universe has no design? Really?

Just try to design one then.

#275 | POSTED BY CORKY

The term "god" is so incredibly vague. Which version of god are you referring to? Considering there are numerous gods within the context of religion, you must specify which one you are referring to. For just as there are gods who are all powerful, there are also gods who are not and would therefor be incapable of creating man-kind with little effort.

And so goes the fallacy in logic - if you have no parameter to base your assertion (i.e. evidence of god or his abilities) the argument that god's creation (man-kind) would most likely be easier than man's creation (god) is wrong.

A design so complex we still can't write proper equations for it, but no designer?

You were born stupid.

Answer this-is our data set complete?

I'll let you reconsider who's stupid.

I'm talking about a force of nature. Nothing more. I don't claim to understand it beyond that.

Most people call that force, God. I only do so because I believe the force to be the creative, life-planning force.

Sort of like DNA, but in a string-universe sort of way.

Your data set is far from complete, JPW.

The Universe has no design? Really?

Just try to design one then.

That's has gotta be the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

I'll bet you couldn't design a computer from scratch (without the benefit of a proper education) within your lifetime.

A person's inability to replicate our universe is by no means an indication that it's designed by some God-like figure, just as your inability to replicate complex feats of engineering on your own doesn't mean that those were designed by God.

(I know I know, you'll claim "but those were all intelligently designed" because you're intellectually vacuous enough to think that's a smart retort)

Your data set is far from complete, JPW.

Sort of makes "A design so complex we still can't write proper equations for it, but no designer?" pretty absurd then, doesn't it?

Which God do you think I mean when I quote the story of a God "speaking" reality into existence?

Justin Beiber?

Don't be silly. For God to be God, creating man, or the universe, would be no more difficult than man thinking up God.

If there's no design, what is taking so long for data set to be complete? Should've been finished years ago.

"Sort of like DNA"
98% junk

What a 'tard.

And many scientists, including atheistic ones, see much design inherent in the universe. They just assign a different source, such as "nature".

Don't be silly. For God to be God, creating man, or the universe, would be no more difficult than man thinking up God.

Of course, but only when you throw in all the fantastical, neato, unverifiable aces in the hole that you've attributed to your boy.

Unverifiable and untestable are the two major reasons why this argument is absurd. I freely admit religion has its uses and its place.

Science just isn't one of them.

"Sort of like DNA"
98% junk

What a 'tard.

That's not correct.

You really need to stop say it.

#279 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Another fallacy you suffer from is the notion that a human's ability would be anywhere near that of a "god" to which you make reference to.

Human's are completely incapable to the task you have laid out. A human with the god like powers you bestow upon your creator might be capable, but that has not shown to be scientifically possible. With the billions of years and the trillions of opportunities for life to coalesce and develop into a humanoid organism throughout the universe, why can't random chance be considered? The rare earth hypothesis has better promise of explaining the parameters of life giving planets, which also harbors trillions of opportunities for only a few realized outcomes of life baring planets. Such numbers are not conceivable in relative terms for the human mind. Which is why computers are necessary.

Now if you had asked a 5th generation, artificial intelligence-based, super computer to mathematically design a universe, I bet you it would be able to.

AND you wouldn't be able to label the man-made machine god - only god like.

We once believed E = MC2 to be complete data. The data set never gets completed, that's the rub.

We ain't smart enough, not by half.

#286 | POSTED BY CORKY

Why do you limit yourself to a single explanation of the universe to a 3,000 year old book? Don't you realize there are thousands of other religions that pose god or gods? Some of these gods are not attributed with the creation, though. So why don't you give any credence to those religions? You see, I am not the one who is bias here. I am taking the context of god to go beyond that of simply the judeo-christian one.

Another fallacy you suffer from is the notion that a human's ability would be anywhere near that of a "god" to which you make reference to.

#292 | Posted by rstybeach11

I've implied no such nonsense. Speak straight, write straighter.

you don't know a lot of stuff
#264 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Oh yea? I know you enjoy comic books. Or you have some sort of sick perversion with large, green men.

#273 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't let this descend into racism.

If there's no design, what is taking so long for data set to be complete? Should've been finished years ago.
#287 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Again, you make such large presumptions it's almost silly. How about a little humbleness...man-kind has gotten pretty damn far in just 100 years.

"Why hasn't man-kind figured out the answer to everything yet?" Be happy you know what you do because 500 years ago, you would be a member of a dooms-day cult.

Science defined - an ever closer approximation regarding the way the uni(multi)verse really works.

Why do you limit yourself to a single explanation of the universe to a 3,000 year old book? Don't you realize there are thousands of other religions that pose god or gods? Some of these gods are not attributed with the creation, though. So why don't you give any credence to those religions? You see, I am not the one who is bias here. I am taking the context of god to go beyond that of simply the judeo-christian one.

#294 | Posted by rstybeach11

Your entire concept of God, is religion itself.

You're inability to understand that point is most perplexing.

Get it through your head, like gravity and light, God is NOT a religion.

#290 | POSTED BY JPW

Again, for those who don't pay attention, I used the same general assumptions about a God that the other poster was using.

For the most part, I agree that the limited sophistication and relative youth of our science makes it of little use in describing the watchmaker, if there was one.

It doesn't prohibit us from admiring the work... or complete accident, which I personally think, and many astrophysicist odds makers often agree with me, are against.

Modify even one of thousands of physical variables, even a little, and we don't exist at all.

You're drunk. I'm out of here. My brilliance can't even sober you.

#289 | POSTED BY CORKY

My point exactly. If you claim "nature" is your definition of god, than you would be right considering everything in physics is natural (hence the term natural laws of physics).

But that is not the context you place things into. You place your definition of god in a context that involves super-natural explanations and events. There are no explanations for such scenarios within your context beyond "God did it."

For some people, that is not enough.

"How did the universe come about" Answering this question by simply stating "god did it, it was his intelligent design" forfeits the quest to know for sure what is going on. You want to claim that as a possible hypothesis like BruceBanner does? Fine, but don't expect anyone to drop the search for a more profound and non-supernatural explanation when you throw out your ID hypothesis.

There is no separation between man and god, man is god, god is man, god is the Universe, the Universe man.

We are nearly 14 billion years old, energy reformed over and over and over again until the energy became conscious, the same energy passing into and through us has been here from the birth and will be here until the death and rebirth.

Evolution is quantum mechanics on a macro scale.

If God is the Universe and the Universe is infinite, man is infinite and all permutations of energy are not only possible but inevitable.

You want to claim that as a possible hypothesis like BruceBanner does? Fine, but don't expect anyone to drop the search for a more profound and non-supernatural explanation when you throw out your ID hypothesis.

#301 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

who said what now?

did i say that? point me to where.

= You place your definition of god in a context that involves super-natural explanations and events.

As did you in your analogy. Or were you talking about Justin Beiber, as I suspected?

God is NOT a religion.
POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Your god may not be a religion. But so goes the ridiculousness of such a statement. Your definition of god is so vague and speculative, making the statement that "God designed the universe" is completely nonsensical.

Who is god? He's not a religion, so what is he? Corky says he's nature. Well if that's the case, then this is simply a scenario suffering from semantics. For you to say that you believe in "God" but not a religion completely absolves you from this conversation. For in the least, those speaking about ID from the context offered by the bible offers some sort of definition of who god is and what he's capable of. You provide no definition of god, therefor no ability to back an argument that he/she/it designed the universe.

BTW, I am not drunk. It's the middle of the week.

It doesn't prohibit us from admiring the work... or complete accident, which I personally think, and many astrophysicist odds makers often agree with me, are against.

It's fine with me if you "admire the work". Hell I do it all the time. It's why I chose my career.

You are, however, addicted to argument from authority.

Modify even one of thousands of physical variables, even a little, and we don't exist at all.

That is such an absurdly over drawn conclusion it's laughable.

First of all, you can't say anything about what, could or should happen because it didn't and it's pure speculation.

Second, the above statement requires the assumption that the universe was created for us to exist in our current form. Humans may very well exist in some alternate reality where the conditions are different, just not exactly as we are.

Modify even one of thousands of physical variables, even a little, and we don't exist at all.

That we exist does not negate the premise, it instead validates it. There are billions of places life does not exist. That consciousness exists to ask about what it sees around it is an inevitable occurrence of probability. That the mind of such a probability can not fathom the results of billions of years is a limit to that current consciousness. It says nothing about what has happened.

The invention of an anthropomorphic Creator is a function of the limit to comprehend - or a device to help reconcile the cognitive dissonance of an uncomfortable truth.

I like this quote:
"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." - Joseph Campbell

did i say that? point me to where.
#303 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Sorry, I meant BloodSacrafice.

My mistake.

You're drunk. I'm out of here. My brilliance can't even sober you.

Going to wow your circle of sycophants with your "brilliance"?

As did you in your analogy.
#304 | POSTED BY CORKY

Which is why I don't put my support in the same boat as supernatural explanations. ID involves supernatural explanations. This is why I don't support ID, even when there is the most remote possibility of it being true, as asserted by BloodSacrafice (not BruceBanner).

#302 | POSTED BY REXZEITGEIST

Thank you , Joni Mitchell!

We are stardust
We are golden
We are caught in the Devil's bargain.
And we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.

(Gold having matriculated across the universe after originating in certain
types of supernovae.}

BTW, I am not drunk. It's the middle of the week.

#305 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can science PROVE to us that crustybitch isn't drunker than lindsay lohan right now? We have to trust God that he's not.

#307 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2012-01-04 11:16 PM

Exactly what I was trying to get at, but spoken so much more articulately. I wish I could present arguments with such emphasis.

#302 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2012-01-04 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

i didn't know you were hindu.

311 | Posted by Corky

LOl, for some reason you keep intentionally shoving your face in those moving helicopter blades.

Hahaha, you have no idea what I am even talking about.

-You are, however, addicted to argument from authority.

An opinion only. And originating from someone who apparently places all authority in one aspect of man's creation, science, in disregard of all his others.

I like this quote:

"Myth is defined as a lie that hides a greater truth." - Joseph Campbell

Can science PROVE to us that crustybitch isn't drunker than lindsay lohan right now? We have to trust God that he's not.
#312 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Makes your argument sooooo much more credible.

"What crustybitch, are you drunk or something? LoL" You sound like a fucking child. I don't understand why the fuck people like you waste your time here. You don't add anything, only detract. You're twisted getting your kicks in such a manner.

Go pray to your god for a more interesting life. Maybe he can design you a formidable existence.

- That consciousness exists to ask about what it sees around it is an inevitable occurrence of probability.

I'd like to see the lab results from that scientific experiment, lmao.

Wow Rex, that was a huge load of crap, even for you.

#302 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2012-01-04 11:09 PM

Very Eastern, Rex. Is the universe becoming conscious? That's a lot cooler than that monotheistic crap.

Go pray to your god for a more interesting life. Maybe he can design you a formidable existence.

#317 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-04 11:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing like missing the point over and over and over crusty.

Nothing like missing the point over and over and over crusty.
#321 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Are you ready to explain yourself now? You're like talking to a wall with a sign that reads "You're missing the point." What the fuck good are you?

If I had to place a name my 'religious beliefs', it would a form quantum phenomenology which holds only the Laws of Thermodynamics to be immutable.

The Universe is consious Bruce, it always has been.

The Universe is consious Bruce, it always has been.
#324 | POSTED BY REXZEITGEIST

Than why can't it fucking talk?

The original post which got your panties in a bunch was an old joke we learned in a science (or was it a philosophy or stats?) class:

basically, it is a thought experiment: Should you believe in God? Option 1. There is heaven and hell so you should believe in God and he will save your ass when you hit the pearly gates. Option 2. There is nothing beyond this life and you don't lose anything anyways.

It's meant to be a joke. The rational mind deciding to accept heaven/hell etc.. or not. Now here you are upset, drunk, and with a new name? Has nobody else called you crustybitch11? I can't be the first.

The Universe is consious Bruce, it always has been.

#324 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2012-01-04 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've heard this line of logic from Hindu thinkers. I think I'm with you on this one. Physics seems to support it.

Cheers.

Now here you are upset, drunk, and with a new name? Has nobody else called you crustybitch11? I can't be the first.
POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Sorry Bruce, can't give you credit for that one. Although, it's usually "rustybitch," which doesn't make any sense compared to crusty.

On topic - No...it was this that I was questioning: Science tells us that it's statistically more favorable to believe in God.
#258 | Posted by BruceBanner

#326 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

And if you really believe that I am drunk, you have to admit I am one articulate slush.

And if you really believe that I am drunk, you have to admit I am one articulate slush.
#329 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Shit. I meant lush. Maybe I should start drinking.

don't worry about it. i'm ordering hela cells and it's taking half of my brain to figure out this stupid website.

i'm going to have to drink some scotch before the end of this night.

There is nothing new, we may be part of a much larger cycle and this universe is simply a evolutionary cycle in a much larger process.

We may not be able to currently understand the consiousness of god, but we do have the ability within us, because we are part of the same enitity.

The mechanics of of the larger reality are observable, the purpose of this reality is only understandable through a level of quantum phenomena beyond our present abilities.

#333 - did you learn this from Hindu philosophy? Were you saying in another thread that you were searching for enlightenment and found it?

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Roger Penrose: "This number tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been."

Or consider: 13 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that.

In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

I started studying this when I was 7, our teacher introduced us ot the concept of the mobius strip and I didn't sleep for a week...

I was blown away by the concept of infinity and it's relationship to the universe.

quantum phenomena .. that often appear to only exist if observed, and can communicate with each other over distance thru no observable means.

In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

#335 | Posted by Corky at 2012-01-04 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you ever bought a lottery ticket dude? We do shit all the time that has no statistical merit.

We're here. We must be the 1 in 10 x 10^123.

- We must be the 1 in 10 x 10^123.

Unless in one of a currently scientifically popular infinite number of universes there is a creative force that can go 1 for 1.

Of course, we can't have that, now can we?

"Roger Penrose: "This number tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been.""

No it doesn't. It tells you no matter how many giga-zillion numbers you put in the infinite bag, you're still going to pull out a number which beat unbeatable, impossible odds.

#339 - why "corky"? Are you a fan of the show "life goes on"?

First I read the bible and comparitive religions, then I read science and physics, I was traviling on the beam of light with Eintstein when I was 9 trying to understand light speed and gravity...

Next I studied psychology....and ultimately taoism, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics.

It always comes back to mans connection with god, i.e. the Universe.

Evolution is the random aspect of quantum mehcanics, in an infinite closed sytems with a unimaginably large time scale, all things are not only possible, but inevitable.

Lessee, Penrose or Dan on astrophysical probabilities?

I'll listen to you on accounting...

But like i said, some knowledgeable experts disagree.

I only disagree with those who think their opinions are facts.

Nite, ch'all.

? Are you a fan of the show "life goes on"?

#341 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2012-01-05 12:03 AM | REPLY | FLAG: author of "How to Lose an Argument in One Easy Lesson"

What all of you skeptics conveniently dodge is the corroborating evidence found in genetic science.

You suck

= all things are not only possible, but inevitable.

Except for a creative force. That's a no-no.

It is extremely difficult to look beyond the observable reality.

This is why you have to think of thee matters on the quanta level, the micro and the macros in a synchronistic process of flux on all level.

(Universe, God, Coniousness)

Within the status, is the quantum aspect (the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) changing and reforming energy into all convieble permutations, (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) it will continue to do this in any system until the energy is completely exhausted. (the Third Law of Thermodynamics)

I wish religious wackos would quit trying to make our public schools like the ones in Saudi Arabia where they teach religion in class.

If you want to learn religion, there's places for that. It's not the government's job to explain it to you, or the taxpayer's duty to pay for religious education. Religion already get tax exempt status anyway. Keep it separate.

An opinion only. And originating from someone who apparently places all authority in one aspect of man's creation, science, in disregard of all his others.

It's not an opinion. You constantly tie your arguments to names of famous people who agree with you.

Do you see me doing the same even though they're sure to exist?

Also keep assuming. I've posted at least once on this very thread that religion and belief in God has its uses and its place.

Saying that that place is not in science does not make your statement true.

status = Closed system*

"on astrophysical probabilities?"

Astrophysical, Schmastrophysical. I'm talking numbers, and the silly belief this particular roll, of all these dice, exactly this way, is beyond the possibility of odds.

So is pulling that one number out of the infinite bag...yet somehow, that one number beats those unbeatable odds.

The original post which got your panties in a bunch was an old joke we learned in a science (or was it a philosophy or stats?) class:

basically, it is a thought experiment: Should you believe in God? Option 1. There is heaven and hell so you should believe in God and he will save your ass when you hit the pearly gates. Option 2. There is nothing beyond this life and you don't lose anything anyways.

That's Pascal's Wager, no?

I've always heard it presented in philosophy.

Some theorists agree, some don't. But those who think they know all the answers, either way, are only fooling themselves.

And the rest just name drop.

"When you are art gone forth wholly from the creature [human], and have become nothing to all that is nature and creature, then you are in that eternal one, which is God himself, and then you will perceive and feel the highest virtue of love. Also, that I said whoever findes it finds nothing and all things; that is also true, for he finds a supernatural, supersensual Abyss, having no ground, where there is no place to live in; and he finds also nothing that is like it, and therefore it may be compared to nothing, for it is deeper than anything, and is as nothing to all things, for it is not comprehensible; and because it is nothing, it is free from all things, and it is that only Good, which a man cannot express or utter what it is. But that I lastly said, he that finds it, finds all things, is also true; it has been the beginning of all things, and it rules all things. If you find it, you come into that ground from whence all things proceed, and wherein they subsist, and you are in it a king over all the works of God."

- Jakob Bohme - The Way to Christ, 1623 -

Unless in one of a currently scientifically popular infinite number of universes there is a creative force that can go 1 for 1.

Of course, we can't have that, now can we?

But we also can't test it so leave it where it belongs-in philosophy.

We're here. We must be the 1 in 10 x 10^123.

I've seen this argument before and the rebuttal to the Penrose calculation.

I can't remember all of it or even the name of the logical fallacy that's being used but the jist that I remember is that the glaring flaw lies in the fact that there is no accounting for past events in molding the future.

The interesting exercise described was to take a deck of cards and shuffle them. Now lay them out in order, one at a time.

The resulting sequence will have a probability of 1/52!, or 1:8.066E67.

Do it with two decks and you're at 1/104! or 1:1.03E166. A result even less likely than that described by Penrose yet there it sits in front of you, staring you in the face. Does that mean God or some "creative force" caused that to happen? No. Unguided randomness produces extremely statistically unlikely results.

I've always heard it presented in philosophy.

#352 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2012-01-05 12:26 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Ah. Thanks!

#343 | POSTED BY CORKY

You'd be mistaken to include me in that group. I don't support absolutism in any sense.

Oh, and I forgot to add it's only if you have a particular end result in mind that the number becomes important whereas if your end result is to simply have 52 or 104 cards in front of you in sequence probabilities mean dick.

Which is precisely why attaching probabilities to an unguided process such as evolution is a foolish endeavor.

Then again if you're of the persuasion that an all-powerful, supernatural, unexplainable, unfathomable, all-powerful-at-times-but mysterious-at-others being created this playground just for us in this form, well...

I don't support absolutism in any sense.

#358 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2012-01-05 12:46 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

absolutely against absolutism.

sorry. i had to.

Evolution is a bullshit theory. No evolutionary scientist can or ever will be able to explain how life began or could begin without a creator. But hey please do try. You can talk about amino acids, nucleotide, minerals, proteins, etc. till you are blue in the face but that doesn't even begin to explain how they could perfectly form into a organism that could as soon as it begin to live reproduce itself, consume or convert energy, expel waste, use oxygen or carbon dioxide.

Without answers to these question or proof of all the in between fossils from one life form to a completely different one evolutionists are just slinging shit on a wall hoping something sticks.

Penrose has some better ideas about consciousness stemming from non-deterministic quantum processes. I wouldn't take his odds-of-this-happening calculations seriously.

Without answers to these question or proof of all the in between fossils from one life form to a completely different one evolutionists are just slinging shit on a wall hoping something sticks.
#361 | POSTED BY DNMXT

And simply saying "God did it" isn't slinging shit against the wall hoping something sticks also?

Bias much, no?

I just explained the process of evolution to you.

Evolution is a bullshit theory. No evolutionary scientist can or ever will be able to explain how life began or could begin without a creator

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began.

Whoever told you that was feeding you a bullshit theory.

You can talk about amino acids, nucleotide, minerals, proteins, etc. till you are blue in the face but that doesn't even begin to explain how they could perfectly form into a organism that could as soon as it begin to live reproduce itself, consume or convert energy, expel waste, use oxygen or carbon dioxide.

They didn't have to at first.

Self-replicating RNA molecules evolve just fine when in competition with each other.

You're flaw is assuming all those had to occur at once.

Without answers to these question or proof of all the in between fossils from one life form to a completely different one evolutionists are just slinging shit on a wall hoping something sticks.

Since when does a picture have to be complete before one can tell what it is?

It doesn't. But thanks for your *ahem* input.

Whoever told you that was feeding you a bullshit theory.

Since it was likely a church group of some sort, that makes absolute sense.

Also DNMXT, you make a HHUUUUGGGGGEEEEEE leap when you start throwing around the word perfectly.

That you think biology is perfect leads me to believe you don't actually know or understand biology.

=and the silly belief this particular roll, of all these dice

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7.

Einstein himself used variants of this quote at other times. For example, in a 1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." (p. 58)

Quantum mechanics are the variant within the system, the fuel for evolution.

God is the dice.

Here are Hawkings thoughts on the subject....

Ive spent the evening googling sluts I had sex with in past years the ones I remember their names anyways. It seems most have families now. I'll bet they wish I was still in their lives. Even though their men can provide things I cant like a stable income and a decent place to live I gave them what they really wanted. A stiff cock up their ass.

Wigner, Bohem, Einstein, Hegel, Carnot.....They are the most influential in helping me form my beliefs.

I know Einstein. He has some good bagels. Never tried the others on your list though.

Give Wigner and Hegel a look.

this is what i imagine reitze would be like if he wasn't on crack. informative, interesting, free of the term "reading quest".